Jump to content



Photo

i am eliminating the kicker and TE position for next year


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 track 1

track 1

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 597 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 12:22 AM

kicker is a waste for fantasy. and in place of the TE i will just have a flex. TE are a crapshoot every year except for maybe 3

#2 uwmalcolm

uwmalcolm

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 569 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 12:34 AM

We got rid of kickers in my main league and it's great. Don't miss it at all. I like having TEs though, and i'd say they're no more of a crapshoot to draft than RBs.

#3 Giants Fan

Giants Fan

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 45,155 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 12:59 AM

The league I play in scores all FGs at 3 points, and we don't have defenses. Love it.
http://www.RotoTeams.com

The only website in the universe dedicated to one thing, helping you find and fill spots in fantasy sports leagues.

#4 diomed1

diomed1

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 192 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 06:17 AM

The league I play in scores all FGs at 3 points, and we don't have defenses. Love it.

In my league we don't have a mandatory TE either. It's a flex position(WR/TE). No team D either. Just IDPs(which rocks!!!).
I am thinking about making the RB slots to a mandatory 1 RB position with another flex added for the RB2 option. With the RBBC going on in the league, it makes sense to me.

#5 Phurfur

Phurfur

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 17,842 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 06:30 AM

kicker is a waste for fantasy. and in place of the TE i will just have a flex. TE are a crapshoot every year except for maybe 3


TE are not a crap shoot and are very important to fantaxy football. We've played without kickers for years.

#6 Phurfur

Phurfur

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 17,842 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 06:31 AM

In my league we don't have a mandatory TE either. It's a flex position(WR/TE). No team D either. Just IDPs(which rocks!!!).
I am thinking about making the RB slots to a mandatory 1 RB position with another flex added for the RB2 option. With the RBBC going on in the league, it makes sense to me.


What ever makes it easier for you to play..........

The number 4 and 6 receivers in my league are TEs. :dunno:

#7 diomed1

diomed1

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 192 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 06:46 AM

What ever makes it easier for you to play..........

The number 4 and 6 receivers in my league are TEs. :dunno:

Hey, it wasn't MY decision. It was voted on by all in the league. I actually use a TE every weekend but then again, he is as good if not better than most receivers. I voted for it when it was proposed. I like competitive leagues and there are only a handful of consistent TEs in the league. Not enough to go around. Flexing the position makes sense. The league is really tight in competition which is ideal IMO.

#8 RoadLizard

RoadLizard

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 3,643 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 07:28 AM

In my league we don't have a mandatory TE either. It's a flex position(WR/TE). No team D either. Just IDPs(which rocks!!!).
I am thinking about making the RB slots to a mandatory 1 RB position with another flex added for the RB2 option. With the RBBC going on in the league, it makes sense to me.


Weve been without mandatory TEs for like 10 years. Where you guys been? They are treated like WRs. As for flex positions? Yep, been doing that for like 10 years too. We have various formations we alow including a Run and Shot(1 RB, 4 WR), Jumbo(2 RB, 1 WR, 2 TE), Slot(2 RB, 3 WR) and lots of others.

Kickers and defenses are kind of a joke but IDPs dont interest us. Too many Tds and points end up not counting because not ever player is rostered or started. Oh well.

#9 The Next Generation

The Next Generation

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 6,026 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 07:44 AM

I love having kickers and team defenses. This way, every year at the draft some idiot(s) draft them in the mid-rounds leaving better position players for the rest of us! Works out perfectly, IMO! :doublethumbsup:
Resistance is Futile!

#10 Mike Nice

Mike Nice

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 448 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 08:02 AM

kicker is a waste for fantasy. and in place of the TE i will just have a flex. TE are a crapshoot every year except for maybe 3


Why because you can't manage to get a good kicker or TE any year? Study harder

#11 Jarvis Basnight

Jarvis Basnight

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 8,220 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 08:20 AM

Why because you can't manage to get a good kicker or TE any year? Study harder

Who studies kickers?
Charles Woodson - Heisman Trophy+National Championship+DPOY+Super Bowl+Philanthropist=Winning at Life!

#12 GridIronAssassin#1

GridIronAssassin#1

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 4,460 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 08:34 AM

I think it would take the fun out of it if you eliminated tight ends, kickers, and defenses. That's part of the skill in managing a fantasy football team in trying to make all the parts work each week.

I mean, if it's all about dumbing it down, why not just pick 2 running backs each week?

#13 jgcrawfish

jgcrawfish

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 12,331 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 08:57 AM

i'm all for eliminating kickers, but TE, really? There isn't a position in FF that isn't a crapshoot. What part of Gronkowski, Witten, Gonzalez and Finley IS a crapshoot? All those guys were expected to be top TE at draft time, and all are in the top 7 right now. Hell, the only highly ranked TE that's truly a bust (not because of injury) is Vernon Davis. Gates has been banged up all year.

I mean jeebus, Graham is ranked 10th overall (in PPR) for ALL RB-YR-TE and ranked 4th for just WR-TE. Gronkowski isn't far behind. Just because you aren't capable of successfully picking a TE doesn't mean you should undervalue them. At that rate, why not just have a roster that features 1 QB/5 Flex and nothing else? Yeah, that sounds like fun...

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

#14 RoadLizard

RoadLizard

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 3,643 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 12:19 PM

I think it would take the fun out of it if you eliminated tight ends, kickers, and defenses. That's part of the skill in managing a fantasy football team in trying to make all the parts work each week.

I mean, if it's all about dumbing it down, why not just pick 2 running backs each week?


But, thats just the problem - there is hardly any skill involved in defenses or kickers for that matter. Defenses are totally random and everyone knows this. Look at the Broncos D last night.... how many of you "geniuses" had them started last night? Noone did - they arent even rostered and rightfully so. Total fluke. The Steelers vaunted D hasnt done shiat all year. I can go on and on. Its random. I suppose with kickers you could "strategize" and make sure you get an indoor kicker or a kicker on a top offense but that doesnt always work either since PATs take a while to add up and FGs are random occurences.

Not saying that getting rid of them altogether is right or wrong - just stating the FACT that kickers and D's are as random as a dice roll.

#15 Matt Mueller

Matt Mueller

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 6,898 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 12:20 PM

The Mullmaniacs owning Graham and Kasay disrespect this.

#16 diomed1

diomed1

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 192 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 01:05 PM

But, thats just the problem - there is hardly any skill involved in defenses or kickers for that matter. Defenses are totally random and everyone knows this. Look at the Broncos D last night.... how many of you "geniuses" had them started last night? Noone did - they arent even rostered and rightfully so. Total fluke. The Steelers vaunted D hasnt done shiat all year. I can go on and on. Its random. I suppose with kickers you could "strategize" and make sure you get an indoor kicker or a kicker on a top offense but that doesnt always work either since PATs take a while to add up and FGs are random occurences.

Not saying that getting rid of them altogether is right or wrong - just stating the FACT that kickers and D's are as random as a dice roll.

Totally co-sign with this. Team D is for lazy people. IDPs are much more challenging and fun IMO. That is why we don't use team Ds. Boring and random. IDPs take much more study and thought. In my league it can win a game for you, as it should be IMO.

#17 tenaciousb

tenaciousb

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 395 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 01:27 PM

I always refer to the TE, K, D/ST positions as the 'bottom of the lineup' spots. But a team normally needs at least 25 points in my league from those spots to win. It's part of FF and should be in every league IMO.

#18 Cruzer

Cruzer

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 26,948 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 01:41 PM

I always refer to the TE, K, D/ST positions as the 'bottom of the lineup' spots. But a team normally needs at least 25 points in my league from those spots to win. It's part of FF and should be in every league IMO.

Me too. :thumbsup:

#19 Young_Grasshopper

Young_Grasshopper

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 496 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 02:10 PM

I've played both WR/TE flex and TE - I definitely prefer the flex. The TE position drive me nuts... for years I didn't draft them high but then you get stuck with a Scott Chandler type who looks good on paper but gets you 10 points one week and 0.9 points the next week. Then my solution was to go for a stud TE: Gates in 2009, JerMichael Finley in 2010, and Dallas Clark in 2011. Gates was injured for part of 09, Finley lost for the year in 10, Clark a total waste of oxygen in 11. So now I don't know what the to do about TEs. Their value fluxuates a lot more than WR due to being held back for blocking schemes, and there are never enough good ones to go around.

#20 crackills

crackills

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,148 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 03:17 PM

This is where you guys are missing the point. Kickers, TEs and Ds are important during the draft!
Someone might choose to reach for balt or Pitt D in the mid rounds at the expense of drafting a 2sn/3rd tier WR/ RB with potential. But you, being a learned ff owner, do not because YOU know that Ds, Kickers are in fact crapshoots every year.
This is an advantage to a knowledgeable owner and makes the draft much more interesting and rewards people who a prepared for the draft.

#21 tbone138

tbone138

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 954 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 03:21 PM

Hey, it wasn't MY decision. It was voted on by all in the league. I actually use a TE every weekend but then again, he is as good if not better than most receivers. I voted for it when it was proposed. I like competitive leagues and there are only a handful of consistent TEs in the league. Not enough to go around. Flexing the position makes sense. The league is really tight in competition which is ideal IMO.

I would argue that the people who draft the "good" tight ends used a high draft pick on them leaving valuable receivers/Rb's that they would have otherwise taken. So if you want one of the good ones, you have to pay a high price for them in the draft and it will or should result in weaknesses at other positions.

#22 chroniciguana

chroniciguana

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 982 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 04:19 PM

We'll get rid of kickers when the NFL gets rid of kickers. And removes the "F" from NFL.

#23 plasma george

plasma george

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 2,046 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 04:51 PM

This is where you guys are missing the point. Kickers, TEs and Ds are important during the draft!
Someone might choose to reach for balt or Pitt D in the mid rounds at the expense of drafting a 2sn/3rd tier WR/ RB with potential. But you, being a learned ff owner, do not because YOU know that Ds, Kickers are in fact crapshoots every year.
This is an advantage to a knowledgeable owner and makes the draft much more interesting and rewards people who a prepared for the draft.

By learned do you mean after you've played 1 or 2 seasons and figure that out, and do it like all the other owners ?
$200 10team Redraft
1/2 the pot goes to Superbowl, 1/2 the pot goes to Total Points, the way FF should be.

#24 swirvenirvin

swirvenirvin

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 26,967 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 06:26 PM

The Mullmaniacs owning Graham and Kasay disrespect this.

Yep that's me too. I couldnt cut Kasay this week on his bye cause he is 30 points ahead of the bext FA kicker so I cut Garcon instead to pick up a backup kicker for the week

- Go Spartans EAST COAST!!!!!!
- http://ffslickpicks.com

-@ffslickpicks

Mike FF Today, on 14 March 2011 - 11:35 AM, said:
When I get new shirts made, I will send you one swirvenirvin.

#25 msudavedawg

msudavedawg

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 2,490 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 06:36 PM

I would argue that the people who draft the "good" tight ends used a high draft pick on them leaving valuable receivers/Rb's that they would have otherwise taken. So if you want one of the good ones, you have to pay a high price for them in the draft and it will or should result in weaknesses at other positions.


Those of us starting Jimmy Graham and Rob Gronkowski each week would beg to differ. In one league I start them BOTH. Took Graham in the 8th round in a 12 team league and got Gronkowski in rounds 11 or later in others (in one I got him off the FA wire).

Just need to do your homework. When people are drafting WR3s and WR4s I am looking at the TEs not named Gates and Witten. Not hard to pick one or 2 that are going to outperform all the scrub WRs out there.
FF teams to me are kind of like pets. I love mine. I couldn't really care less about yours.

#26 Pecos Rattlers

Pecos Rattlers

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 276 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 11:12 PM

I don't agree that "best kicker" is completely random. It is a combination of predicting the top offenses (somewhat doable) & the teams who will have decent/good offenses but bad red zone success (harder to predict).

Here are the top ten kickers from one league I'm in. (PAT = 1 point, 0-39 FG = 3 points, 40+ = 4 points, 50+ = 5 points, small penalty for missed field goals)

106 John Kasay (NO - K)
101 David Akers (SF - K)
100 Dan Bailey (Dal - K)
95 Robbie Gould (Chi - K)
94 Jason Hanson (Det - K)
93 Billy Cundiff (Bal - K)
92 Mason Crosby (GB - K)
91 Neil Rackers (Hou - K)
83 Stephen Gostkowski (NE - K)
79 Nick Novak (SD - K)

Is it what I would have picked in pre-season? Probably not, but not many of those teams are huge surprises either ... NO, Dal, GB, Hou, NE, SD are perennial high scoring teams. Bal & Chi usually have red zone scoring issues and good D to get good field posn. That leaves SF & Det as surprises, though the latter might have been predicted by quite a few. Whoever picked the Indy kicker in your league was probably disappointed, but then the same can be said of Jamaal Charles ... and the Indy kicker can be replaced a lot easier. A busted K also was likely a really low draft pick, so there's far less remorse for having to replace him anyway.

If you don't like the randomness of FG vs PAT, then I'd suggest reducing the # of points a FG is awarded instead of completely eliminating the kicker position. This would reduce the importance of picking bad red zone offenses & increase the importance of predicting good offenses instead.

You could also use significant penalties for missed field goals (at least for shorter attempts). Kicker accuracy is something you can research & should be mostly independent of how well the rest of the team is doing.

Maybe something like ..
  • PAT = 1 point, missed = -1 point
  • 0-30 yd fg = 1.5 points, missed = -1.5 points
  • 30-40 yd fg = 2 points, missed = -1 points
  • 40-50 yd fg = 2.5 points, missed = -0.5 points
  • 50+ yd fg = 3 points, missed = 0

12 team 2 QB auction redraft full PPR
qb: BREES, ROMO, Flacco, 'Burger
rb: FORTE, GORE, Sproles, Forsett

wr: TY HILTON, COLSTON, K WRIGHT, T Williams,  J Matthews
te:  DONNELL cameron
k: PARKEY
def: VIKINGS


#27 Giants Fan

Giants Fan

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 45,155 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 11:36 PM

As a matter of preference, I would rather play in an IDP league, where you have like a DB, a DL and a LB, than just some impossible to manage, team DST.

Either no DST or a complete IDP .... is my preference.
http://www.RotoTeams.com

The only website in the universe dedicated to one thing, helping you find and fill spots in fantasy sports leagues.

#28 NE-TheGoodLife

NE-TheGoodLife

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 91 posts

Posted 19 November 2011 - 08:17 AM

Totally co-sign with this. Team D is for lazy people. IDPs are much more challenging and fun IMO. That is why we don't use team Ds. Boring and random. IDPs take much more study and thought. In my league it can win a game for you, as it should be IMO.


The whole argument that since the Denver D went off last night and otherwise is crap is exactly the point other people are making. Like any position for FF its not about tyring to guess which week a unit will go off for 15+ point (or whatever they did last night), but studying the unit (individual players as well as coaches, schedule, etc.) and determining how a unit will do over the long haul week after week. You know CONSISTENCY. We do the analysis to try and get the most points every week and hope for a couple of our weekly starters to blow up.

I personally have not played in an IDP League, but I can see the why people would rather play with that type of setup.

#29 beemo

beemo

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 266 posts

Posted 19 November 2011 - 08:58 AM

My problem with IDP leagues is that the points come from tackles, not actual defense. So Revis completely shut down his assigned WR, not allowing him to complete any pass? Well, no FF points for him, because the only way he's getting points is to allow the WR to complete the reception and then tackle the guy. That's completely counter intuitive to FF's general goal of reproducing the details of the sport in its scoring. I think team defenses do a better job of that via scoring bonuses and the like.

By that same token, abolishing kickers, defenses, and TEs would ruin the perception and fun of recreating a fantasy football team.

12 Team Yahoo League (8-6) W-3
QB: Tim Tebow
RB: Chris Johnson, Roy Helu, Darren Sproles, C.J. Spiller, DeAngelo Williams, Mark Ingram, Peyton Hillis
WR: Marques Colston, Victor Cruz, Julio Jones, Michael Crabtree
TE: Jason Witten K: Sebastian Janikowski DEF: NYJ Defense

#30 madd futher mucker

madd futher mucker

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 5,249 posts

Posted 19 November 2011 - 10:05 AM

If you want to simplify things, then eliminate tight ends, defenses and kickers.

If you want to increase the complexity, richness and strategy of the game, which I maintain makes it much more fun, then you are making a huge mistake IMO.

Here's an example of why you should consider keeping them from a trade I made this week :

I managed to pull off a huge trade on Tuesday in Team 1 - just days before the trading deadline for this league. It was lopsided enough in favor of my trading partner that I got a call from the commish just questioning my rationale. But he should know better than to doubt genius. It was one of those trades where you give up more than you get, but you still come out ahead. I had only a few roster moves and $2 waiver dollars left before the trade, so I had to plan well. I’m alone in 2nd place with this team and should get a play-off bye. This was a move with nothing less than the Championship in mind, and there was no way I wanted my trading partner to turn down my deal.

When I explained the trade to him, the commish was impressed (as he usually is with the depth of thinking with my trades). He is contending for a playoff spot but was not thinking that far ahead. He had no idea who HOU or TENN played in weeks 15 or 16. To him it was just two decent defenses that didn't add much extra value to the trade for me. But they were primary motivators for me to propose the deal.

Yes, there are times with any position that the game doesn't play out the way you thought it would. But most of the time analyzing the match-ups at any position - even Tight Ends and defenses gives you a distinct edge over your competition. This trade would not have been made if my trading partner did not have Daniels on a bye and Dallas Clark out. He needed a TE and i had two good ones. Even in a league that flexes a TE, I could afford to give Witten up (the #3 TE in PPR), because I also had Gronk who is #2, and depth at other positions to fill my flex.

ADP will have a tough time putting up fantssy points when Minn falls behind as witness the GB game. Ray Rice is a PPR Monster, the #2 RB, with a great schedule ahead. So Rice should project as a far superior performer to ADP the rest of the way.

And HOU and TENN are THE TOP defenses to own in weeks 15 and 16 and these two defenses (along with the difference Rice should make) will probably be the differences makers in the close contests I expect to face in weeks 15 and 16.

No offense, but you are thinking and playing fantasy football at a novice level right now. My advice is to maintain the richness and complexity of the game and then take your gamne to the next level. Keep the TEs and the Defenses and still enjoy the flexibility of a flex position by also allowing TEs to be a flex. NFL teams employ two TE sets (usually with one split out or in the slot), there is no reason your fantasy team can't do the same.

Elevate your game by maintaining or even increasing the complexity and you will have a distict advantage over the other owners in you league who just want a simple game.

I retired from a 25 year marriage and a very brief sideline job as a Fantasy Football Analyst.  So now i only have my day job and my dog to keep me occupied. 


#31 pimptastic69

pimptastic69

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 4,698 posts

Posted 19 November 2011 - 12:17 PM

But, thats just the problem - there is hardly any skill involved in defenses or kickers for that matter. Defenses are totally random and everyone knows this. Look at the Broncos D last night.... how many of you "geniuses" had them started last night? Noone did - they arent even rostered and rightfully so. Total fluke. The Steelers vaunted D hasnt done shiat all year. I can go on and on. Its random. I suppose with kickers you could "strategize" and make sure you get an indoor kicker or a kicker on a top offense but that doesnt always work either since PATs take a while to add up and FGs are random occurences.

Not saying that getting rid of them altogether is right or wrong - just stating the FACT that kickers and D's are as random as a dice roll.


I would argue that DSTs are not totally random now, they just require a little more skill in deciding which one to go with from week to week. Gone are the days when you can just draft the Ravens or Steelers and assume you'll get stellar points every week. It's now a legitamate position that you have to study each week.
...what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

#32 diomed1

diomed1

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 192 posts

Posted 19 November 2011 - 01:06 PM

My problem with IDP leagues is that the points come from tackles, not actual defense. So Revis completely shut down his assigned WR, not allowing him to complete any pass? Well, no FF points for him, because the only way he's getting points is to allow the WR to complete the reception and then tackle the guy. That's completely counter intuitive to FF's general goal of reproducing the details of the sport in its scoring. I think team defenses do a better job of that via scoring bonuses and the like.

By that same token, abolishing kickers, defenses, and TEs would ruin the perception and fun of recreating a fantasy football team.

Well a tackle only IDP league would suck. You know you can set up scoring for IDPs to reward good defensive play, right? In our league we get tackle points but HUGE payoffs for TFL(tackles for loss), Sacks, Ints, FF, FR. So you have to get play makers, not just tacklers.
Also we allow points for ST(kick return yards) and some defensive players are returners as well, so that's a double bonus.

#33 beemo

beemo

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 266 posts

Posted 19 November 2011 - 04:37 PM

Well a tackle only IDP league would suck. You know you can set up scoring for IDPs to reward good defensive play, right? In our league we get tackle points but HUGE payoffs for TFL(tackles for loss), Sacks, Ints, FF, FR. So you have to get play makers, not just tacklers.
Also we allow points for ST(kick return yards) and some defensive players are returners as well, so that's a double bonus.


I know there are points for turnovers and whatnot, but there needs to be points for passed defended, low opponent's yards per carry, low offense total yards, low opponent's completion percentage (yeah, Tebow would skew this :) ), 3-and-outs, and so forth to truly reward good defensive play, and that's not gonna happen when looking at individual defense players. The tackles for loss stat is a good one though and would help bridge the gap, but I don't think that's enough.

12 Team Yahoo League (8-6) W-3
QB: Tim Tebow
RB: Chris Johnson, Roy Helu, Darren Sproles, C.J. Spiller, DeAngelo Williams, Mark Ingram, Peyton Hillis
WR: Marques Colston, Victor Cruz, Julio Jones, Michael Crabtree
TE: Jason Witten K: Sebastian Janikowski DEF: NYJ Defense

#34 diomed1

diomed1

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 192 posts

Posted 20 November 2011 - 12:17 PM

I know there are points for turnovers and whatnot, but there needs to be points for passed defended, low opponent's yards per carry, low offense total yards, low opponent's completion percentage (yeah, Tebow would skew this :) ), 3-and-outs, and so forth to truly reward good defensive play, and that's not gonna happen when looking at individual defense players. The tackles for loss stat is a good one though and would help bridge the gap, but I don't think that's enough.

We do get points for PD,
We get .50 assist, 1 for a solo, 4 for TFL, 5 for sacks and ints, 2 for PD, 4 for a FF, 2 for a FR. They also get points for INT return yards including the 6 if they make it to the endzone. In fact any defensive player that gets a turnover gets return yardage and TD points as well.
IDP scoring rewards the defensive player for great play just like the offensive scoring does. IMO it requires much more study than just a team D. I have had defensive players outscore my QB before. lol.

#35 edytwinky

edytwinky

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 151 posts

Posted 25 April 2012 - 08:07 AM

Just came across this thread. Sounds like one of the craziest ideas to me. I would have never even thought about removing a kicker and tight end. Think that really just takes away from the intracacies and fun of the league.

#36 GreenTD

GreenTD

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 2,516 posts

Posted 25 April 2012 - 08:35 AM

Just came across this thread. Sounds like one of the craziest ideas to me. I would have never even thought about removing a kicker and tight end. Think that really just takes away from the intracacies and fun of the league.


Yeah, sounds almost as crazy as the NFL getting rid of kickoffs all together.... Oh wait, they are actually considering this!

#37 jaxjag

jaxjag

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,822 posts

Posted 25 April 2012 - 09:06 PM

Get rid of the kicker if you like... may the fantasy gods have mercy on your soul.

But get rid of the TE? Big mistake... there are a handful of elite TEs just as there are QBs, RBs and WRS. Eliminating the position and lumping them in with receivers is ignoring the benefit/value of having an elite TE (that is what VBD is all about!). This lowers the strategy and makes the game a little more dull. Let's just follow this to the ultimate conclusion and have a "QB Only" league!
I had $6 in my pocket and a ticket for a cross country bus from Washington State. So, I bought two 6-packs of Olympia Beer and got on the bus. If some guy hadn't given me a Snickers Bar in Chicago... I wouldn't have made it.

#38 DrG

DrG

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,272 posts

Posted 25 April 2012 - 09:27 PM

I like both slots. Hankies ju is a legit weapon, a 60 yd fg is 6 pts in my league. Te is also a challenge if u don't have 1 of the top 6

#39 DrG

DrG

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,272 posts

Posted 25 April 2012 - 09:28 PM

J a n I k o w s k i

#40 mobb_deep

mobb_deep

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 11,553 posts

Posted 25 April 2012 - 10:38 PM

We'll get rid of kickers when the NFL gets rid of kickers. And removes the "F" from NFL.


Exactly. It's the only position in the entire game where you use your feet, and you guys want to toss it out! Kickers were first round fantasy picks, before the forward pass came along. Show some respect for the game!

:nono:

Sangre Por Sangre