chroniciguana

Courtesy of the Daily Dose: If timing matters, and with the playoffs a week away, it appears Mr. Baldwin could be in consideration for the title of Random WW Pickup of the Year. Unless I just jinxed the guy. But, at least for the moment, happiness is having Mr. Wilson and Mr. Baldwin catch fire (and having the dumb luck of inserting them into the lineup) at precisely the right time. Thank you note is in the mail.

Unless it doesn't. C gets tossed. But what if my W-L, H2H record includes a win over C that initially put me a game up? And your W-L, H2H record includes a loss to C that otherwise put you a game down? By tossing our history against C, even though we've tossed C, we've rewritten our H2H history to create a numerical tie that previously didn't exist. Do C's H2H wins and losses disappear along with C? Or do we recognize that they happened, that they factored into the creation of the tie, and include them in the next run-through? If C's games are gone, I could theoretically go from 2-1 in H2H against your 1-2, we'd wind up tied and you'd possibly make it in on points - despite having an inferior H2H record if we had kept C's games in the equation. An argument could be made both ways. And either way, somebody is going to be convinced they were screwed. Now imagine five 7-7 teams in a H2H tiebreaker for two spots. Which is why we ditched H2H if a tie for a playoff spot or position involved more than two teams.

In online-style leagues where you have random and anonymous owners, agreed. In a league among friends who see each other almost every day, creating divisional rivalries that put the emphasis on H2H play sorta adds to the whole trash talk, competitive thing and gives these games a little more importance and a lot more interest. Particularly when you play your division rivals twice, at the beginning of the season and at its conclusion. But there is a mathematical minefield hidden in H2H as a multi-team, multi-slot tiebreaker. It's too migraine inducing to attempt to explain in a forum post, however. But, as we learned, it's there.

Chandler is likely worth a roll of the dice this week. Am thinking he's either going to flat line or has the potential to blow up. Faced with a situation where somebody needs to blow up or it's all over, Chandler is probably the best bet among the limited WW options at this point in the season. Hey, if you reckon you're gonna lose with what you currently have at TE, Chandler likely can't make things much worse. And there's always that chance ...

Yeah. Sorta my point.

Am waiting for the professional Internet "experts" who predicted a limited role for Shady to come clean and admit their advice is worthless and that they're as clueless as my elderly Aunt Edna when it comes to forecasting this stuff. And waiting, and waiting, and waiting ...

Found it. Thanks.

Long story, but am still adapting to a more conventional and rational waiver wire system. Have the No. 3 priority, and am targeting Player A who I might or might not get. I am also contemplating submitting a backup grab for Player B in the event Player A goes elsewhere. Presuming both are still standing when my priority rolls around, how does the system know to give me my first choice (Player A) over Player B, my second choice? There's no apparent way to indicate a preference. Does the first selection take precedence? Or the most recent selection? If it matters, this is a work league hosted by NFL.com.

I've got a gaping IR hole on the roster, and the gut is telling me to ignore the brain and toss the Welker dart. Another part of the anatomy notwithstanding, have found the gut often tends to think better than the brain.

Not entirely new, and the format was ripped a few years back on this forum as being "ghey." And it's most commonly a player from the opposing bench. One variant of this is to have each owner select a player from the opposing roster prior to Sunday's kickoff (Thursday players get a pass). If that player is parked on the opposing owner's bench, you get his points added to your score. If he starts, no points added. Ownership doesn't change, however. Just the player's points for that week. It's cutthroat and not for crybabies. We did the point sniping variant for one season and bagged it. Not because it wasn't fun. It was. We just grew tired of all the whining. Would love to try the "pirate" idea, however.

Bingo. And in this case, they won't.

These misery threads tend to fetch a crop of "I got that beat" posts. Well, here's one that likely tops them all. I can certainly understand it happening once or maybe even twice over the course of a season. But four out of four? As they say on TV, c'mon man! In Week 4, a middle of the pack team has once again put in a career points performance against my now 0-4 crew, posting yet another weekly league-high score. Ditto for weeks one through three. Yes, every single blessed week of what's fast becoming the Season From Hell, I've managed to find myself on the receiving end of a freak blow-up from an opponent who erupted out of nowhere to post the league's top score. Figure the Vegas odds on this one. C'mon man! Four out of four? After four weeks there have been a combined 602.55 points scored against my boys by teams that have otherwise struggled to top the century mark on any given Sunday, Thursday or Monday. By comparison, the 4-0 division leader has seen just 333.6 points posted against him, and he remains just 20-some points ahead of me in total points for. C'mon man! To add insult to agony, every week the "expert consensus" has made me the favorite to win. Comfortably. Until some practice squad WR3 decides to go off and my opponent once again gets to cash the high points check. I've become a sure thing. I'm money in the bank, a freaking fantasy football ATM machine. I've reached the point where I ought to be demanding a cut of this action. It's fair to say my faith in the notion that knowledge and skill outweigh luck when it comes to this fake football thing is crumbling. So really ... C'mon man! And yeah, "I got that beat."

Thanks for clearing things up for the 12 of us who have unknowingly spent the past decade engaged in a colossal waste of time. I hate to think how many more years we would have frittered away in a league that, by your definition, isn't a league. Thanks for opening our eyes and showing us the error of our ways.

A bust? As a first round pick, yes. Stuff happens. A drop? For what? Some waiver wire wonder? Right now, he needs to be seen as a stash, not a drop. He's dropping out of the starting lineup, but he's taking a wait-and-see seat on the bench rather than the wire. For now. But if you want to freak out and drop the guy, go ahead. Just don't expect him to be around if he changes your mind.

Okay. Ob La Di, Ob La Da ... that's what I wanted to say. Thanks.

The difference between the No. 1 kicker (Gostkowski) and the No. 12 kicker (Gould) - and your scoring system mileage might vary - was only 29 points on the season, or just over 1.8 points per game. Tucker's "fluke" 22 point outing in Week 15 likely won a few semi-final games, but his 1 point performance in Week 16 didn't do much for your title hopes. Way too "focking random." Kill the kicker. But TEs are different, of course. No flukes here. If you had Graham rostered, you averaged 7.4 points more per game than the poor slob who was stuck with the No. 12 TE (Fleener). Graham likely got you to the playoffs. Then came that Week 15 semi-final game where Tucker blew up, and Graham crapped the bed with just 2.5 "fluke" points. Meanwhile, the guy who started 18th-ranked Tim Wright was ringing up more than 14 points. And your season was over. On a "focking random" fluke. How is that fair? Get rid of TEs, too. Now, about RBs ...

Going to steal Murf's idea for weeks 15 and 16. Will take full credit for it, of course. Could also work by combining the scores for those two weeks. Either way, thanks. Will ask Mike to send you a t-shirt. The OP makes a number of good points. With this season still fresh, we're considering some sort of overhaul for next year that addresses many of the same concerns. For instance, the guy who topped the league in points scored also had the most points scored against him. And while it made great message board material, we all sort of agreed it wasn't fair that this fluke caused him to finish out of the hunt. Although there's no interest in doing away with H2H, we're going to look at awarding the 5th and 6th seeds to the highest point teams that wouldn't otherwise qualify based on our current "best record" criteria. Murf's suggestion might be an effective sweetener to help sell this one.

Mathews was on my blacklist after what he did to me last year. He was also apparently on everyone else's list. So I drafted the guy. And benched him. Just to make him cry. Then a funny thing happened near the end of the season. The guy on my Do Not Draft list won it for me. Gotta rethink this next year.

I tried hanging it up last year for similar reasons, but also because the league-among-friends I'd helped put together more than a decade earlier had descended into total douchebaggery. I was the first to walk. Three others would soon follow. Like you, I figured I would now be able to sit back and enjoy the games the way nature and Pete Rozelle originally intended. Problem is, FF is like heroin. When the NFL pre-season games started this year, I found myself subsconsciously scouting sleepers and mentally debating whether Cam Newton would still be on the board in the fifth round of a draft that wasn't going to happen. So when the guy who talked me into writing about my FF withdrawal called to say I'd been "volunteered" to fill a last minute hole in his own league-among-friends, I just pretended to protest. I folded faster than a cheap cabana chair. I interviewed about a half dozen folks for that story, the one that's still somewhere on my hard drive. All of them said they'd had it, that they were through, finished and done with this stupid fake football nonsense. When I sent out a follow-up email explaining why there wasn't going to be a story, all but one replied that it didn't matter. Like me, they'd tried. And like me, they'd failed. Might find and finish that piece if I need some ashtray change or beer money between now and August. Gonna need some new interviews, I reckon. So if you're seriously thinking about kicking the habit (so why are you still here?), want to share your story and are willing to be quoted, shoot me a PM.

After 16 weeks, it comes down to a 10.58 point standard scoring lead that needs to hold up against the foot of Mr. Dawson. I fully expect to receive an offer to split the pot prior to gametime. Dawson has failed to score 11 points or more 10 times this season, but has gone over 10 points in each of his last three games. And Atlanta gives up the second most points to kickers.

Titans give up points to kickers. Winds are forecast to be steady at 15 mph out of the SSW at game time, and EverBank Field is oriented north-south. So there should be no crosswinds to deal with. Bright sun, temps and humidity in the low 80s. Scobee it is. Only in Week 16 would you have three kickers rostered, and bother checking the wind direction, wind speed, humidity and stadium orientation - and read this.

Guess we also need to do something about those 12 teams that sit all their key players during weeks 8 and 9.

Maybe I grew up sheltered or whatever, but there's something here I'm not getting. In the OP's situation, he can claim a player from the WW, drop that player a day or so later, and then nobody else can grab the guy? He's locked? Even if the WW is still open? What's the reasoning?

I don't own him, but my vote goes to Foles.

When you travel out to the fringes where the trains don't run, you find that liberals are just as narrow minded as conservatives. If you're a moderate liberal, a truly radical liberal would likely share many of your beliefs and, as a result, would naturally seem to be more open minded. From your perspective. A radical conservative, on the other hand, would likely share none of your beliefs and would naturally seem to be more closed minded. Again, from your perspective. Flip it around, and you'd probably get the same result. I've written extensively on the Ku Klux Klan. I've attended countless rallies, had my phones tapped by the FBI and a cross burned on my lawn. These folks pretty much define narrow minded. But that doesn't mean you don't try to understand what makes them tick or why they believe what they sincerely do believe. These earthlings share this planet with us, and they think you're pretty narrow minded because you refuse to see eye-to-eye with them on the whole lynching thing. So it really does kind of depend on where you're standing.