IDP suggestion

[Diesel07 0]

I was just looking over the rules and came up with a good suggestion. Why dont we reward points for return yards on interceptions and/or fumbles. This is one way to make corners more valuable. Red Eye Masters and Absolute Gridiron Association employ these scoring methods.

 

Also, increasing the # of IDPs used may make people think about the value of an IDP, plus balance is good! (I know some ppl agreed to keep IDPs at a set #, but this is just a suggestion)

[Zap 0]

We had the discussion about increasing IDPs to 7. I'm fine with it, but in the end it was voted down based on continuity of league stats, which is an excellent point.

 

Points for defensive return yards on turnovers? Eh. It doesn't excite me and will maybe add 10-15 points to an exceptional player's great year. I cannot see it adding to corners' value in any real sense, because who knows which corner is going to the house? It's kind of like using kickers, based on luck, and that just leaves me wondering why? The idea of this league is to reduce blind dumb luck as much as possible.

[Diesel07 0]

based on continuity of league stats

[Zap 0]

based on continuity of league stats

Ya know... In the history of GOIDPANKAL no team has scored more than 183 in a game. That's Prozac's record. Add two more IDPs and the records are subject to asterisking...

 

If you want to beat 183, do it with the same amount of players.

[Zap 0]

Also, increasing the # of IDPs used may make people think about the value of an IDP, plus balance is good! (I know some ppl agreed to keep IDPs at a set #, but this is just a suggestion)

I'd like to increase the IDP starters to 7 and the draft to 25 rounds. Last year's stats are less important to me than making IDP a bigger part of this system. We'd start:

 

Option 1

 

1 DT

1 DL

1 ILB

1 OLB

1 S

1 CB

1 Flex

 

A more user friendly option would be to start:

 

Option 2

 

2 DL

2 LB

2 DB

1 Flex

 

Option 1 will force us to field every defensive position, which is kind of cool and creates true value to certain corners and tackles who rightly deserve props despite their positions' lesser production.

 

Option 2 would further deplete DLs, safeties and LBs, making waivers what I think it should be, difficult. Also, I'd have much less police work to do by not having to make sure you were using a corner, inside and outside LBs and DTs.

 

I know PIK, TR, and Diesel all like the idea. TRs gone but he understands IDP as well as anybody.

 

Five IDP is a borderline low number for a serious IDP league, and we all noticed the plethora of valuable IDP on waivers in this league. Diesel smartly suggested, midseason, that he wasn't drafting IDP until very late this year. I once commented that I could build a solid defense just from what was available on waivers. We should, for the integrity of FFToday, the heart of IDP useage, and the true spirit of geekdom, increase IDP starters to 7.

[Zap 0]

Some good points made here.

 

The key quote:

 

Bold my emphasis.

Italics my thoughts.

 

Some leagues start as little as 3-4 defensive players each week per team. I believe this is the Yahoo format, or as I like to call it, “token” IDP league. In these leagues, IDPs have very little value. They tend to rank somewhere between TE and K in terms of importance.

 

At five IDP we border being a token IDP league.

 

If I want to be a little tongue in cheek about it, there is only one defensive stud in fantasy football, Ray Lewis (BAL). Writing this a year ago, Brian Urlacher (CHI) and Roy Williams (DAL) would have gotten the nod for stud consideration as well, but a quick look at the stats from 2003 and we know how that turned out.

 

After Lewis and a small handful of others at each position, a lot of these guys are very similar to one another in terms of point production. With such a small number of IDP starters per team, there are lots to choose from while remaining competitive. Therefore, why draft IDP early? Build up your offense and then fill your IDP draft slots later.

 

Exactly the conclusion some of us arrived at last season by realizing there was little offensive help in waivers, yet solid IDP lingered on the wire all season.

 

Moving beyond 3-4 starters, a lot of leagues use somewhere in the neighborhood of 6-8 IDP starters. Now we’re finding a greater difference between the top guys and the bottom guys. The top end players increase in value, and the middle ranked guys are looking more attractive to fill up those roster spots. Some pretty straight forward value-based drafting concepts here.

 

Bingo.  I'm a value based drafting, player projecting geek.  It's a bit of a letdown to see alot of players producing top flight IDP numbers while sitting on the waiver wire.  How fast did Dominick get nabbed last season?  Greg Wesley (90 solos, 6 picks) bounced off and on various rosters.  In season management becomes more proactive and competitive with more IDP.  More IDPs will encourage us to take our defense seriously, not be complacent with our draft and end waiver wire bye week flip flopping.  Sure the studs will get drafted early either way, but by adding two more starters the middle tiers, and sleepers will all become more valued in our draft.

 

Instead of kickers, a good comparison would be the WR position from about the 3rd or 4th tier down. Still lots to choose from, but definitely some preferences as different groups of guys start to shine through.

 

A final point MacGregor missed, and I harped on a bit last season, is increasing league interaction via trades. If you can dip into waivers to fill a weakness, why bother trading?

[t.j 35]

i don't think continuity of league stats should really be considered after just one season

edit to add that i think adding more IDPs is a fine idea, especially if we are going to boldly call ourselves goidpankal

[Zap 0]

i don't think continuity of league stats should really be considered after just one season

I expected you to be the one to argue against the increase!

 

code-- I can't find the stats anyway.

[Diesel07 0]

Hey Zap, i like option one as well. I think year 1 for us was an experiment phase. One thing i noticed last year with IDPs, there was quality talent you could find on the WW the whole season. Increasing the # of IDPs will balance out the value between offensive/defensive players. Who knows, maybe having the extra defensive player will prompt people to trade more thisx year. We could even go as far as having to start a strong side/weak side LB. Just a thought though.

[t.j 35]

i don't think continuity of league stats should really be considered after just one season

I expected you to be the one to argue against the increase!

 

code-- I can't find the stats anyway.

on another day perhaps i would have.

 

however in my keeper league which is going into it's 4th year (5th if you don't count the original year at Sandbox when we didn't keep our guys after that season and didn't have playoffs either), we are voting on rules changes for this year and a lot of people don't want to make changes because people chose their keepers in past years according to the old rules. Their argument is fair but it sucks to be stuck with a couple of crappy rules. If we'd have tried to make these changes after just 1 or 2 seasons it might have gone over better. so now i'm in more of a radical frame of mind i suppose. :ph34r:

[t.j 35]

keep in mind, Zap, that unless they've made changes Yahoo doesn't even distinguish between DLs and LBs. so if you want to track corners and safeties and all that, i feel it's my duty to inform your business partners that you will be unavailable for a few months.

 

if they do support DL/LB/DB this year, then I would say 2/2/2 with 1 flex is good. If they support every position, I'd like to see S and CB as separate positions and maybe DT vs DE, but I don't find separating ILB and MLB to be compelling, personally.

[Zap 0]

Option 1

 

1 DT

1 DL

1 ILB

1 OLB

1 S

1 CB

1 Flex

I have alot of thoughts on this topic and little time to address them today.

 

Option 1 has a major con. Yahoo does not differentiate DLs from LBs, let alone DTs Des ILBs OLbs. If we decide to do that, mark my words there's going to be mistakes, I'll catch them, and we'll have unfortunate scoring edits. Furthermore, some players like Edwards and Sirmon are playing inside and outside depending on the situation, and I believe there's a few DTs that play DE in certain run Ds and visa versa for some DEs moving inside on some pass Ds. Yes, this can be overcome just by using the position the teams use for the players on depth charts, but still it would increase my policing of rosters, the possibility of mistakes and now I'm being redundant.

[t.j 35]

Furthermore, some players like Edwards and Sirmon are playing inside and outside depending on the situation, and I believe there's a few DTs that play DE in certain run Ds and visa versa for some DEs moving inside on some pass Ds.

this is why i would be against splitting ILBs and OLBs, and am not thrilled about differentiating DEs and DTs. What's next, are we going to have a FB position and a Flanker position?

[Mike MacGregor 20]

Hey guys. Thanks Zap for quoting the article and hopefully it motivates you guys to add 2-3 IDP players to put a little more emphasis on them. I also hope no one takes offence to me coining the phrase "token" IDP league. It isn't meant to discredit the quality of the league, but get the point across on the value of IDP when there are 4 or fewer starters.

 

As to your decision about positions, my 2 cents would be to go with the 2-2-2 +1 or +2 flex, and not split the DL, LB and DB. Especially LB. Personally, I just think it is more trouble than it is worth.

 

I do play in a couple split DT/DE and S/CB leagues, but they are 11 IDP starter dynasty leagues so I can kind of see wanting to get a little more complex for those. Even still guys enter wrong lineups all the time. The league champ in one league used Richard Seymour at DT all year when he had switched to DE. I didn't notice until I faced him in the championship game in week 16. That had to be a nice advantage for him...

 

So Yahoo doesn't split DL/LB, eh? I've never played on Yahoo, but thought someone told me that before. I wonder what their rational for that is.

 

Anyway, best of luck this season boys. Cheers.

[Diesel07 0]

Good point guys. After reading through all your comments, your right. Splitting the IDPs would cause for a lot of frustration and confusion. It looks like option 2 might be the best bet. Im down for option 2!

[Bluepointer 0]

Go with option 2. Option one is a no more then a major pia in my opinion. Also, whoever is in charge of Smilies "GET ME MY ANGRY FACE BACK!" Thank you for your support.

[Sisters of No Mercy 0]

I like option 2 as well, although now my whole plan of waiting for D players may have to be called into question. Ahhh, this IDP league is making me reminicient of my rookie days as a FF player...