In remembrance of 9/11/01



Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Nov 20th, 2017, 11:26pm EST

Home Home Help Help Search Search Members Members GamesGames Login Login Register Register
Fantasyfootballer.com's Gridiron Rules Talk: Should carrying a kicker be mandatory?

"Welcome to 'the Gridiron'... Fantasy football at its best!"

Fantasy Football News Feed Co-commissioner Services Add "the Gridiron" to your site
Lend a hand...  Make a donation to "the Gridiron"!!!
   Fantasyfootballer.com's Gridiron
   Featured Leagues
   GBRFL
(Moderator: Stegfucius)
   Rules Talk: Should carrying a kicker be mandatory?
Previous topic|Next topic
Pages: 1  Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: Rules Talk: Should carrying a kicker be mandatory?  (Read 438 times)
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Rules Talk: Should carrying a kicker be mandatory?
« on: Dec 27th, 2016, 5:53pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

This ideally (and somewhat ironically) requires IMMEDIATE attention!!!
 
I cannot believe this has not come up in the 24-year history of the GBRFL or in the 28 years I have been playing in this system, but here we are, and I am the one bringing it up...
 
So, I have not run the stats for Week 16 yet, but I am fairly certain Joe won (beat me) and, therefore, clinched the championship, and I think Danny probably beat Frank.  That would put me in last place, but my (1st-place-versus-10th-place, bumper week) game against Joe would be meaningless.  As such, I would like to cut PK Justin Tucker and just go without a kicker Week 17.  There is no rule mandating the rostering of a place-kicker.  HOWEVER, we DEFINITELY would NOT want the tenth-/last-place team going into the Week 17 1st-versus-10th-place game without a kicker if the game did matter.  In general, I do not think we would want teams low in the standings toward the end of a season, who no longer really care about winning and, indeed, have a vested interest in losing, playing without a kicker.  So, what to do?
 
I think we are limited to the options outlined below because any others I can think of present problems, and leaving it as it is, with no rule in place, is NOT an option lest we run the risk of future chaos.  A decision on this must sooner or later be made.  Of course, we should discuss first, and perhaps some other option(s) will emerge...  HOWEVER, as it stands, no one is currently bound to anything (though, even if we do not get this to a vote right now, I personally, with respect to my team, am inclined to go with the consensus as I want what is best for the league here, not my team).  That said, LONG-standing precedent would suggest that a kicker must be rostered (even though I think there have been a few instances down through the years where a team was left without a kicker by accident because of how drops were submitted and players were requested).
 
With that said, without further ado, ought we...
1) Mandate the rostering of a place-kicker?
*2) Allow kickers to be dropped Week 17 ONLY, EXCEPT by the team in 10th place?
*3) Allow kickers to be dropped Week 17 ONLY, EXCEPT by the team in 10th place if the 1st-place-versus-last-place game matters?
*(Although there is embedded disincentive vis-à-vis the Draft, given that we have the Draft Lottery, options 2 & 3 provide some incentive to get out of last place for Week 17.)
 
ALSO, there is an important side note here worth discussing, especially if we go with option #1...  Is it time for us to consider having a free-agent acquisition period (or two) during the offseason (when kickers or, for that matter, defenses could be dropped without harming the league)?
Logged
IbdFunk
Fantasy Field General
GBRFLer
Champ - '97, '00, '01, '11
*****
# 12



No Vaseline for you!

   
View Profile

Posts: 525

Back to top

Re: Rules Talk: Should carrying a kicker be mandat
« Reply #1 on: Dec 27th, 2016, 6:46pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

my vote is to mandate to keep a kicker is way to go in my opinion. To play for draft picks is not good faith. I would also not have free agent picks during off season
Logged
DB
Fantasy Field General
GBRFLer
Champ - '95, '98, '08, '09, '10, '13, '15
*****
# 22



7X Ultimate Supreme Champion

   
View Profile

Posts: 682

Back to top

Re: Rules Talk: Should carrying a kicker be mandat
« Reply #2 on: Dec 27th, 2016, 7:14pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

I vote for option #3 to require a kicker only if the game matters.  I suggest modifying the rule to include any team (not just the 10th place team) if they are playing against any team that has a game that impacts 1st, 2nd or 3rd place.
 
I vote against off-season free agency.
Logged
DirkDiggler
Gridiron Great
GBRFLer
Champ - '14
*****
# 5





   
View Profile

Posts: 3117

Back to top

Re: Rules Talk: Should carrying a kicker be mandat
« Reply #3 on: Dec 27th, 2016, 7:58pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

I am inclined to mandate a kicker.   The thought this game does not matter is not true.   The 10th place vs 9th place impacts lottery chances.    
 
So I vote 1.....it is essentially the rule in place now as I have never seen a team without a kicker.   All teams that don't have a chance could field incomplete lineups and that is not in the spirit of the game
 
Logged

"Every rule has an exception....the exception can't become the rule"
DOLFAN
Red Zone Master
GBRFLer
*****
# 25




I love ''the Gridiron''!

    jomrfootbl@aol
View Profile Email

Posts: 1343

Back to top

Re: Rules Talk: Should carrying a kicker be mandat
« Reply #4 on: Dec 28th, 2016, 1:22am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

I vote for option #1.
 
I vote against off-season free agency.
Logged

GO TONY, GO TONY, GO TONY!
Art Vandalay
GM
GBRFLer
Champ - '96, '05
*****
# 11



Bow to the master

   
View Profile

Posts: 421

Back to top

Re: Rules Talk: Should carrying a kicker be mandat
« Reply #5 on: Dec 28th, 2016, 7:36am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

We have spoken about this, indirectly over the years. A team could intentionally throw a game or two in order to move down into the lottery or gain a better lottery spot.  There is nothing we can do about this except shower them with scorn and ridicule.  
We do not mandate any minimum requirements for any other positions. I have played with one quarterback several times in the past.  
I have also lost a championship due to the inactivity of a #10 owner in the last week.  
I vote to do nothing. It is not necessary and we should not over regulate.
Logged

Why don't you just tell me what you want to see.
DirkDiggler
Gridiron Great
GBRFLer
Champ - '14
*****
# 5





   
View Profile

Posts: 3117

Back to top

Re: Rules Talk: Should carrying a kicker be mandat
« Reply #6 on: Dec 28th, 2016, 9:41am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Dec 28th, 2016, 7:36am, Art Vandalay wrote:
We have spoken about this, indirectly over the years. A team could intentionally throw a game or two in order to move down into the lottery or gain a better lottery spot.  There is nothing we can do about this except shower them with scorn and ridicule.  
We do not mandate any minimum requirements for any other positions. I have played with one quarterback several times in the past.  
I have also lost a championship due to the inactivity of a #10 owner in the last week.  
I vote to do nothing. It is not necessary and we should not over regulate.

 
Get ready for scorn and ridicule  
Logged

"Every rule has an exception....the exception can't become the rule"
Art Vandalay
GM
GBRFLer
Champ - '96, '05
*****
# 11



Bow to the master

   
View Profile

Posts: 421

Back to top

Re: Rules Talk: Should carrying a kicker be mandat
« Reply #7 on: Dec 29th, 2016, 11:11am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

I don't have a 1st pick next year. No incentive to flush this year. It just so happened, every one of my players sucked ass or got hurt last week. MISERABLE!!
 
Only 6 of my starters from week 1 were on the field in week 16. WTF
Logged

Why don't you just tell me what you want to see.
DirkDiggler
Gridiron Great
GBRFLer
Champ - '14
*****
# 5





   
View Profile

Posts: 3117

Back to top

Re: Rules Talk: Should carrying a kicker be mandat
« Reply #8 on: Dec 29th, 2016, 2:24pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Dec 29th, 2016, 11:11am, Art Vandalay wrote:
I don't have a 1st pick next year. No incentive to flush this year. It just so happened, every one of my players sucked ass or got hurt last week. MISERABLE!!
 
Only 6 of my starters from week 1 were on the field in week 16. WTF

 
LOL.....I was actually referencing Steg if he drops a kicker     I have no idea how you are doing.  Since I actually own your pick I am rooting for you to suck!
 
Sadly, I am pretty confident I lost too.  Went against a defense that gave up 3 points
 
 
 
    
 
« Last Edit: Dec 29th, 2016, 2:27pm by DirkDiggler » Logged

"Every rule has an exception....the exception can't become the rule"
Stegfucius
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04

*****




I love ''the Gridiron''!

   
View Profile WWW Email

Posts: 18970

Back to top

Re: Rules Talk: Should carrying a kicker be mandat
« Reply #9 on: Dec 30th, 2016, 6:14am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Great discussion, fellas!  Lots of insights (even from Danny).  I find myself in agreement with contradictory points of view, and so I am loath to insert myself here with others still to chime in.  But, time is ticking away, and I have some possibly worthwhile reactions to share... as well as what my provisional vote would be if this were an official vote we were taking...
 
on Dec 27th, 2016, 7:14pm, DB wrote:
I vote for option #3 to require a kicker only if the game matters.  I suggest modifying the rule to include any team (not just the 10th place team) if they are playing against any team that has a game that impacts 1st, 2nd or 3rd place.

 
I not only agree with the modification suggested here, but in the spirit of fair-mindedness think it would be necessary.  However, we then start to see the logistical/administrative nightmare this can turn into as well as further inequities that emerge just based on luck, and also, as Steve rightly points out, there are other effects like as regards the Draft,...
 
on Dec 27th, 2016, 7:58pm, DirkDiggler wrote:
I am inclined to mandate a kicker.   The thought this game does not matter is not true.   The 10th place vs 9th place impacts lottery chances.

 
... though it must be admitted that those concerns are mitigated by the Lottery itself.
 
Furthermore, contrary to this point of his,...
 
on Dec 27th, 2016, 7:58pm, DirkDiggler wrote:
So I vote 1.....it is essentially the rule in place now as I have never seen a team without a kicker.   All teams that don't have a chance could field incomplete lineups and that is not in the spirit of the game

 
... it is hard to have this happen at QB, RB and RC given the GBRFL practice of cascading at those positions, which brings me to Frank's post...
 
on Dec 28th, 2016, 7:36am, Art Vandalay wrote:
We have spoken about this, indirectly over the years. A team could intentionally throw a game or two in order to move down into the lottery or gain a better lottery spot.  There is nothing we can do about this except shower them with scorn and ridicule.  
We do not mandate any minimum requirements for any other positions. I have played with one quarterback several times in the past.  
I have also lost a championship due to the inactivity of a #10 owner in the last week.  
I vote to do nothing. It is not necessary and we should not over regulate.

 
While a 10th-placer wiffed and cost Frank a championship, the last-place team has actually won that game against the 1st-place team quite a few times.  Frank's comments, nevertheless, raise important questions...
 
What is worse, being down a kicker, OR being down a quarterback, a running back, a receiver (these things happen SEVERAL times EVERY season, and sometimes it is even two RB's or RC's, or a defense)?  Furthermore, is it any worse when it happens earlier in the season?  And, what is it that we are concerned about?  Making sure bottom-rung teams optimize their lineups, especially at the end of the season?  I am sure that many of these backups who are good Week 17 plays, because of injury or because the starters in front of them are being rested Week 17, will be left on the waiver wire by bottom-rung teams in favor of players that are perceived to be better future prospects.  So, what else should we make the last-place team do?  What about teams who mailed it in at the end and do not put in a lineup the final two or three weeks like Frank was suggesting?
 
Indeed, now that I think of it, the philosophy of the GBRFL has been: you are where you are at the end of the season; everybody does what is best for his own team as he sees fit; if you need help from another team at the end of the season, that is on you, not the other guy, so hope and pray it works out,... OR, to put it bluntly, be awesome and avoid having to rely on that bullshit... like Joe this year.  In fact, Joe has put himself in a position to win a championship AND start playing for next year this week.  As for the 3rd-place guy who is rooting for him against the 2nd-place guy, feel it!  That is your problem, not his.  Truth is, a lot is within your control given our bumper-week format.  You get to play the guys right around you in the standings.  If you need more, again, that is on you, not on those from whom you need more.
 
We ultimately want every owner to always do what he thinks is best for his team, period!  It just so happens that playing the spoiler does not often conflict with that, at least in this league not to the degree that it overrides the motivation of playing the spoiler.  Mind you, if I could play spoiler this week, we would not even be having this discussion (at least, I would not have been the one to bring it up)!  What we hope for is a "good faith" effort overall to make your team optimally competitive.  With that said, if I am to drop my PK this week, my lineup will be otherwise well-crafted and optimized, unlike a team who has totally mailed it in.
 
Also part of the GBRFL philosophy, as Frank is suggesting, is to recognize the reality that rules cannot solve everything and, indeed, serve more to just move the proverbial bulge in the carpet.  More rules do not mean fewer injustices.  Even if we mandate carrying a kicker Week 17, if owners want to forfeit points at place-kicker (which is not even my mission here), they still can by picking up a kicker who is inactive (say, Josh Brown).  So, we have to mandate an active kicker.  Then, the owner just drops his kicker Week 16 and does not go after a kicker Week 17.  What do we do then?  Pick up one for him?  And, drop whom from his roster?  Such a rule as mandating the rostering of a kicker Week 17, now that I am thinking it all the way through, could be circumvented very easily.  Furthermore, it raises all kinds of other questions regarding what else should be mandated Week 17 given that the assumed goal of the place-kicker rule must be to have guys field the best teams possible Week 17 (even if it serves to stymie bigger-picture "good faith" efforts to optimize their teams for the future), which would lead to further layers of rules and specifications... and inequities ("He gets to play Week 17 with one quarterback, but I have to keep my kicker!").
 
In addition, insofar as not having a QB is perceived as being worse than not have a PK, remember that we had a guy win a championship with, for all intents and purposes, just one quarterback for almost the whole season: Mark.  However, it is not that he only had one QB.  He only had one active QB.  All the rest were injured or backups or inactive (rookie) prospects.  So, Frank's point about other positions is different than this place-kicker issue,... or is it?  The fact is that Mark never made a vigorous effort to fix that problem.  In fact, in late years Mark (again) has strategically gone with this "empty backfield" approach that has left him with two and even just one (active) running back on several occasions, and he has won another championship that way.  So, who is to say that not having a place-kicker is a death knell?  Indeed, how many games have been won while losing, even getting killed in, the kicking category?  Too many to count!?!?
 
Yes, defense would remain a sore spot in all this, but again the cure, the rule, I am now (coming to my conservative senses and) re-realizing, is worse than the reality.  Again, we cannot make things perfect with rules (quite the contrary).  We just want to, as Frank suggests, give owners as much room as possible to do whatever they themselves deem necessary to optimize their teams.
 
With that said, bottom line, regarding my situation, my games really are virtually inconsequential.  Joe has clinched, and Danny, who is in 9th place, has my 1st-round pick.  Indeed, that gives Danny a small, but not totally insignificant incentive to lose his game against me, and Joe can do whatever he wants.  Kicker or no kicker, my otherwise well-crafted (though generally shitty) lineup could easily still come up with two Week 17 wins, and, indeed, that is what I will be rooting for.  I just think that the best thing I can do for my team (and, therefore, by implication also for the league) moving forward is to drop my place-kicker and optimize my roster heading into the offseason.  That seems well within the scope of the "good faith" effort we expect in the GBRFL.
 
All in all, I have come around full-circle on this.  I am inclined to go with Frank here and leave things as they are (and not just because it benefits me, but because it also benefits the league in the bigger picture).  If we were voting, I would vote for no change.
 
In other news...
 
I DIGRESS...
    on Dec 28th, 2016, 9:41am, DirkDiggler wrote:
    Get ready for scorn and ridicule  

     
    Most unclear reference EVER!!!
Logged
DirkDiggler
Gridiron Great
GBRFLer
Champ - '14
*****
# 5





   
View Profile

Posts: 3117

Back to top

Re: Rules Talk: Should carrying a kicker be mandat
« Reply #10 on: Dec 30th, 2016, 8:45am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

If we leave it, so be it.    After reading the posts,I would agree that over regulating does not make sense.   I think there are bigger fish to fry.  And we have to trust folks will do what's best.
Logged

"Every rule has an exception....the exception can't become the rule"
Travistotle
GM
GBRFLer
Champ - '06
*****
# 414



Semper Philosophans

   
View Profile

Posts: 487

Back to top

Re: Rules Talk: Should carrying a kicker be mandat
« Reply #11 on: Dec 30th, 2016, 5:08pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Dec 30th, 2016, 6:14am, Stegfucius wrote:

 
Even if we mandate carrying a kicker Week 17, if owners want to forfeit points at place-kicker (which is not even my mission here), they still can by picking up a kicker who is inactive (say, Josh Brown). . . .
 
given that the assumed goal of the place-kicker rule must be to have guys field the best teams possible Week 17 (even if it serves to stymie bigger-picture "good faith" efforts to optimize their teams for the future), . . .
 
We just want to, as Frank suggests, give owners as much room as possible to do whatever they themselves deem necessary to optimize their teams. . . .
 
I just think that the best thing I can do for my team (and, therefore, by implication also for the league) moving forward is to drop my place-kicker and optimize my roster heading into the offseason.  That seems well within the scope of the "good faith" effort we expect in the GBRFL.

 
I don't think we should make a rule about this.  
 
If the point of not carrying a kicker on your roster (once it's clear you have nothing to play for) is to set yourself up for next year by hoarding prospects at other positions, you're being smart.  
 
If the point of not carrying a kicker on your roster (once it's clear you have nothing to play for) is to tank your game(s) so you can get a better draft pick, well, you're deserving of scorn and probably being an idiot.  The lottery, and karma, will have their revenge.  Trust me.  I've had the 1st, 4th, and 5th lottery positions; only once have I ended up with anything better than the 4th pick, and usually I get the 5th.  And that's only the lottery's revenge; I didn't tank any games, so karma didn't have to get involved.
 
A fortiori, I don't think any rule that specifies when to mandate a kicker is even nearly feasible.  Who determines which games matter?  Why only those that impact 1-3rd place?  Why not those that impact lottery position?  Why only week 17 games?  Why not earlier games?  I don't see how any rule could cover this territory (viz., "when the game matters").
 
To tell the truth, I kinda love Steg's proposed cleverness.  It's Belichikian (in the best sense): look at the situation, look at the endgame, reflect carefully, find some creative ways and means, and act.  It's one expression of the greatness of fantasy football.  [For you philosophy geeks: it's tanking only per accidens, not per se.  Per se, it's roster improvement.]
« Last Edit: Dec 30th, 2016, 5:11pm by Travistotle » Logged
DirkDiggler
Gridiron Great
GBRFLer
Champ - '14
*****
# 5





   
View Profile

Posts: 3117

Back to top

Re: Rules Talk: Should carrying a kicker be mandat
« Reply #12 on: Dec 30th, 2016, 6:50pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

My only other comment is that there are a ton of other players on your roster to drop.   No way you would protect all that garbage.   There is a reason you are in last place.    
« Last Edit: Dec 30th, 2016, 6:51pm by DirkDiggler » Logged

"Every rule has an exception....the exception can't become the rule"
Pages: 1  Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print

Previous topic|Next topic

Fantasyfootballer.com's Gridiron » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.1!
YaBB © 2000-2002,
Xnull. All Rights Reserved.

Most smilies provided by "MySmilies.com", "Jason's Smiley Collection" or "Clicksmilies.com".
"the Gridiron" Copyright © 2002-2016 - Product of FantasyFootballer.com. All rights reserved.