|
||||
|
Title: The GBRFL once again on the cutting edge! Post by StegRock on Feb 25th, 2005, 1:50am Fellas, in speaking with our esteemed co-GM Markie Hahn over the last couple weeks, he told me about an innovation for the league he had been thinking about. When I first heard it, I was kind of "eh" about it (like I usually am with most major proposals, [smiley=awwgee.gif] but, in my defense, usually for the best). In the first place, as intimated in the preceding parenthetical, it is a fairly BIG change. Moreover, I feared it to be (merely) reactionary to how things turned out this year with Frank's and my race to the finish (which Mark has made abundantly clear is NOT AT ALL the case). In his mind, the league is ultimately fine the way it is (and I agree, but...). After giving some serious and sincere thought to his idea, [smiley=thinking.gif] it grew on me... BIG-time! I thought about a few tweaks to improve it, shared them with Mark; he agreed and I think we have a flexible proposal with a few variations to present to the league. Anyway, get to the point, right, Steg... [smiley=impatient.gif] ... [smiley=getoff.gif] Well, actually, I am going to let Mark present it at first since it was his idea. I will just say this much now. It would allow us to incorporate the NFL postseason, potentially right on through the Pro Bowl (what a unique innovation that would be), in a way that absolutely works within our system. I preface... we would not in any way have to "torture" our current system to work this innovation in. So, with that, I am going to let Mark give the basics and his thinking and, then, I can elaborate on all the potential variations and the bigger picture. You guys know how I am about making sweeping changes to our system. [smiley=nownow.gif] For one, as aforementioned, it is fine as is. Secondly, I would not want us, even just inadvertently, to mess with the innovative and utterly unique things that we do in the GBRFL by trying to add in features commonplace to your run-of-the-mill fantasy systems of today (no less in an effort to try to "normalize" our system). That said, I really think this proposal of Mark's is something we have to seriously consider, which, you guys should know all too well, says A LOT for Markie's idea here! Not only is it just a fantastic idea on its face, but it is VERY unique, which is a BIG-time bonus, and, most importantly, a perfect fit for our GBRFL system!!! So, without Freddie Adu... I mean... further ado, Markie... |
||||
|
Title: Re: The GBRFL once again on the cutting edge! Post by DB on Feb 25th, 2005, 12:54pm My first reaction is also "eh", but I will wait to hear Mark out. My concern is going to be the fact that not all players make the playoffs and even less make the pro bowl. This will effect every player's value. However, sorry if I am speaking out of turn, and I look forward to hearing Hahn's idea. :-X |
||||
|
Title: Re: The GBRFL once again on the cutting edge! Post by StegRock on Feb 25th, 2005, 6:04pm on 02/25/05 at 12:54:03, DB wrote:
No problem speaking up. BUT, the plan is not anything like what you are thinking. The potential problem you mention will not even be an issue at all. This proposal does not affect our schedule one bit. You got to think out of the box to come up with this one,... WAY outside the box! |
||||
|
Title: Re: The GBRFL once again on the cutting edge! Post by Art Vandalay on Feb 28th, 2005, 12:00pm I'm all afflutter with anticipation. |
||||
|
Title: Re: The GBRFL once again on the cutting edge! Post by Skcus Redef 2 on Feb 28th, 2005, 10:47pm Sorry for the delay in posting, guys. I won't bore anyone with details as I have Steg, but I have some sick girls at home with the crud that has brought my world to a halt. Anyway, things are slowly getting back to normal and here is the proposal I am making: In many cases over the past several years, week 17 has been the worst week in fantasy football. Unless you are playing for something, the week tends to be meaningless. Week 17 means that fantasy football is over. Further, if your team is not in the playoffs and you are not interested in the other teams, it's easy to lose interest in the playoffs. I know this isn't everyone but it does happen. SO what I am proposing is this: In week 17, you have the option of choosing to activate players for that week OR choosing a playoff game to have the player activated. Steve has a much better explanation on this than I do but I will give it a try. Week 17 - I have the option to activate Tomlinson for the week or if I hear he will be sitting, I can carry him over to the playoffs. Now, if I am correct, here is the new addition from Steve. I could list Tomlinson in the same manner as I would a starter if I decide to carry him over. So, using the same setup as our lineup, it could read under Tomlinson: Superbowl Rd. 1 Conf. Championship Pro Bowl Rd. 2 In Tomlinson's case, he didn't make it past Rd. 1 so that would be the game I would get stats for (I think he actually got better stats in week 17 than Rd. 1 so I would have hurt myself). However, if he would have made it to the Superbowl, then that is where I would get my final stats. The key here is that I am giving up wk 17 for a future game. In some cases, it would pay. In others, it would be better to use the week 17. The bottom line is this would carry the games potentially all the way through the Pro Bowl if someone wanted that to be the ultimate game. I feel this adds some fun into the league as it keeps the games going throughout the playoffs. If you don't have a player in the playoffs, you are stuck with week 17. If you do have players going further, then it's up to you to make the right game decision. This explanation may need to be tweaked by Steve as I may have missed some things. However, the bottom line is that if you have a player or players in the playoffs, you can use them in one playoff game instead of week 17. |
||||
|
Title: Re: The GBRFL once again on the cutting edge! Post by Philly on Mar 1st, 2005, 10:30am Let me try to understand this... You choose to sit LT2 in Week 17 because you fear he may not get much playing time. So then Wild Card weekend comes around and he has a good game and San Diego wins. You can then choose to (1) take his WC stats and use them or (2) dismiss those stats and use a future game? Is that correct? Then he goes on to the Divisional Round and has a poor showing stat-wise, but San Diego still wins. You can then choose to (1) use his Div. Rnd. stats or (2) keep going with him for future stats. Either way, the week 17 and WC stats are unavailable to you any more? Am I getting this right? And you can keep putting the stats off until the Pro Bowl if you wish? |
||||
|
Title: Re: The GBRFL once again on the cutting edge! Post by Skcus Redef 2 on Mar 1st, 2005, 11:09am Quote:
There is a choice involved but the desicion must be made before the kickoff of wk 17. I do have to choose a week, I cannot take a wait and see approach. Using my example for Tomlinson: Superbowl Rd. 1 Conf. Championship Pro Bowl Rd. 2 First, by listing this way, I have given up my wk 17. I cannot go back and use wk 17. I have the Superbowl as my #1 game for stats, Rd. 1 is my #2 game. Conf. Champion as my #3 game and so on. Changing your example a little: if Tomlinson has a bad Rd. 1 game but wins, I am stuck with those numbers UNLESS he goes to the Superbowl. If SD makes it to the Bowl, then those become his stats. However, I made all these decisions before the kickoff of wk 17. If someone wanted to use the Pro Bowl for stats, that would have to be the first game listed. Then, all other playoff games would be secondary for that player UNLESS he does not make a play in the Pro Bowl. If that would be the case, the next game ranked would come into play (just like we do for players - if one doesn't play, then your next player listed jumps into that spot). Does that clear it up any? This is a tough one to describe in writing so forgive me if I am making it murkier instead of clearer. |
||||
|
Title: Re: The GBRFL once again on the cutting edge! Post by Art Vandalay on Mar 1st, 2005, 11:14am So using this past season as an example, i could have used Manning"s and Edge's stats in the Wild card game as one QB and RB for the Championship? |
||||
|
Title: Re: The GBRFL once again on the cutting edge! Post by Skcus Redef 2 on Mar 1st, 2005, 11:19am Yes. Everyone who has players in the playoffs could carry them into the playoffs if they choose. Again, using an example from my team, Seattle needed wk 17 to get in the playoffs. So, I would have been better to have S. Alexander activated for 17 and not the playoffs. He had a much better game in 17 then he did in the wild card game. But to be honest, I probably would have played him in the wildcard which would have screwed me. |
||||
|
Title: Re: The GBRFL once again on the cutting edge! Post by Philly on Mar 1st, 2005, 3:58pm on 03/01/05 at 11:09:47, Skcus Redef 2 wrote:
Yes, that makes sense. I like the idea overall, however I have a few reservations... First off, you must make your decision prior to week 17, yet at that point it is possible (likely) that not all of the playoff teams have been set. Since you don't know who will be in the playoffs, it makes it near impossible to determine whether you'd rank Wild Card over Conf. Championship game. I actually like my (faulty) interpretation a little better. That way when you decide to sit LT2 in week 17, you automatically move on the the first playoff game. LT2 runs for 75 yards and a TD in round one and SD wins. Now you have a decision to make: Do you take the stats from that game and call it quits, or do you throw them away and gamble on the next game (knowing that you can't recover any past stats)? I think this adds an element of intrigue and risk-taking, while also allowing the owner to scrutinize match-ups. If it turns out that in SD's next playoff game LT2 runs for only 25 yards and no scores and SD loses, then you gambled and lost because you could have had 75/1 in the previous game but you chose to gamble. (Although you could still choose to go with the Pro Bowl stats over the stats from the playoff loss.) **Note: I'm not trying to dismiss your ideas. Just taking them and adding a twist to them. Obviously you can choose to work with them or ignore them - no skin off my back. [smiley=thumbsup.gif] I do appreciate your willingness to think outside the [smiley=inthebox.gif] box. |
||||
|
Title: Re: The GBRFL once again on the cutting edge! Post by DirkDiggler on Mar 1st, 2005, 5:55pm I actually really like the idea Mark came up with! A LOT!! WAY TO GO MARK!!! I think it makes a lot of sense! It will keep all players including players on dominant teams who have clinched a playoff spot in the game. I think there are some logistacal kinks that need to be clarified. And maybe a chance to even simply it. Instead of listing all the games in the play offs, Tomlinson- Superbowl Tomlinson-AFC Championship etc... We can make the options: Tomlinson Playoffs Tomlinson Week 17 If you list playoffs, it would be the first game the player plays in the playoffs, no matter what round of game it is. And the real gamble is that in week 17 you often will not know who the playoff opponet is. Just a thought....... Philly-- I see your twist, but you are not really gambling everything. In most cases, you will know if a players performance will get you the win. If it does not get you the win, you would just try the next week. |
||||
|
Title: Re: The GBRFL once again on the cutting edge! Post by Philly on Mar 2nd, 2005, 8:47am on 03/01/05 at 17:55:59, DirkDiggler wrote:
Ahh... very true. I kind of missed that point. I guess my idea would only work if the opponent was also riding a player in the playoffs. That's why we talk about these things--to iron out the "kinks". |
||||
|
Title: Re: The GBRFL once again on the cutting edge! Post by Skcus Redef 2 on Mar 2nd, 2005, 2:05pm Philly, Your input on this is great. Hopefully Steg will jump in here soon as well as he had some wrinkles for the process as well. Truly my main concern with this proposal is that most of the work is going to fall on Steve and so once again he has the thankless job of trying to make it work. However, he seems up for it. Wait until you hear my next idea that I will post after this is decided upon... [smiley=evil.gif] While I agree that sometimes the playoffs aren't set until after wk 17, most of the players in question know their playoff destiny. So maybe you set it up as this is only available to those players that are seeded or are a lock for the playoffs prior to wk 17. If neither of these apply to a player, then wk 17 would be the only game available to stats UNLESS that player has a shot at the Pro Bowl. Then it would be up to the owner to choose either wk 17 or Pro Bowl. Dirk, Good to hear from you. Hope all is well on the homefront. I like your idea. The only thing is that it would only extend the season another two weeks at the most whereas the current idea could extend it to its final week of the Pro Bowl. Not sure if you would want to gamble on the Pro Bowl but you never know - you might want to take a flyer on a receiver or tight end in the Pro Bowl rather than a playoff game. Just a thought. |
||||
|
Title: Re: The GBRFL once again on the cutting edge! Post by DB on Mar 3rd, 2005, 11:52am This is certainly a very creative idea. Like the "flex lineup " idea we previously discussed, it adds options which is typically a good thing. It seems the primary goal here is to minimize the B.S. that goes on in week 17 involved with teams resting players for the playoffs. However, we really solved that problem when we abolished the Superbowl and crowned the best regular season record holder as champion. So, I don't really see the need to make changes to dilute week 17. The only virtue of the idea to me would be to add more strategy to the line-up submissions. It would make the playoffs/Super Bowl that much more interesting. Having the championship come down to how someone does in the Super Bowl would be cool. I am down on extending it to the Pro Bowl. I don't watch it too often, but like the NBA All-Star game, it is not a real game. |
||||
|
Title: Re: The GBRFL once again on the cutting edge! Post by StegRock on Mar 5th, 2005, 6:53pm Guys, via intelligent discussion, you all pretty much did a bang-up job of hitting it dead on. [smiley=bullseye.gif] Excellent! It's almost like some of you came to it on your own, which is great! Steve hit the nail on the head with how lineup-submission lists would be constructed. E.g., a guy with the following list: Curtis Martin (Super Bowl) Curtis Martin (Conference Championship) Curtis Martin (Pro Bowl) Curtis Martin (Week 17) Curtis Martin (Wildcard game) Curtis Martin (Divisional Playoff game), (remember, though it was likely, it was NOT an absolute lock that the Jets would get into the playoffs Week 17,... I think) would end up getting Curtis Martin Week 17. The Jets did not make it to the Super Bowl or the Conference Championship and he did not play in the Pro Bowl. The point here is that, as Steve had pointed out, you would include "Week 17" in your listing a) for the reason that you might at some point, perhaps, e.g., over the Pro Bowl, want to use the player Week 17 and b) just in case your player's team does NOT make the playoffs. Our "cascading lineups" makes this all possible and, moreover, UNFORCED!!! The other VERY important stipulation to remember here is that you canNOT use any single player more than once. Using the example above, you would not be permitted to use three "Curtis Martins", Week 17, in Wildcard game and in Divisional Playoff game. You only get your "topmost Curtis Martin". On the flip side, if you really do not want to use a guy, e.g. Week 17, you may want to construct a list like this: ... Edgerrin James (Division Playoffs) Edgerrin James (Wildcard game) Sammy Morris (Week 17) you wouldn't really need to make that explicit, of course Etc. perhaps, Etc. perhaps, Etc. perhaps, Edgerrin James (Week 17) Anyway, this is a SUPER idea that really fits what we do in/with the GBRFL!!! ... Though I do not want this to become a focal point, rather just an afterthought, I do want to address one minute detail of all this that one of you has expressed concern with, that being the Pro Bowl angle, which I am sold on incorporating. To not include the Pro Bowl just because it is ::) is not really a reason. The game produces stats comparable to the stats of other games. It's NOT at all like incorporating preseason games (perhaps an argument, by way of comparison, that could be made) in which rosters have not yet been cut-down and there are non-NFL players playing. It is a fairly fixed and, thus, reasonably predictable football environment (for fantasy football purposes). MOREOVER, those playing are the best of the best, right? Here is my position on this presented in a more thorough and outlined manner: By including the Pro Bowl,... 1) We include something rather innocuous in the sense that it probably won't often come into play. I personally would probably not consider playing a QB or RB. The only position I think would really be a consideration is RC (WR specifically), though having all options available is nice. 2) We cover ALL bases. There might just arise that occasion where a dude has a nicked-up, Pro Bowl-bound player going into Week 17 that he'd rather roll the dice on in the Pro Bowl by when it is said that the player will be 100% healthy. Though not often, I could certainly see that happening now and then. In such a (albeit, perhaps, rare) case, we are kind of back to the "problem", a solution for which was part of the idea behind this whole proposal. Granted, the situation is not completely analogous, but the "real-world" bitch is there. By including the Pro Bowl, we sew this up tight. 3) We give a bit of an extra little bonus to GM's with top NFL players, who have had seasons which earned them a Pro Bowl selection. By including the Pro Bowl, we kind of "substantively recognize" that special "selection", which surely deserves some kind of recognition, but which really cannot otherwise be incorporated into our game, by granting the GM who has him that extra game of availability. It's not much, but it's something and it doesn't "grate" our system. 4) We make it too FUN (read on for further details of this one). Lastly, WHY THE HELL NOT? As the commissioner (and, if I may say, "crazy glue") of our great league here, I am always on the lookout for UNIQUE, CUTTING-EDGE ideas that fit or at least do not disrupt the fundamentals of our system. This surely doesn't. I know for a fact in my dealings with other fantasy footballers on the internet that there are commissioners out there who have tried to incorporate the Pro Bowl but cannot really come up with a way of doing so that is not REALLY contrived. We have! We can do it and it won't be at all obtrusive. It'll actually potentially extend our FUN another week. Isn't that a HUGE bonus? On that note, look at my third message down on the following page of the "TOTAL Post-season Contest thread": http://www.fantasyfootballer.com/cgi-bin/theGridiron/YaBB.cgi?board=56;action=display;num=1104902596;start=50 (PLEASE do so, especially if you are planning to be a bitch about this, at least be a completely informed bitch). I too always thought the Pro Bowl to be pretty gay. BUT, having a little fantasy something riding on it, made it a blast, and, mind you, this year's game, I thought, was particularly beat, actually. I still got fantasy enjoyment (and misery) out of it. Adding the Pro Bowl into the mix more than anything else EXTENDS the season for us, thus, EXTENDING the fun! I usually don't play the card I am about to play when it comes to things regarding the league I let be dealt with in a democratic manner. But, here, I am... partially because, in ways that I do not make explicit with each and every one of you all the time, the GBRFL side of things will have a significant role in the "bigger picture" I am ARDUOUSLY working on here with this site, so I have the most at stake here (especially when it comes to incorporating cutting-edge, unique innovations... think about it... hearing, e.g. Danny, say, without thinking what I've just told him through at all, "Fuck that shit! My vote is NO," REALLY sucks for me... on various levels, each shittier than the next). In that light, I believe I have put on a pretty good show for yous,... for going on 13 years now with this league and for up to 18 for those that were around before, and (I surely hope you guys believe that) my instincts regarding the hobby are, well, decent; that I have my finger pretty well on the pulse of our beloved hobby here. SO, bottom line, if this proposal is really to come to "pass", I REALLY want it passed "in total". If those that oppose the incorporation of the Pro Bowl can only come up with lame arguments like the aforementioned "The Pro Bowl is ::)", then I would (be forced to some extent to) see you as not being opposed so much so to the idea, but as being opposed to me (and needlessly potentially hindering my greater "big picture" goals here with the site). I firmly believe that adding this proposal "in total" to the GBRFL is perfect with "respect" to the system and maximizes all of its unique and cutting-edge, yet unobtrusive aspects,... and that is consistent with where I am going with the bigger venture I am engaged in here. There are literally millions of run-of-the-mill leagues out there. We don't need to be. On the other hand, we should not force ourselves to not be, either. But, we should always be thinking "outside the box" and where an idea is a natural fit and not forced, we should jump all over it. I believe this whole proposal, including the incorporation of the Pro Bowl, is just that for the GBRFL. Moreover, as per a conversation I had with Frank not too long ago, it is good to grow with the times. If you accept that I have my finger on the pulse of the hobby, then you have to know that when I say that this idea "in total", including the incorporation of the Pro Bowl, is the shiznit, there is at least a good amount of truth to what I am saying. Let's not blow this and go cutting out any of its innovative aspects!!! |
||||
|
Title: Re: The GBRFL once again on the cutting edge! Post by DB on Mar 7th, 2005, 12:26pm Quote:
I looked this up for "fun" and disagree. This year the score in the Pro Bowl was 38-27 with total yards at 492-343. Yet, the top QB had only 130 yards and there were no 100 yard receivers (Holt had 99 and a TD). So while the overall stats are really high (last year 107 points were scored in the game), the individual performances are not great. As far as covering all bases, I don't think its necessary. We don't have to cover all bases. Like Steve said, we don't use pre-season. Also, we don't use a tight end position, punting, IDPs, etc. We certainly could not use DU's in the Pro Bowl!!! ;) I really like the overall idea here, but the Pro Bowl is just a joke to me. It is not played on the playing field as every other regular season/playoff game that we are contemplating and including it would not add anything to this. While it would be cool to extend the season as long as possible.... I think the Superbowl is enough. As I said, having the League Championship come down to how someone does in a Superbowl would be sweet. Think about it. If the season comes down to the Pro Bowl.... what are you going to be watching, hoping your guy gets in the game or doesn't get taken to do a sideline interview while drinking a fruity drink and wearing a hula skirt. Is there a yawn smiley??? I participated in this years post-season tourny (thus I am an "informed bitch") and would have been forced to watch the Pro Bowl had I been in contention. I guess the Pro Bowl is good for that kinda thing, where there are limited games to acquire points. Quote:
[smiley=uh.gif] [smiley=uh.gif] [smiley=whatever.gif] Oh my God! You figured me out. [smiley=theyareontome.gif] My plan to sabatoge this league and this site has backfired in my face. Really though... I don't know what that's about... Nothing personal man... the Pro Bowl's just weak. |
||||
|
Title: Re: The GBRFL once again on the cutting edge! Post by StegRock on Mar 9th, 2005, 9:43pm Regarding the comparability of Pro Bowl stats with the rest, fantasy-wise, which is really all that matters for our purposes, the individual statistics of players are 1) reasonably predictable and 2) within a reasonable range (actually, more often than not, on the low end). Even as DB suggests, you'd have to have some big ganolies to play a guy in the Pro Bowl. It's a REAL gamble that could totally blow up in your face and, meanwhile, the reward is likely low. It's just that it would be an option. I don't know... Maybe I just love [smiley=smitten.gif] fantasy football to an insane degree [smiley=gonecrazy.gif] (i.e. have a worse addiction). I too, like DB, was out of the running in the "Total Post-season Contest" by the Pro Bowl (hell, I was basically out of it after Wildcard Weekend), and, mind you, as I stated above, this year's Pro Bowl, objectively speaking, qua NFL game without fantasy implications (which, actually, it really did not have for me), was particularly lame, I thought. BUT, STILL, with all of that being the case, I, cross my heart, hope to die, ABSOLUTELY ENJOYED the game, for whatever it's worth, which I happen to think is A LOT (as league commissioner with "what's best for the league and its participants" in mind, as owner of this growing site with "being unique in approach and on the cutting edge" in mind, and as fellow fantasy footballer wanting to get the most out of the hobby and maximize the FUN). Because, isn't FUN what this ALL is ultimately about? This (rather unexpected) experience I had this year with respect to the Pro Bowl by way of the "Total Post-season Contest" is surely affecting my judgment. But, I think it is in a good, even pure way. To respond to something DB specifically states above,... granted, I had the mindset of "giving it a chance" rather than seeing it as something (potentially) "being forced" on me. Unless I can somehow put my head on your shoulders for a moment (the moment Harrison caught that TD), you really, with all due respect, are not working with the same "information" I am. ... Really, I just see (potentially) extending the season through the Pro Bowl as extending the FUN, surely not the drudgery. The irony of this, though, is that when preparing the "Total Post-season Contest", I spoke to a fellow league commissioner friend of mine. After telling him that the contest would go through the Pro Bowl, he noted how neat that was and how he has been trying to figure out a way of incorporating the Pro Bowl into his league. I, hearing him out, but still very wary about such an idea for a league vis-a-vis a little internet contest, ended up strongly dissuading him from doing so. BUT, mind you, the way of going about it he was expressing 1) was VERY FORCED, i.e. not befitting his league's system, and 2) was potentially WAY TOO SIGNIFICANT, i.e. posed way too much of a potential impact. I think that NEITHER of the aforementioned is the case with adding in the Pro Bowl in the GBRFL in the way presented herein. It is NEITHER forced NOR particularly significant. |
||||
|
Title: Re: The GBRFL once again on the cutting edge! Post by StegRock on Mar 10th, 2005, 7:00pm By the way, DB, here's your "yawn" smiley... [smiley=tired.gif] (On the list his name is "tired".) |
||||
|
Title: Re: The GBRFL once again on the cutting edge! Post by StegRock on Mar 11th, 2005, 5:23pm Alternatively, you could have just gone with... [smiley=sleepers.gif] ("sleepin'") |
||||
|
Title: Re: The GBRFL once again on the cutting edge! Post by DirkDiggler on May 17th, 2005, 7:28pm After mulling this over, I really do like the rule. I give it a big thumbs up. However, I would like to exclude the probowl. I think the playoffs are good cause they are really playing. But I would not call the probowl a 'real' game. Yes, they run, throw, and catch in the probowl. BUt the rules are different. You can not run certain types of plays that you would in a 'real' game enviroment. Your QB would not face any blitzes and your kicker can not be rushed. Any game that changes the rules in my opinion can not be considered a real game, and if it is not a real game, then we should not allow it to be apart of our new system. IMO.... |
||||
|
Title: Re: The GBRFL once again on the cutting edge! Post by StegRock on May 17th, 2005, 11:40pm Bottom line, the Pro Bowl is going to be the only game I will be able to attend. Since the numbers, as I thoroughly argue above, bare out similarly to any other game, actually it would be a fairly HUGE risk fielding a guy in the Pro Bowl, I do not see a problem potentially counting the only game your commish will have a chance to be at. I stick by EVERYTHING I wrote above. Ultimately, I see the "naysayers" winning this one because we're kind of tied right now, BUT all of the "last-minute undecideds" will in all likelihood vote "no" without even thinking about it. |
||||
|
Title: Re: The GBRFL once again on the cutting edge! Post by DB on May 18th, 2005, 10:52am What does potentially attending a game have to do with anything? ?.?.? |
||||
|
Title: Re: The GBRFL once again on the cutting edge! Post by StegRock on May 18th, 2005, 6:09pm If you are being serious,... nothing, Dave, nothing. [smiley=no.gif] If you are not,... [smiley=silence.gif] . |
||||
|
Title: Re: The GBRFL once again on the cutting edge! Post by Skcus Redef 2 on May 18th, 2005, 7:14pm Throwing my 2¢ in... I do see both sides to the discussion but the bottom line for me is it's a major risk to play someone in the Pro Bowl (PB). Therefore, if someone wants to take that risk, I am all for it. I know [smiley=steg.gif] has posted that he agrees with this thought and has no problem with it. My guess is that for 99% of the games, the PB won't even come into play. But knowing that it COULD come into play is kinda cool. Just my humble opinion. |
||||
|
Title: Musings on draft day Post by Drew Rosenhaus on Jul 24th, 2005, 11:17am To the GBRFL league in Frank's back yard, Sorry I can't be there to partake in the festivities. Hope everyone is well. Steg, once again, thanks for putting together a great draft - as always, excellent prep work. Your hard work is very appreciated. One last opportunity to put words to why I like the proposal of incorporating the post-season into GBRFL: 1) It makes week 17 MUCH more interesting, being that several players on your team or your opponents' might not be activated until the next week or further on down the line 2) It makes the decisions that need to be made during this time period that much more important, and more of a risk 3) It extends the league to well beyond the end of regular season As for the sticky subject of the Pro Bowl (PB) - my thought is this: If we pass the proposal to extend the regular season into the post-season, I recommend that we include the PB, with a special provision of a trial basis. If this passes it would work like this: The trial would be activated once a team has a player where the stats from the PB are actually used. The game and that player's stats would be calculated in the normal fashion, and the winners would be announced in normal fashion as well. Then, at the summer meeting, the PB portion of this proposal would be up for vote to see if it should continue to be a part of post-season or eliminated. This way we can see the effect the PB really would have in a working setting. And, it doesn't lock the league into a rule - it provides a quick change if needed. NEW NOTE: I just got off the phone with Joe P. He called me for detailed information on this proposed rule. I gave him the info, along with the new PB vote that I proposed above. I don't know how this should be handled but he did ask me to proxy for him as he will be running around for awhile with kids. So, I have his vote and mine when (if) they are needed. |
||||
|
Fantasyfootballer.com's Gridiron » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.1! YaBB © 2000-2002, Xnull. All Rights Reserved. |