Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Boards Fantasy Football 2014

Options
1…2123252627

Comments

  • Options
    #662
    Raoul
    Registered Users Posts: 7,699 ✭✭✭Raoul


    Haha. I wouldn't trust Cutler at all but if your backup is Teddy then it isn't a no brainer to start Teddy. So really it is very hard to decide and a coin flip. The Lions D is awesome though and they might get at Cutler and make him have a nightmare of a game.


  • Options
    #663
    Vanolder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,241 ✭✭✭Vanolder


    Raoul wrote: »
    Haha. I wouldn't trust Cutler at all but if your backup is Teddy then it isn't a no brainer to start Teddy. So really it is very hard to decide and a coin flip. The Lions D is awesome though and they might get at Cutler and make him have a nightmare of a game.

    Fcuk it- it's thanksgiving, i'm gonna roll with Culter.

    God bless you all.


  • Options
    #664
    GoldFour4
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 4,969 Mod ✭✭✭✭GoldFour4


    Vanolder wrote: »
    Fcuk it- it's thanksgiving, i'm gonna roll with Culter.

    God bless you all.

    A good start anyway!!


  • Options
    #665
    Vanolder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,241 ✭✭✭Vanolder


    malistheman wrote: »
    A good start anyway!!

    It's a thanksgiving miracle!


  • Options
    #666
    Deco99
    Registered Users Posts: 1,642 ✭✭✭Deco99


    Deco99 wrote: »
    do i seriously considered dropping megatron?


    Have my answer... patience pays dividends.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #667
    Raoul
    Registered Users Posts: 7,699 ✭✭✭Raoul


    Deco99 wrote: »
    Have my answer... patience pays dividends.

    As I advised you!! He was liable to have a big game anytime :)


  • Options
    #668
    Deco99
    Registered Users Posts: 1,642 ✭✭✭Deco99


    Raoul wrote: »
    As I advised you!! He was liable to have a big game anytime :)

    I went with golden tate as well for cover, 8 points so below average but contributing. Not sure do I go with both Hill and Bernard in the Hope one goes off, Crowell is pretty good option too cause he gets the redzone snaps, maybe Hill and Crowell


  • Options
    #669
    BaronVon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,647 ✭✭✭BaronVon


    Randall Cobb v NE, or Mike Evans v CIN?

    Cobb will most likely end up on Revis Island, and he let me down last week, but I'm playing Aaron Rodgers, so playing Cobb might offset some of the pain.....


  • Options
    #670
    TO.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,094 ✭✭✭TO.


    infacteh wrote: »
    Randall Cobb v NE, or Mike Evans v CIN?

    Cobb will most likely end up on Revis Island, and he let me down last week, but I'm playing Aaron Rodgers, so playing Cobb might offset some of the pain.....
    Id say Cobb will be like Tate last week and see all the action. Even with Revis Id say Cobb will get a thud and up to a 100yds


  • Options
    #671
    Deco99
    Registered Users Posts: 1,642 ✭✭✭Deco99


    That game is going to be low scoring, Bellechik doesnt do shootouts unless its suits. can see Jonas Gray gettin back involved


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #672
    TO.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,094 ✭✭✭TO.


    Deco99 wrote: »
    That game is going to be low scoring, Bellechik doesnt do shootouts unless its suits. can see Jonas Gray gettin back involved

    When it comes to certain teams realistically Bill has no control over the shootout. He will do what he always do to try shut it down but history tells us the Pats have had to enter into a shootout to win games. It will be a close affair most likely though.

    I think Blount will be a bigger factor than Gray to be honest. Both should see carries though as Bill will most likely try take control of the ground game. Expect power sets to start for the Pats offense. Then again Bill might go for the juggler right away. Who knows with him.


  • Options
    #673
    BigBadRob83
    Registered Users Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭BigBadRob83


    Just thought I'd throw this out there for consideration in the offseason.

    Don't understand the current structure of the leagues have 4 divisions of 4 in each league. I would have thought a single division of 16 teams would be fairer.

    In NFL division teams play each other multiple times, doesn't happen in fantasy so don't see the benefit of it.

    You can have teams in weak divisions getting into playoffs with a worse record than teams missing out in a stronger division. This has happened once or twice in some of the Boards leagues I was in, and will definitely be happening this year in Div 4, depending on results tonight possible the 'winner' of a division will have a losing record and could be 2 games worse than a guy who misses out. Entering the final week this division leader is ranked 8th out of 16.

    A single division of all 16 teams would seem the better option to me with the best 6 teams making the playoffs.

    Hasn't affected me personally so far (and won't this year), but thought it was worth bringing up as doesn't seem fair to guys who do much better during the year but miss out because of a randomly assigned division.


  • Options
    #674
    GoldFour4
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 4,969 Mod ✭✭✭✭GoldFour4


    BigBadRob83 wrote: »
    Just thought I'd throw this out there for consideration in the offseason.

    Don't understand the current structure of the leagues have 4 divisions of 4 in each league. I would have thought a single division of 16 teams would be fairer.

    In NFL division teams play each other multiple times, doesn't happen in fantasy so don't see the benefit of it.

    You can have teams in weak divisions getting into playoffs with a worse record than teams missing out in a stronger division. This has happened once or twice in some of the Boards leagues I was in, and will definitely be happening this year in Div 4, depending on results tonight possible the 'winner' of a division will have a losing record and could be 2 games worse than a guy who misses out. Entering the final week this division leader is ranked 8th out of 16.

    A single division of all 16 teams would seem the better option to me with the best 6 teams making the playoffs.

    Hasn't affected me personally so far (and won't this year), but thought it was worth bringing up as doesn't seem fair to guys who do much better during the year but miss out because of a randomly assigned division.

    Isn't that half the fun of it though? Look at the NFC South this year. it's not fair that a team with a winning record will miss out this year but such is life. It's just the luck of the game really.


  • Options
    #675
    BigBadRob83
    Registered Users Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭BigBadRob83


    malistheman wrote: »
    Isn't that half the fun of it though? Look at the NFC South this year. it's not fair that a team with a winning record will miss out this year but such is life. It's just the luck of the game really.

    Not sure watching an NFC South team get an undeserved home game and be demolished by a much superior 5 seed is going to be fun, but each to their own.

    Like I said, putting it out there for discussion. I think there's a better/fairer way to do it.
    Others might like it for the randomness, if that's what you're into.


  • Options
    #676
    D3PO
    Registered Users Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭D3PO


    ive been on the receiving end of missing the playoffs a few times with better records than those that have. That's football that's how the NFL operates so why should fantasy football be any different ?

    if you aint good enough to top a division then you cant complain about missing the playoffs, its nothing to do with randomness, what next why not put the 6 teams with the most points scored in and forget about records I mean that's random who you come up with each week and you may have been unlucky or lucky with matchups ...

    as for the NFC south champ being demolished by a #5 seed people said the same when the Seahawks made it in with 7-9 record, didn't stop them going and winning the wildcard round though.


  • Options
    #677
    Spongey1975
    Registered Users Posts: 1,849 ✭✭✭Spongey1975


    Fantasy football has never really been fair. its more about luck. Its luck that someone ends up in a division thats weak and sends a team to the playoffs with a losing record. I admit i'd be frustrated to lose out to a team with a weaker record but thats the way the NFL works and i'm very happy for fantasy to run the same way. Im also frustrated if i get the second highest fantasy score one week and lose the matchup but thats the luck of the draw


  • Options
    #678
    Dodge
    Registered Users Posts: 10,199 ✭✭✭✭Dodge


    Spongey1975 wrote: »
    Fantasy football has never really been fair. its more about luck. Its luck that someone ends up in a division thats weak and sends a team to the playoffs with a losing record. I admit i'd be frustrated to lose out to a team with a weaker record but thats the way the NFL works and i'm very happy for fantasy to run the same way. Im also frustrated if i get the second highest fantasy score one week and lose the matchup but thats the luck of the draw

    Agreed. It also helps keep more people active for longer as teams with OK may still be in with a chance to win their division

    (And I think I'll lose out this year to a division winner with a worse record than me, FWIW)


  • Options
    #679
    Adamcp898
    Registered Users Posts: 5,469 ✭✭✭Adamcp898


    Lads it's fantasy football, there's always going to be a huge amount of luck involved.

    In one of my leagues I have a roster that is easily one of the best if not the best in the league. But after this week I'll only be 6-7 because I started the year 1-7. Even at 1-5 I was the highest points scorer in the league but every week when one or two players "went off" I was the one facing them and couldn't buy a win. But it was just tough shìt.


  • Options
    #680
    JaMarcusHustle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭JaMarcusHustle


    D3PO wrote: »
    That's football that's how the NFL operates so why should fantasy football be any different ?

    So you are in favour of a "worst = first" waiver wire order then, despite opposing it last week? :confused:


  • Options
    #681
    D3PO
    Registered Users Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭D3PO


    JaMarcusHustle wrote: »
    So you are in favour of a "worst = first" waiver wire order then, despite opposing it last week? :confused:

    why are you putting words in my mouth. this is about a divisional setup nothing to do with waiver priority which I made my feelings clear on last week, but if you want to take things I say literally to try and be smart then why not propose a 53 man roster and an 8 man practice squad in fantasy then sigh.

    but to appease you then Im in favour of a format that loosely follows the NFL format in fantasy football. Better ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #682
    JaMarcusHustle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭JaMarcusHustle


    D3PO wrote: »
    why are you putting words in my mouth. this is about a divisional setup nothing to do with waiver priority which I made my feelings clear on last week, but if you want to take things I say literally to try and be smart then why not propose a 53 man roster and an 8 man practice squad in fantasy then sigh.

    but to appease you then Im in favour of a format that loosely follows the NFL format in fantasy football. Better ?

    Relax, I'm not trying to be smart or confrontational at all. It just found it odd how you were against revisiting how waiver wires were structured when eagle eye proposed that they be put in line with how the NFL works and I agreed, and then a few days later you were saying Fantasy Football should work how the NFL works. It was a reasonable deduction for me to make that if your view on divisions and standings was "that's football, that's how the NFL operates, why should fantasy football be any different?" that you should adopt a similar approach to waivers rather than a cherry-picking approach.

    But yes, you have appeased me by clearing up what you actually meant so no problem here.


  • Options
    #683
    Realt Dearg Sec
    Registered Users Posts: 10,838 ✭✭✭✭Realt Dearg Sec


    My favourite bit in FF is when the playoffs start and someone starts whinging about how they didn't make it but others who had a worse record did. Their little childish tantrum on the discussion thread is always a giggle. For that reason (and as I'm second in my division despite having a record that would put me in last in any other division in the league, and with one of the worst "points for" stats in the league, I anticipate more giggling this year) I would be hugely opposed to any change in format.

    EDIT: Looking at the playoff picture I will probably still finish outside of the playoffs after this week is over. I think it's a ridiculous system and the whole thing needs to be overhauled in such a way that next year in these exact circumstances I would still somehow have sneaked into the playoffs. It's a travesty that someone like me with a 6-7 record and a terrible points-for record can be excluded while someone who finished third in their division but with a way better record than me is allowed through. Change it! Change it!


  • Options
    #684
    Tristram
    Registered Users Posts: 3,589 ✭✭✭Tristram


    If there was a proposal to abolish the current division structure I'd support it.

    If there was a proposal to change the waiver wire to a worst-first system I'd support it.

    If there was a proposal to reduce the benches by one spot I'd support it.

    I'd support these changes not for reasons of fairness or to be similar to the NFL but because I think they would make our leagues even more fun. But I'm still going to enjoy playing if they don't change.


  • Options
    #685
    BizzyC
    Registered Users Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭BizzyC


    what i dont get about the division layout is that you dont play your division rivals much.

    I've only had one divisional game this year.
    If we played all of our division rivals with the rest made up from around the league, a la nfl, I'd be more in favour, but at the moment it's just random.

    I'd be in favour of a 2x8 or 1x16 move.


  • Options
    #686
    BKWDR
    Registered Users Posts: 2,172 ✭✭✭BKWDR


    This weeks toughie...

    Tannehill Vs Ravens

    Or

    Kaep @ Oakland

    I think Oakland are down and for the count, might be a better situation and it's kinda make or break for the 9ers


  • Options
    #687
    Realt Dearg Sec
    Registered Users Posts: 10,838 ✭✭✭✭Realt Dearg Sec


    BKWDR wrote: »
    This weeks toughie...

    Tannehill Vs Ravens

    Or

    Kaep @ Oakland

    I think Oakland are down and for the count, might be a better situation and it's kinda make or break for the 9ers

    You'll never go broke betting against the raiders. I dropped the Broncos d last week for the rams, I was not disappointed.


  • Options
    #688
    JaMarcusHustle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,719 ✭✭✭JaMarcusHustle


    There’s been some discussion lately about how the divisions seem to be a bit pointless seeing as you don’t always play the people in your division due to the schedule being randomized. So rather than switch to a 16 team division, why don’t we just fix the scheduling instead? Easiest way to do this is just to copy the current conference model, except over 13 games rather than 16. Example:

    6 games: 2 games vs each division rival – ideally your first 3 games and last 3 games of the season to make things interesting.

    3 games: Versus those who finished in the same position in their division that you did last year, i.e. if you won your division, then you play the 3 teams who also won their divisions.

    3 games: Matched up with one of the other divisions, you play the remaining team you haven’t faced above (you’ll have already faced one of them as they finished in the same position you did)

    1 game: One random game against a team that doesn’t fall into your schedule above.

    The best thing about this it creates a bit of divisional rivalry, and mirrors how the NFL conferences work to an extent. I think it would be far more interesting and fun. An example of this using current NFL AFC teams:

    QNujPBY.jpg

    The downside is that the GMs will have to manually set the schedule, but the beauty of this is the above spreadsheet is all formula driven. So the hard work is done, all you have to is input the team names on the side and it will generate the schedule for you. As for the teams that get relegated, simply replace them with their counterparts who are getting promoted.

    Would there be any support for such a system?


  • Options
    #689
    Guffy
    Registered Users Posts: 8,042 ✭✭✭Guffy


    That's brilliant jemarcus I was wondering how something like that would work. Wat about the promotion and relegation though?


  • Options
    #690
    BizzyC
    Registered Users Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭BizzyC


    That system would be too complicated to implement. GM's still need to insert all of those fixtures into the system.

    I'd just prefer to see you play all division rivals once a season at least.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #691
    Raoul
    Registered Users Posts: 7,699 ✭✭✭Raoul


    Great idea but would the gms be up for all that extra work?


Advertisement