The FOFC Keeper League 2013 - Page 3

JAG · 07-25-2013, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Trade to announce.

The Team Formerly Known as Blue Feltvet is sending:

RB Marshawn Lynch
WR Ty Hilton

to the Touchdown Mafia for:

RB Jamaal Charles

Nice deal for spleen in my opinion. Chief, what did Lynch ever do to make you hate him so?

I'll try to update the first post tonight as there have been quite a few changes as a result of the trades.

Chief Rum · 07-25-2013, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAG

Nice deal for spleen in my opinion. Chief, what did Lynch ever do to make you hate him so?

I'll try to update the first post tonight as there have been quite a few changes as a result of the trades.

We'll see. I think it's a deal that works for both of us.

I wasn't keeping Hilton, so anything I got for him was a bonus.

As for Lynch, he has a lot of wear and tear on him. I think he's due for a decline, and plus he has Turbin and Michael now behind him.

Charles has his injury issues, but he also has less mileage and his backups aren't serious threats to his playing time.

I was fine keeping Lynch if it came to it, but I felt I needed to upgrade there.

Julio Riddols · 07-25-2013, 01:01 PM

Not to mention the safety valve/ frequent target Charles provides in the pass game. I think he will play the role of LeSean McCoy in this offense.

Danny · 07-25-2013, 02:31 PM

I personally would take Charles over lynch but they are close

Lathum · 07-25-2013, 02:32 PM

keep in mind you get bonus point for long TDs and Charles is usually good for a few of those.

spleen1015 · 07-25-2013, 03:03 PM

I don't typically trade in fantasy football. I wasn't going to make this deal initially, but decided to give it a shot since Hilton is a rookie keeper and he is projected to be a top 30 WR by the source that I use.

samifan24 · 07-25-2013, 09:19 PM

Just to clarify anyone I acquire in a deal can be kept for this coming season and two more seasons, right? His keeper clock resets as soon as he hits my roster, right?

JAG · 07-25-2013, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samifan24

Just to clarify anyone I acquire in a deal can be kept for this coming season and two more seasons, right? His keeper clock resets as soon as he hits my roster, right?

Correct.

Lathum · 07-26-2013, 05:34 AM

I still haven't received cmgdodgers email.

has he been around much?

Lathum · 07-26-2013, 04:34 PM

OK, got CMGDodgers and CR invited. Schedule is posted, feel free to introduce any rules proposals, make any deals, etc...

PackerFanatic · 07-26-2013, 11:56 PM

For reference - our two proposals currently on the table are:

-Changing the playoff format: these were the suggestions that JAG had posted/gathered earlier

Top 6 teams overall (by record) make the playoffs --- In this case, in my opinion there would be no reason to have divisions (which is fine if that's what's preferred) and we can run a single division with everyone. Everyone would then play every other team and the extra two games would be adjusted based on order of finish last season.
Top 4-5 teams overall (by record) and top 1-2 teams by total points make the playoffs --- Prevents a team or two from missing the playoffs by having awful luck with match ups though otherwise scoring well for the season. Could do this either keeping divisions or making a single division.
Same system as last year (top 3 teams from each division make the playoffs)
Two division system, division winners gets bye week Week 14, top 4 teams after that regardless of division make playoffs.

-Adding TE position: there were a few suggestions as to how it should work, but we might want to consolidate those options here. My suggestion was:

QB
RB
RB/WR
WR
WR
TE

Anyone who had a thought for the playoff format and/or for how the TE could be added, post it and I can edit this post to keep track. That way we have something to vote for.

I don't think there were any other proposals out there yet, unless I missed something.

Lathum · 07-27-2013, 05:22 AM

I like PFs roster proposal. I would ad to the rule that a TE can be a keeper in place of a WR only.

I like #4 for playoff format. I am not a fan of using points at all. I think a win should just be a win.

JAG · 07-27-2013, 08:34 AM

For proposal #1, the only two that got much traction were to keep it the way it is or use your suggestion (#4 in your list above). For simplicity's sake, I would say make the vote a yes/no to that change.

For proposal #2, I would suggest we do a yes/no to adding a tight end as a mandatory position. Whether you vote yes or no, you would still vote on how we should implement it in case "yes" wins:

A. QB - RB - WR - WR - flex (RB/WR) - TE
B. QB - RB - WR - WR - flex (RB/WR) - flex (WR/TE) - TE

Those two appeared to have the most support and both are closest in configuration to what we've used previously. You still have the option to keep a TE in place of a WR as we have always had.

spleen1015 · 07-27-2013, 09:01 AM

Proposal #1 - Yes

Proposal #2 - Yes, Option A

Lathum · 07-27-2013, 09:23 AM

Proposal #1 - Yes

Proposal #2 - Yes, Option B

Julio Riddols · 07-27-2013, 10:04 AM

I think if the RB/WR spot could be RB/WR/TE that would be nice. Lots of teams using 2 TE now, this would give us the same flexibility. You could go 2 RB 2 WR 1 TE, 1 RB 2 WR 2 TE, or 1 RB 3 WR 1 TE, which would be a pretty accurate reflection of real NFL offenses these days.

For clarity, that would be

QB
RB
RB/WR/TE
WR
WR
TE

Julio Riddols · 07-27-2013, 10:06 AM

For the playoffs, I like option 4.

spleen1015 · 07-27-2013, 11:32 AM

I think part of the discussion around Proposal 2, option B needs to be about the fact that it will be adding another roster position. Do we add another bench spot? Reduce the number of bench spots?

Something to think about.

cmgdodgers · 07-27-2013, 04:56 PM

#1 - Yes
#2 - Option B
Keep same bench spots

Danny · 07-27-2013, 05:07 PM

Chief you want grok instead of harvin? Lt me know and we can put trade through in site

samifan24 · 07-27-2013, 07:35 PM

#1- Yes (option 4)
#2- Yes (option B)

MollyMurphy · 07-28-2013, 06:09 AM

Proposal #1 - Yes

Proposal #2 - Yes, Option B

ntndeacon · 07-28-2013, 01:29 PM

Proposal 1 Yes Option 4
Proposal #2 Yes Option Riddols... if not that option A

Chief Rum · 07-28-2013, 01:33 PM

Sorry for the wait. I'm all joined up now at Flea Flicker.

Chief Rum · 07-28-2013, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danny

Chief you want grok instead of harvin? Lt me know and we can put trade through in site

Not sure yet. I'm waiting to see how this second opinion goes on what Harvin is dealing with and how long they expect him to be out.

Thanks for the offer, though. I'll get back to you before we do keepers for final.

Chief Rum · 07-28-2013, 01:40 PM

Proposal #1: Yes

Proposal #2: Option B

PackerFanatic · 07-28-2013, 01:59 PM

Proposal #1: Yes
Proposal #2: Yes, Option A

Danny · 07-28-2013, 03:25 PM

Prop 1: Yes
Prop 2: Option B

I think option B is more fitting of todays nfl

Chief Rum · 07-30-2013, 12:13 PM

Was yesterday the voting cutoff?

Chief Rum · 07-31-2013, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danny

Chief you want grok instead of harvin? Lt me know and we can put trade through in site

This offer still good? Now that Harvin has officially announced he is going under the knife, I would be happy to switch him out for Gronk at this point.

Danny · 07-31-2013, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

This offer still good? Now that Harvin has officially announced he is going under the knife, I would be happy to switch him out for Gronk at this point.

Yeah, that sucked, so I can switch in Gronk.

Danny · 07-31-2013, 04:21 PM

I actually have a separate offer for you

JAG · 08-01-2013, 06:44 AM

Proposal 1 (Change playoff seeding) voting to date:

Yes (10)
No (0)

Proposal 1 PASSES, the playoff section of the rules will change from:

1. The top three seeds from each division are selected for the playoffs.

to:

2. Each season six teams make the playoffs. The two division winners each receive a bye week in week 14. The remaining four playoff spots are determined in order of which teams have the best record and seeded accordingly.

Proposal 2 (Mandatory TE position) voting

Yes: (10)
No: (0)

Proposal 2 PASSES, there will be a TE only position added to starting lineups this year. Individual votes for systems:

Proposal 2A (RB/WR-WR-WR-TE) - 2.5 (spleen, Packer) also ntn as 2nd choice
Proposal 2B (RB/WR-WR-WR-WR/TE-TE) - 6 (Danny, Chief Rum, MollyMurphy, cmgdodgers, samifan24, Lathum)
Proposal 2Riddols (RB/WR/TE-WR-WR-TE) 2 (Julio, ntn)

I'm adding my support to Proposal 2B to give it the 7/12 majority. Basically we will just be adding a TE to starting lineups with no other change to the current starting lineups we have used previously.

spleen brought up a good point regarding that this adds an extra player to our rosters. Do we want to change bench sizes to 5 to keep roster sizes similar to last season? A 7th spot to give more room for a TE2 due to the starting lineup change? Keep them the same for continuity's sake?

To this point, only cmgdodgers has provided an opinion. I don't know that we need a formal vote on this (yet), but please give an opinion on how you would like to handle this.

Lathum · 08-01-2013, 06:59 AM

I am open to expanding the rosters by one. I like the added flexibility it gives

Danny · 08-01-2013, 06:59 AM

I vote for one additional bench spot, so overall there our roster size should be increaed by 2, the additional starting TE, and a bench spot.

PackerFanatic · 08-01-2013, 09:03 AM

I vote for just adding the TE spot, no bench spot. Adds a little strategy in terms of bench players.

Julio Riddols · 08-01-2013, 10:45 AM

I'm fine either way, but don't think expanding the bench is necessary.

Chief Rum · 08-01-2013, 11:15 AM

I am for adding one bench spot.

JAG · 08-01-2013, 11:32 AM

3 - Add 1 bench slot - Danny, Lathum, Chief Rum
1 - No change - PackerFanatic
0 - Remove 1 bench slot -
1 - Any - Julio Riddols

samifan24 · 08-01-2013, 04:59 PM

I vote to add a bench spot.

spleen1015 · 08-01-2013, 09:23 PM

Add a bench spot

MollyMurphy · 08-02-2013, 05:48 AM

I vote for bench spot

ntndeacon · 08-02-2013, 10:25 AM

add a bench place

Lathum · 08-05-2013, 07:08 AM

OK Guys, keepers due today per the schedule.
We have some flexibility with this since we pushed back the draft, but lets try and get them in so people can prep their draft strategy.

Lathum · 08-05-2013, 07:11 AM

Lathums Keepers

QB- Aaron Rodgers
RB- Steven Jackson
WR- Demarius Thomas
Rookie- Justin Tucker- K

Danny · 08-05-2013, 08:03 AM

QB Tony Romo
RB Arian Foster
WR Larry Fitzgerald
Rookie Justin Blackmon

spleen1015 · 08-05-2013, 08:33 AM

Touchdown Mafia Keepers

QB - Peyton Manning
RB - Marshawn Lynch
WR - Victor Cruz
Rookie - T.Y. Hilton

PackerFanatic · 08-05-2013, 08:55 AM

QB Eli Manning
RB Chris Johnson
WR James Jones
Rookie - QB Andrew Luck

Chief Rum · 08-05-2013, 10:46 AM

Hammersmith Hooligans Keepers

QB Colin Kapernick
RB Jamaal Charles
WR/TE Rob Gronkowski*
Rookie RB Alfred Morris

*--technically, Danny and I have not done this trade yet in Flea Flickers. I'll get the offer over today, so he can accept.

MollyMurphy · 08-05-2013, 10:57 AM

QB- Stafford
WR-Jones
RB Peterson
Rookie- Turbin

07-25-2013, 01:01 PM	#103
Julio Riddols College Prospect Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Bryson Shitty, NC	Not to mention the safety valve/ frequent target Charles provides in the pass game. I think he will play the role of LeSean McCoy in this offense. __________________ Recklessly enthused, stubbornly amused. FUCK EA

07-25-2013, 03:03 PM	#106
spleen1015 Coordinator Join Date: Sep 2003	I don't typically trade in fantasy football. I wasn't going to make this deal initially, but decided to give it a shot since Hilton is a rookie keeper and he is projected to be a top 30 WR by the source that I use. __________________ Why choose failure when success is an option?

07-25-2013, 09:19 PM	#107
samifan24 Pro Starter Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: NC	Just to clarify anyone I acquire in a deal can be kept for this coming season and two more seasons, right? His keeper clock resets as soon as he hits my roster, right? __________________ "You spend a good piece of your life gripping a baseball...and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time." -Jim Bouton

07-26-2013, 11:56 PM	#111
PackerFanatic Pro Starter Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Appleton, WI	For reference - our two proposals currently on the table are: -Changing the playoff format: these were the suggestions that JAG had posted/gathered earlier Top 6 teams overall (by record) make the playoffs --- In this case, in my opinion there would be no reason to have divisions (which is fine if that's what's preferred) and we can run a single division with everyone. Everyone would then play every other team and the extra two games would be adjusted based on order of finish last season. Top 4-5 teams overall (by record) and top 1-2 teams by total points make the playoffs --- Prevents a team or two from missing the playoffs by having awful luck with match ups though otherwise scoring well for the season. Could do this either keeping divisions or making a single division. Same system as last year (top 3 teams from each division make the playoffs) Two division system, division winners gets bye week Week 14, top 4 teams after that regardless of division make playoffs. -Adding TE position: there were a few suggestions as to how it should work, but we might want to consolidate those options here. My suggestion was: QB RB RB/WR WR WR TE Anyone who had a thought for the playoff format and/or for how the TE could be added, post it and I can edit this post to keep track. That way we have something to vote for. I don't think there were any other proposals out there yet, unless I missed something. __________________ Commissioner of the RNFL Last edited by PackerFanatic : 07-26-2013 at 11:57 PM. Reason: changed post formatting

07-27-2013, 09:01 AM	#114
spleen1015 Coordinator Join Date: Sep 2003	Proposal #1 - Yes Proposal #2 - Yes, Option A __________________ Why choose failure when success is an option?

07-25-2013, 02:31 PM	#104
Danny Head Coach Join Date: Jul 2001	I personally would take Charles over lynch but they are close

07-25-2013, 02:32 PM	#105
Lathum Favored Bitch #1 Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: homeless in NJ	keep in mind you get bonus point for long TDs and Charles is usually good for a few of those.

07-26-2013, 05:34 AM	#109
Lathum Favored Bitch #1 Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: homeless in NJ	I still haven't received cmgdodgers email. has he been around much?

07-26-2013, 04:34 PM	#110
Lathum Favored Bitch #1 Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: homeless in NJ	OK, got CMGDodgers and CR invited. Schedule is posted, feel free to introduce any rules proposals, make any deals, etc...

07-27-2013, 05:22 AM	#112
Lathum Favored Bitch #1 Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: homeless in NJ	I like PFs roster proposal. I would ad to the rule that a TE can be a keeper in place of a WR only. I like #4 for playoff format. I am not a fan of using points at all. I think a win should just be a win.

07-27-2013, 08:34 AM	#113
JAG Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: St. Paul, MN	For proposal #1, the only two that got much traction were to keep it the way it is or use your suggestion (#4 in your list above). For simplicity's sake, I would say make the vote a yes/no to that change. For proposal #2, I would suggest we do a yes/no to adding a tight end as a mandatory position. Whether you vote yes or no, you would still vote on how we should implement it in case "yes" wins: A. QB - RB - WR - WR - flex (RB/WR) - TE B. QB - RB - WR - WR - flex (RB/WR) - flex (WR/TE) - TE Those two appeared to have the most support and both are closest in configuration to what we've used previously. You still have the option to keep a TE in place of a WR as we have always had.

07-27-2013, 09:23 AM	#115
Lathum Favored Bitch #1 Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: homeless in NJ	Proposal #1 - Yes Proposal #2 - Yes, Option B

07-27-2013, 10:04 AM	#116
Julio Riddols College Prospect Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Bryson Shitty, NC	I think if the RB/WR spot could be RB/WR/TE that would be nice. Lots of teams using 2 TE now, this would give us the same flexibility. You could go 2 RB 2 WR 1 TE, 1 RB 2 WR 2 TE, or 1 RB 3 WR 1 TE, which would be a pretty accurate reflection of real NFL offenses these days. For clarity, that would be QB RB RB/WR/TE WR WR TE __________________ Recklessly enthused, stubbornly amused. FUCK EA Last edited by Julio Riddols : 07-27-2013 at 10:09 AM.

07-27-2013, 10:06 AM	#117
Julio Riddols College Prospect Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Bryson Shitty, NC	For the playoffs, I like option 4. __________________ Recklessly enthused, stubbornly amused. FUCK EA

07-27-2013, 11:32 AM	#118
spleen1015 Coordinator Join Date: Sep 2003	I think part of the discussion around Proposal 2, option B needs to be about the fact that it will be adding another roster position. Do we add another bench spot? Reduce the number of bench spots? Something to think about. __________________ Why choose failure when success is an option?

07-27-2013, 04:56 PM	#119
cmgdodgers High School JV Join Date: Jun 2004	#1 - Yes #2 - Option B Keep same bench spots

07-27-2013, 05:07 PM	#120
Danny Head Coach Join Date: Jul 2001	Chief you want grok instead of harvin? Lt me know and we can put trade through in site

07-27-2013, 07:35 PM	#121
samifan24 Pro Starter Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: NC	#1- Yes (option 4) #2- Yes (option B) __________________ "You spend a good piece of your life gripping a baseball...and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time." -Jim Bouton

07-28-2013, 06:09 AM	#122
MollyMurphy Mascot Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Seattle	Proposal #1 - Yes Proposal #2 - Yes, Option B

07-28-2013, 01:29 PM	#123
ntndeacon Pro Starter Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Alabama	Proposal 1 Yes Option 4 Proposal #2 Yes Option Riddols... if not that option A __________________ Up the Posh!

07-28-2013, 01:33 PM	#124
Chief Rum Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Where Hip Hop lives	Sorry for the wait. I'm all joined up now at Flea Flicker. __________________ . . I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready.

07-28-2013, 01:40 PM	#126
Chief Rum Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Where Hip Hop lives	Proposal #1: Yes Proposal #2: Option B __________________ . . I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready.

07-28-2013, 01:59 PM	#127
PackerFanatic Pro Starter Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Appleton, WI	Proposal #1: Yes Proposal #2: Yes, Option A __________________ Commissioner of the RNFL Last edited by PackerFanatic : 07-28-2013 at 01:59 PM.

07-28-2013, 03:25 PM	#128
Danny Head Coach Join Date: Jul 2001	Prop 1: Yes Prop 2: Option B I think option B is more fitting of todays nfl

07-30-2013, 12:13 PM	#129
Chief Rum Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Where Hip Hop lives	Was yesterday the voting cutoff? __________________ . . I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready.

07-31-2013, 04:21 PM	#132
Danny Head Coach Join Date: Jul 2001	I actually have a separate offer for you

08-01-2013, 06:44 AM	#133
JAG Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: St. Paul, MN	Proposal 1 (Change playoff seeding) voting to date: Yes (10) No (0) Proposal 1 PASSES, the playoff section of the rules will change from: 1. The top three seeds from each division are selected for the playoffs. to: 2. Each season six teams make the playoffs. The two division winners each receive a bye week in week 14. The remaining four playoff spots are determined in order of which teams have the best record and seeded accordingly. Proposal 2 (Mandatory TE position) voting Yes: (10) No: (0) Proposal 2 PASSES, there will be a TE only position added to starting lineups this year. Individual votes for systems: Proposal 2A (RB/WR-WR-WR-TE) - 2.5 (spleen, Packer) also ntn as 2nd choice Proposal 2B (RB/WR-WR-WR-WR/TE-TE) - 6 (Danny, Chief Rum, MollyMurphy, cmgdodgers, samifan24, Lathum) Proposal 2Riddols (RB/WR/TE-WR-WR-TE) 2 (Julio, ntn) I'm adding my support to Proposal 2B to give it the 7/12 majority. Basically we will just be adding a TE to starting lineups with no other change to the current starting lineups we have used previously. spleen brought up a good point regarding that this adds an extra player to our rosters. Do we want to change bench sizes to 5 to keep roster sizes similar to last season? A 7th spot to give more room for a TE2 due to the starting lineup change? Keep them the same for continuity's sake? To this point, only cmgdodgers has provided an opinion. I don't know that we need a formal vote on this (yet), but please give an opinion on how you would like to handle this.

08-01-2013, 06:59 AM	#134
Lathum Favored Bitch #1 Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: homeless in NJ	I am open to expanding the rosters by one. I like the added flexibility it gives

08-01-2013, 06:59 AM	#135
Danny Head Coach Join Date: Jul 2001	I vote for one additional bench spot, so overall there our roster size should be increaed by 2, the additional starting TE, and a bench spot.

08-01-2013, 09:03 AM	#136
PackerFanatic Pro Starter Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Appleton, WI	I vote for just adding the TE spot, no bench spot. Adds a little strategy in terms of bench players. __________________ Commissioner of the RNFL

08-01-2013, 10:45 AM	#137
Julio Riddols College Prospect Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Bryson Shitty, NC	I'm fine either way, but don't think expanding the bench is necessary. __________________ Recklessly enthused, stubbornly amused. FUCK EA

08-01-2013, 11:15 AM	#138
Chief Rum Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Where Hip Hop lives	I am for adding one bench spot. __________________ . . I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready.

08-01-2013, 11:32 AM	#139
JAG Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: St. Paul, MN	3 - Add 1 bench slot - Danny, Lathum, Chief Rum 1 - No change - PackerFanatic 0 - Remove 1 bench slot - 1 - Any - Julio Riddols

08-01-2013, 04:59 PM	#140
samifan24 Pro Starter Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: NC	I vote to add a bench spot. __________________ "You spend a good piece of your life gripping a baseball...and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time." -Jim Bouton

08-01-2013, 09:23 PM	#141
spleen1015 Coordinator Join Date: Sep 2003	Add a bench spot __________________ Why choose failure when success is an option?