TwinkieGorilla
This ghoul has seen it all
dude.
Dickerson was awesome. don't be stupid.
Dickerson was awesome. don't be stupid.
NMA Fantasy Football
- Thread starter TwinkieGorilla
- Start date
This ghoul has seen it all
Cimmerian Nights
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Who, this clown?
He couldn't hold Earl Campbell's jock.
He couldn't hold Earl Campbell's jock.
Cimmerian Nights said:
So, essentially, you hate it when "stat padders" get overrated without having ever won anything, and you hate it when these guys who never won anything don't get a fair shake.
Your whole system does seem to hinge a bit on "when I say someone is awesome, he's awesome, otherwise he isn't"
PS: Dickerson was a clown but a great RB. Being a clown doesn't change that. Just ask Randy Moss, who - one should note - also has never won a Superbowl.
Cimmerian Nights said:
Right. So it wasn't a defensive meltdown? How could they not tackle Manning, there were like three guys on 'em? How hard can it be to strip the ball from a guy holding it to his helmet? Where was the coverage?
Don't you even see how silly you're being? How is this play flukier than Givens failing to put his hands up, or McNair falling one yard short? What's the dividing line between choking and fluking? Does Brady's incapability to come back in the Colts-Pats game prior to the Colts Superbowl count as choking?
TwinkieGorilla
This ghoul has seen it all
Brother None said:
nah. he's doing this whole blue-collar yankee sports fan thing. i do it too a lot. it's where your view skews everything you see. eventually you take it so far that you even hate the hot-dogs they sell in the stadium.
hehe. but i do see Cinnabon's point, that FF could pose a bad learning curve to n00bs because while they'll be paying tons of attention to who looks like the greatest performer on paper they might be missing out on the intricacies which might not be so obvious. like, ok...by the end of the year Ryan Grant was what? top 10-20 RB as far as rushing yards. now that might seem like he was a real help to a FF team (he wasn't) but when you get a bit deeper into the situation you learn that his yards per carry were pretty low, and that his accumulated yards were helped by the millions of times McCarthy tried to give Rodgers a fucking break because our offensive line seemed to built out of the players' grandmothers. now, i could probably dissect this single, simple situation even further...and it's pretty essential if you're not just a casual fan who thinks the games are fun, but a n00b isn't going to catch all this in his first year anyway. like i always say, i've been watching the game my entire life and there's STILL shit that i'm learning, and STILL shit which blows my mind.
Cimmerian Nights
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Stats don't tell the whole story, nor do rings, wins, "Heart", character, aggressiveness whatever it's the sum of all those.Brother None said:
Yet!
Dickerson had like 2 great years, he didn't know when to quit though and his career dragged on lackluster and injured for too long. If he had retired at his peak maybe we'd talk about him like Jim Brown and Barry Sanders. He wore out his welcome, nobody likes delicate old HBs who don't know when it's time to make room for the fresh legs. Good riddance Eric Dickerson. You're a borken down halfback, not a Supreme Court Justice, move along now.
Consistency, consistency, consistency.Cimmerian Nights said:
.824 playoff win pct. 3 of 4 in Super Bowls. What do you want, they're not robots. You're holding them to an unrealistic standard that nobody has ever come near.
And I give the Giants credit, they played their asses off and had an awesome gameplan with the inside rush there.
C'mon dude, that was one of the greatest plays in SB history. And go back and watch it, Harrison couldn't have done anything more. The kid made a spectacular catch.
A consistant pattern of one or the other. Not a single instance of one. Payton Manning gets let off the hook for all his flops for outshooting Rex Grossman in the Super Bowl? Brady is trash because he can't win every game he plays?
Does it establish or contribute to a pattern or was it an aberration in an otherwise stellar career? I guess time will tell from here forward, but up to this point, his record speaks for itself.
TwinkieGorilla
This ghoul has seen it all
*FUCKING SIGH*
Cimmerian Nights
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Shouldn't you be milking a cow or churning some butter or something?
TwinkieGorilla
This ghoul has seen it all
heh. i grew up in a city...never lived anywhere which couldn't be considered urban. and also...shouldn't you be learning how to tuck a shirt in properly?
Cimmerian Nights said:
Frith on the Moon. There really is a conspiracy out there to get me to hate the Pats, isn't there? What'd I do wrong? Why am I not allowed to like the Pats without whiny little snivelling Pat Patriot-clones hammering on me with their annoying arrogance and irrational self-assuredness? WHAT DID I DO WRONG?!
Cimmerian Nights said:
No, but he has a post-season win ratio of 7 out of 15, with a QBrating of 84.6. That's not too different from, say, Brett Favre, who is 12 out of 22 with a rating of 85.2. Or your rentboy, Philip Rivers, who is what, 3 for 7? 3 for 6? Not above 50%, anyway.
There's nothing to objectively separate these guys into heart and non-heart. You can keep screaming your opinion, but you're too obviously biased for me to take you very seriously, and you're not even arguing consistently. Who cares what kind of team the Colts went up against in the Super Bowl, they have the ring, so by definition they do not show a consistent pattern of flopping. Duh?
Anyway, this is a fantasy thread. I declare I have the last word because I know that'll annoy you (and you're a Pats-fan, so you have it coming), and go back to fantasy heretofore. No meta-discussions please. At least not long ones.
[PCE]el_Prez
Vault Fossil
I don't like having any IDPs. They score too randomly, you can't really predict who's going to have a 10 tackle game, or who's going to get an interception and take it to the house. Takes the strategy out of FF and injects more luck.
Let's say I make a genius move by sitting Kurt Warner and playing Shaun Hill. The decision pays off and Hill has 10 more fantasy points than Warner that week. But you happen to be playing against someone who has Troy Palumalu who forces, and recovers a fumble at the goal line and scoops it - taking it 99 yards for a TD. Now your Genius move is moot because someone got lucky as Palumalu made a miraculous 11 point play.
Let's say I make a genius move by sitting Kurt Warner and playing Shaun Hill. The decision pays off and Hill has 10 more fantasy points than Warner that week. But you happen to be playing against someone who has Troy Palumalu who forces, and recovers a fumble at the goal line and scoops it - taking it 99 yards for a TD. Now your Genius move is moot because someone got lucky as Palumalu made a miraculous 11 point play.
TwinkieGorilla
This ghoul has seen it all
's a good point. i mean, really...i only have one year under my belt with FF so i can't say what i like better. it is a bit more abstract though when it comes to interceptions, fumble recoveries, defensive TD's, etc. so i can see leaving that out.
Why would the first decision be a genius move and the second pure luck?[PCE said:
The fact that something doesn't happen frequently doesn't really mean that there's more luck. It's just another factor you need to incorporate. If something happens 1% of the time but has a high payoff, versus something else that happens 80% of the time but has a low payoff, that's just a factor you have to weigh.
Now I don't know enough of the details to say whether or not IDPs are unfair, but the idea that they are inherently more lucky just because they depend on low-frequency/high result plays seems faulty tome.
Also, competitive team sports thrive on luck. It's what makes it attractive.
TwinkieGorilla
This ghoul has seen it all
um....sander? i know how you like to think you inherently understand fucking EVERYTHING...but you don't. sometime, you should try being willing to just observe and learn. your post, imo, should have ended after the first sentence. as a genuine question.
because it DOES make sense, in the context of Football & Fantasy football.
because it DOES make sense, in the context of Football & Fantasy football.
I don't inherently understand everything, but Prez' complaint that it was more lucky because there's a rare event possibility seems weird to me. Which is why I framed it with a question, and then expanded on what seemed faulty from his previous explanation. The fact that it seems weird to me probably has something to do with my poker playing and hence very overt encountering of luck on a very frequent basis. I think in terms of expected value and randomness as simply a factor you need to incorporate in these situations.TwinkieStabllis said:
You know, instead of bitching at me you could have tried to explain it.
But from looking at IDP's more, it seems the major complaint is that defensive players are generally more interchangeable than offensive players, which would be why focusing on individuals rather than the team defense would increase the luck factor.
I mostly had issues with Prez' example as it wasn't very convincing to me as it focused on one player doing something freaky and getting rewarded for that, which is perfectly fine within Fantasy Football for as far as I know: freaky plays are part of the game.
But I get what he was trying to say now, I think.
I have no preference either way.
TwinkieGorilla
This ghoul has seen it all
Sander said:
yeah well, it looked like you were TELLING him and not genuinely asking a question. ok then, let my try to explain. because i'm not sure i'll get my point across due to the tedious complexity.
ok, in FF your most prized possessions are your Running Backs, your Quarterbacks and your Wide Receivers. these guys are the point whores. RB's because they get tons of yards and tons of TD points. TD points are worth the most. QB's and WR's get touchdowns too, but RB's can get passed to and score and run for a score...all while racking up (hopefully tons of yards).
so the majority of your strategizing comes from knowing who each of your players are up against each week. you focus on your RB first. does the opposing team have a strong or weak pass rush? if strong, your RB's team is more likely to run the ball more often. how are they ranked as DB's for pass coverage and by the same token...how are they ranked as a D against the run? your RB is more effective as a scat-back? a power back? or a combination of the two? does he like to run up the middle? if so, who's at nose tackle on the opposing team?
see what i'm getting at? this is just a broad view. now...with defensive points it's pretty esoteric and abstract because you've got guys who specialize in specific things. let's say you've got a great safety like Polamalu or a cornerback like Charles Woodson. both are pretty intense playmakers but their primary job is to cover the pass or break up a play. it's not to score, strip the ball or intercept. these are all things in which they'd certainly LIKE to do, but it is not their primary job. i mean...shit, any asshole could accidentally force a fumble, kick the ball, some other fat linebacker picks it up and runs it in for a touchdown. having that fat linebacker who maybe never made such a play previously in his career wasn't a genius move, it was just dumb luck.
for offensive players, the players you spend your best draft points on, it IS their primary job. it's just not fun, imo, to account for dumb luck in the context of a strategy game. you want to win because you planned well, not because your defense had a batshit crazy day. i think it's just best to use the DEF as a factor, and not the single players.
make sense?
I like how my ninja edit made most of your post irrelevant.
But yeah, I get it. I don't entirely agree with the reasoning (again, my poker background probably), as lucky plays are simply things that happen.
But with IDP's these lucky plays become much more influential than with Team Defense. Team Defense would still allocate points for the lucky play, but you wouldn't have to have the lucky bastard who managed to accidentally pick up the ball in your team to get rewarded.
But yeah, I get it. I don't entirely agree with the reasoning (again, my poker background probably), as lucky plays are simply things that happen.
But with IDP's these lucky plays become much more influential than with Team Defense. Team Defense would still allocate points for the lucky play, but you wouldn't have to have the lucky bastard who managed to accidentally pick up the ball in your team to get rewarded.
TwinkieGorilla
This ghoul has seen it all
Sander said:
yes, exactly! and if your DEF is good, they're good. sometimes lucky maybe, but if yr D is good they're usually just good. get me?
[PCE said:
The freak TDs are the only big thing, tho'. Sure, sometimes an IDP blows up for a 10 tackle, 2 sacks, forced fumble game, and that's random, but not much more or less random than the accidental multi-TD/100+ yard games that WR2/WR3s dish out.
It doesn't take the strategy out at all, that's where you're wrong. I've been playing IDP leagues for as long as I've been playing fantasy football, and there's nothing unpredictable about it, depending a bit on how you set up your league. I mean, interceptions can be pretty random, but they're not worth an exceeding amount of FF points anyway. Sacks were a bit bloated in our league last year, but they're usually just two tackles.
The leagues I played were all pretty tackle-point heavy, ours was too, and at end of the day, funny thing is it's not the high-profile dudes like Merriman or Jared Allen who reach fantasy peaks, it's nose-to-the-ground tackle machines, like Demeco Ryans and Patrick Willis.
How do I know it's not luck over strategy? Because I'm a good IDP drafter. So's eom in the Asshats league. We put our nose to the books, figure out what anonymous/semi-anonymous IDPer is going to blow up (I know who I'm picking first this year, though I'm not giving it away), and draft him. I've had IDP lineups carry me to the championship, no coincidence about it, just strategizing.
If you're in a league that heavily favours TDs, turnovers and sacks, then sure, you'll get a bit more skewed. Tackle-heavy IDP leagues are a lot steadier, though at the same time they're one-sided...they both are: the turnover-focused one is almost purely DEs/OLBs and ball-hawking secondary, the tackle-focused one is almost purely MLBs or other run-stuffers and tackle-heavy secondary (mostly safeties), the system we had in place last year was actually meant to be a balance between the two, but it fell short somewhat.
Also, luck is a major factor anyway, and no denying. It is what it is.
I'm all for slicing out IDPs, but mostly to make the league more accessible and easy to manage, in hopes of having less people abandon it. Don't gimme no "IDPs are all luck" bullho tho'
TwinkieGorilla
This ghoul has seen it all
never said it was ALL luck, but there's much more luck involved. i say if we're having IDP at Asshats, let's just go DEF here. keep things simpler. 'sides, i'd really like to have a team that's a bit more focused. last year was a fucking hassle for me trying to find the time to manage both IDP leagues every week.
that's my vote.
EDIT: LOOOOOOOOL! @ the Big Ben av!
that's my vote.
EDIT: LOOOOOOOOL! @ the Big Ben av!
Yeah, I get it.TwinkieGorilla said:
I'm now reading up a bunch more on Fantasy Football. Also playing some more Madden '08 so I get the hang of American Football more.
So go do that.Brother None said:
If I'm not mistaken, we've got 6 players in now. Need what, 4-6 more for a good league?
BN
Sander
Simpleminded
Cimmerian Nights
TwinkieStabilis
[PCE]El_Prez