"I'm relieved. That's all I can say. There was no way I was goin to an expansion team. Name one notable star on the Houston Texans in 2002. There just ain't one, and I ain't gonna be that guy this year. I'll leave that to Sterling."
After consulting the poll, LaDanian Tominson has every reason to be "relieved", knowing that he won't find himself in a disaster situation somewhere in Temple, San Francisco, or North Frisco.
"I'd much rather be forced into another group victory bath than have a front office more unorganized than my sense of humor."
Well said LT. Well said.
-----------------------------------
ISSUE #2: Rosters
What to do about the rosters. Yes, there were a few games last year won by kickers, some won by Jason Taylor alone, and a serious issue with the Bears D/ST. To refresh your memory, here's what we had going on last year:
Starting Lineup (10 total):
1 QB
2 RB
1 RB/WR
2 WR
1 TE
1 DP
1 D/ST
1 K
Bench:
6 Open Slots
1 Injured Reserve
I can't get to the discussion we had last year on the boards, but I know there was an idea to throw in one Independent Offensive Player (OP), which can be a QB, RB, WR, TE, or K. Some also wanted to get rid of kickers and DPs. We also have to address the situation we have now with 2 additional teams, which would have (last year) removed 32 more players from waivers.
So do we reduce the total number on each team or keep it the same? On one hand, we don't want to minimize the importance of waivers, but on the other hand, we don't want to have too little to work with each week.
Thus, the vote.
Obviously there could be hundreds of options, but I've narrowed it to 5.
OPTION #1: Keep it the same as last year.
OPTION #2: Keep it the same as last year, but remove one bench spot (to help compensate for the expansion).
OPTION #3: Everything is the same, except we replace the DP with an OP.
OPTION #4: Reduce the starters to 9...
1 QB
2 RB
1 RB/WR
2 WR
1 TE
1 D/ST
1 OP
OPTION #5: Drastically different...
2 QB
2 RB
2 RB/WR
2 WR
1 TE
1 D/ST
If anyone has any other options, let it be known. I never added a 2nd TE because there were hardly enough good TEs to go around last year with 10 teams. We'll vote on this on Tuesday.
Labels
- indie bands (1)
- obscure music (1)
- t shirt fans (1)
I wouldn't be sad to see the kickers and IDP's go, but I don't think it's clearly better either way.
I think we should keep everything else the same though.
I'm interested to see what Whitey has to say since he's the only one who has been running a different league for the past couple years.
As for me, I think I'd like to see how an Offensive Player would shake things up, so I am currently leaning towards #3.
I'm liking #3
Anyone have any insight?
as stewart mentioned, i have been the commissioner for another league now entering into its fourth year. our current set up is as follows:
1 QB
1 RB
1 RB/WR
2 WR
1 TE
1 OP (can be QB, RB, WR, TE but ESPN won't allow it to be a K)
2 DP
1 D/ST
1 K
I personally like the flexibility this setup gives the league. I think for our league, having a possibility of starting 4 RBs is borderline ridiculous. If anything, I would replace the RB/WR with an OP. But I don't know if I would even do that. Let me think a little more on this...
(while I'm thinking, Stewart, you must take us for real idiots if you think we're gonna believe that's a real quote from LT. He would never say he was "relieved" to not play in Temple. He's from Central Texas, his momma lives 30 miles away. It would be a dream come true for him to play in the mighty megopolis of Temple, TX, in front of his Central Texas brethren. How dare you attempt to pass off these lies as truth! How dare you!)
...okay, here are my final thoughts:
- The DPs are great and they make you think a little more and add another wrinkle to the game. I actually vote to have more (atleast 2, maybe 3).
- A football team has to have a D/ST and a K. It's just a must and again, another wrinkle. We can't have just a plain vanilla league of QBs, RBs, WRs, and TEs. We need the challenge.
- You definitely shouldn't reduce the bench size. 6 is a small bench as it is. Removing a bench spot to compensate for the league expansion only makes it easier for guys who don't do their homework. With 2 more teams and the same number of bench spots, the level of difficulty is raised. People who are actively involved are rewareded and those who give a half-assed effort will fail. And that's what we want...no free rides here. Work for victory.
- Now as far as the OP, if you keep the 2 RB and 1 RB/WR, then I don't think there should be an OP. If an OP is desired by the league, I think we should drop either 1 RB or the RB/WR position.
Again, these are just my thoughts but what I've found has worked in my 3 years of commissionering and 5 years of playing fantasy football.
I happen to agree actually that keeping at least one DP adds an interesting wrinkle, but I do remember that being the one position people wanting to eliminate.
As for the RB/WR, I like the idea of removing that option and replacing it with an OP position.
So I would propose this as another option:
1 QB
1 RB
1 RB/WR
1 OP
2 WR
1 TE
1 DP
1 D/ST
1 K
This gives us 10 starters with the option of possibly starting 3 RBs or 4 WRs, which is kind of interesting. I sort of liked the DP, but admittedly was annoyed by Jason Taylor a few times. And I don't think the guys will like the thought of adding yet another DP to the mix.
I also don't want to see Brinkley embarrass himself again if we have to draft IDPs.
Should be an interesting vote.