Anonymous
My feedback
10 results found
-
3rd ranked
An error occurred while saving the comment An error occurred while saving the comment Anonymous
commented
Back up RBs are really really really valuable. I want to be able to keep a couple of them onhand. This rule sounds like you would be preventing me from using this wise choice. Why would you want to keep me from making a wise choice?
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Anonymous
commented
I would hate to join a league and then have the Commish put in a rule which limits how many players I can have in each position.
It's not necessary. It's not needed. It's not helpful.An error occurred while saving the comment Anonymous
commented
I would hate to join a league and then have the Commish put in a rule which limits how many players I can have in each position.
It's not necessary. It's not needed. It's not helpful.An error occurred while saving the comment Anonymous
commented
I'd want as many RBs as I could get. RBs are frequently injured, demoted, or ignored. The NFL probably goes through about a hundred starting and committee RBs per year, and even the elite ones aren't used much some weeks. If I didn't have a good extra RB, then I'd have to try to be the first person to check the waiver wire each week that one of RBs is injured or on a bye or meeting a team with a good run defense.
Putting a limit on the number on your roster favors the person who sits with his computer on his lab ready to pounce on an RB immediately when something goes wrong.
The limit also presents an ugly problem when an injury causes a few games to be missed. If you have 4 RBs, the odds are that one will be on his bye week at the same time that another one has a two-week injury and another one is scheduled to play against the third best run defense in the NFL. You almost have to find another RB to take the place of one of the ones on your roster, but you can't afford to drop any of the three described above. So, what do you do?
If during the draft you picked up a couple of RBs who are part of a committee, then you could limp along until your injuries and bye weeks are solved. If not, then you lose to the person who is sitting with his computer in his lap ready to pounce on whatever RB looks promising for the next week.An error occurred while saving the comment Anonymous
commented
I agree with the note posted here on Jan.26.
It sucks when a league's commissioner changes the rules after the draft.
And the problem isn't just for this proposed rule.
The problem exists for almost every change that a commissioner can make.
Rule changes simply shouldn't be allowed after the draft is completed.An error occurred while saving the comment Anonymous
commented
If I were in MaveROCK's league, I'd want as many RBs as I could get. RBs are frequently injured, demoted, or ignored. The NFL probably goes through about a hundred starting and committee RBs per year, and even the elite ones aren't used much some weeks. If I didn't have a good extra RB, then I'd have to try to be the first person to check the waiver wire each week that one of RBs is injured or on a bye or meeting a team with a good run defense.
Putting a limit on the number on your roster favors the person who sits with his computer on his lab ready to pounce on an RB immediately when something goes wrong.
The limit also presents an ugly problem when an injury causes a few games to be missed. If you have 4 RBs, the odds are that one will be on his bye week at the same time that another one has a two-week injury and another one is scheduled to play against the third best run defense in the NFL. You almost have to find another RB to take the place of one of the ones on your roster, but you can't afford to drop any of the three described above. So, what do you do?
If during the draft you picked up a couple of RBs who are part of a committee, then you could limp along until your injuries and bye weeks are solved. If not, then you lose to the person who is sitting with his computer in his lap ready to pounce on whatever RB looks promising for the next week. -
24th rankedAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
26th rankedAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
1st ranked
An error occurred while saving the comment Anonymous
commented
I'd be happy enough to get FGs scored using an equation -- and let the Commish set the multiplier.
Please consider something like: Each FG is worth (multiplier x yards), but always at least 3 points.
So, if the Commish puts the multiplier at one point per 10 yards, a 40 yard FG would be 4 points.
So, if the Commish puts the multiplier at one point per 5 yards, a 40 yard FG would be 8 points.
With the minimum 3 point rule, a team on the one yard line would still receive 3 points.Anonymous
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Anonymous
commented
I'd prefer a base value starting with zero.
Please consider 2 points + .1 point for each yard away from the goal line from which the ball was hiked. -
19th rankedAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
23rd rankedAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
7th ranked
An error occurred while saving the comment Anonymous
commented
I agree that this idea is all backwards.
Yahoo Fantasy Football should prohibit changes to the rules after the draft is completed. -
4th ranked
-
10th rankedAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
11th ranked
An error occurred while saving the comment Anonymous
commented
Hey Klondike, why would you care about having a fun experience changed to a frustrating experience, with the best features eliminated?
Just relax.
That stuff doesn't matter as long as you can receive a new medal each week.
An error occurred while saving the comment Anonymous
commented
Adam suggested that putting "the match ups front and center on the league page is stellar."
And, he predicted that it would "encourage smack talk and other league messaging."
Now that the season is over, we should be able to go back and document how well it worked. It didn't work. Smack talk and other messaging were almost nonexistent this year.
Of course, other issues may be involved, such as an over-riding hatred for the new design which may have re-directed the smack toward Yahoo instead of other players in the league. All I'm saying is that smack and messaging were way down this year.
I don't want to be in a league using this rule idea. During the draft, I want to have roster space to draft a promising QB who might become a starter during the season -- like Daniel Jones or Tannehill -- in addition to my QB sub.
If Yahoo makes this idea an optional rule, then I want Yahoo to prevent a league's commish from adding the rule after the draft.