Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Not that my vote (should one come) count for much, but I'm not a huge fan of this idea. I've always felt that injuries were a big part of FF. It's a great leveling tool. Someone mentioned how it can keep teams in contention after an injury. I think injuries are one of the few ways a monstrously constructed team can be brought back to the pack, a crucial injury in a crucial game.
|
This is a loser's mentality and why I would be in favor of such a ruling. Why rely on luck as a "great" leveling tool instead of management skills in building the deepest team possible? it's saying...
"Wow... you built a monster team and I couldn't even though we have the same rules, salary cap, contract years, and rookie drafts, etc. and since I can't beat you with my own skill I'm going to rely on luck."
What a BS mentality. I think that's one of the biggest downsides of FF is that luck plays such a big factor in winning game to game. Adding this rule would just minimize the luck factor and again reward those with enough foresight/skill to plan for extra depth at the position.
I don't know about you but I always wanted to play and beat people AT THEIR BEST no matter if it's FF, sports, etc. That's how you get a true gauge of how good you are when it's your best versus my best. Leaves no room for excuses.
Think about real life/sports? Do you guys tell your kids, "Don't test yourself against people at their best. You'll never win that way. Hopefully that team loses their star pitcher before you guys play them." I know my dad and my coaches always told me, "To get better you need to play people better than you. To be the best you have to beat the best.. etc."
But hey I guess you'd rather win by "luck" instead of based on your decision making, ability to scout players, and ability to mange the cap. Whatever floats your boat.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Secondly, you bring up Tom Brady as an example. Lets compare the NFL to SACD. In the NFL, Tom Brady goes down. New England happens to be playing the Chiefs, and the Chiefs are so bad they hold on to win. Had they been playing another good team, Brady going down could be the difference of the game. Had you been playing a good team when Brady goes down, that could be a game changing event. Had you been playing a team like the Nittany Dodgers, the KC Chiefs of SACD, then the rest of your team is probably good enough to hold on for the win.
|
Again.... they still trot out a backup QB. In our league if a player gets injured. You're done. There's no backups top finish the rest of the game. Peace. I think that's a bigger difference compared to NFL games than the drop off from the starter to back up.. which I will address next.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Lastly, in the NFL teams come in with the likes of Matt Cassel, Jim Sorgi, or Gus Frerotte off the bench. Rarely does that change the fortune of a team. Here, we'll have players like Jake Delhomme, or David Garrad coming off the bench. That's not exacly comparable standards.
|
Let's see Matt Cassell, Jim Scorgi, and Gus Frerotte last I checked played in a 30 team league. Last time I played in SAC'D we're only a 12 team league. There's nearly 3x as many more teams in the NFL than there is in SAC'D... so naturally based on those proportions the back up QBs will be 3x as better than the back up QBs in SAC'D. So yes... the drop of between starter and backup IS less in NFL talent/perspective, but when looking at the drop off in a Fantasy Football league there is a drop off between a starter and a back up. If there isn't any credit to the Franchise for having built solid depth at the QB position. Everyone has equal oppourtunity to.
I guess your standing on this rule is based on your perspective. Either your in the group that likes to win due to "luck" or you're in the group that wants to win with every team at their peak performance with the deciding factor your skill as a manager.
I'm in the latter group. Who's with me?