Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 100
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    38,168
    Let the year play out IMO. Adjust next season (as usual).
    "There were many ways of not burdening one's conscience, of shunning responsibility, looking away, keeping mum. When the unspeakable truth of the holocaust then became known at the end of the war, all too many of us claimed that they had not known anything about it or even suspected anything."

    - Richard Von Weizsaecker

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,154
    Don't get me wrong guys when I recommend a re-draft after the season...after seeing how this plays out I think many people would draft differently (and this way we can add the proper QB ratings and no one gets pissed) and if we are going to do this for multiple years I'd say it would be best to get a draft with all knowledge processed at the beginning
    What we've got here is failure to communicate....some men you just can't reach

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,154
    And the re-draft isn't b/c I don't like my team...I actually like my team a lot (even though I'm last in the power rankings) but I just feel if we are committing so much time to this (multiple years) then a draft after we know exactly what the SIM requires would be best...and of course I'll be in it for the long haul either way
    What we've got here is failure to communicate....some men you just can't reach

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts
    Posts
    39,946
    The draft is very time consuming. Interesting but it gets tedious. We've had a few bumps along the road in this KFFL sim but I think when the games are played people have more fun. Even with the glitches.

  5. #20
    Goose31 is offline We beat the Giants' asses
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Yellowknifer View Post
    Let the year play out IMO. Adjust next season (as usual).
    You do realize you are totally contradicting yourself, right? Your whole argument (which I agreed with) was not to change the rules mid-season that were established at the beginning of the game, even if it was the fair and just decision. And before the year we all agreed upon these durability ratings. And then we drafted accordingly. And now that there was a control in the system which we werent aware of, I'm just trying to propose that we revert back to the rules we established before the season that we all agreed upon. That was your argument all along as it related to the QB Pressure and Audible ratings. Total contradiction.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    38,168
    Well, it's sort of a complicated issue. It sounds like the durability rankings do work, but they aren't working like you thought they could. The solution certainly doesn't sound like it's in the spirit of the game to me. Limiting a players carries? I dunno. I also don't know how to deal with the fact that there were some truly dominant players that did not have long careers due to injuries (not because they would get exhausted more easily or whatever).
    "There were many ways of not burdening one's conscience, of shunning responsibility, looking away, keeping mum. When the unspeakable truth of the holocaust then became known at the end of the war, all too many of us claimed that they had not known anything about it or even suspected anything."

    - Richard Von Weizsaecker

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    7,791
    I sort of agree with the durability rankings affecting how many snaps a player gets. I wish (is this possible?) it was just increasing the risk of injury, which is the point of the durability rankings in the first place.

    I don't think because a player has a 3, he should be limited to 20 snaps (example). I mean, Goose, if you want to start Aaron Rodgers, what happens by the 2nd quarter? Is he auto subbed out because he met the max snap rating? Sounds ridiculous to me from that standpoint. I think durability should only effect the probability of someone getting hurt.

    My .02
    Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

    Joseph Palmi: Let me ask you something... we Italians, we got our families, and we got the church; the Irish, they have the homeland, Jews their tradition; even the niggers, they got their music. What about you people, Mr. Wilson, what do you have?

    Edward Wilson: The United States of America. The rest of you are just visiting.

    "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
    -George Orwell

  8. #23
    Goose31 is offline We beat the Giants' asses
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Yellowknifer View Post
    Well, it's sort of a complicated issue. It sounds like the durability rankings do work, but they aren't working like you thought they could. The solution certainly doesn't sound like it's in the spirit of the game to me. Limiting a players carries? I dunno. I also don't know how to deal with the fact that there were some truly dominant players that did not have long careers due to injuries (not because they would get exhausted more easily or whatever).
    Well, they dont work because we are not allowed to give players the Durability grades we all agreed upon. It's really not that they are not performing like we expected. The problem is that that since we have everyone playing 16 games, it does not allow anything less than a "10" Durability grade. And that was the intent all along. I pointed out that a player with a lower grade would more than likely not be able to play all the snaps in a game. This was a new feature from the earlier version of the game I had played, so I really wasnt sure. But from reading the strategy guide provided on their website I got the impression that was the case.

    And this is absolutely in the best interest of the game. Its trying to follow the rules we all agreed upon prior to the season. As I've pointed out, the players who are some of the biggest violators of this rule (Bo, Sayers, Boselli, etc.) are dominating the game so far. And these are players we all watched pass us by in the draft as we picked more durable guys eventhough the three players I just mentioned are among the most talented the game has ever seen.

  9. #24
    Goose31 is offline We beat the Giants' asses
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,118
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkItAZero! View Post
    I sort of agree with the durability rankings affecting how many snaps a player gets. I wish (is this possible?) it was just increasing the risk of injury, which is the point of the durability rankings in the first place.

    I don't think because a player has a 3, he should be limited to 20 snaps (example). I mean, Goose, if you want to start Aaron Rodgers, what happens by the 2nd quarter? Is he auto subbed out because he met the max snap rating? Sounds ridiculous to me from that standpoint. I think durability should only effect the probability of someone getting hurt.
    This is a great point, MIZ. I think Rodgers would reach a limit and need to leave the game. At least for a while. I think he would need to come out for 10 snaps, or a quarter, and then could come back in. It seems unrealistic, but on the other hand how else would we be able to police it. It doesnt seem that unrealistic to me that Sayers would need a break after 10 or 15 carries, however, since he averaged fewer than 15 carries per game over his short career. And he didnt have the falloff period where other backs see their carries decrease. Is it fair that he can tote the rock as much as say Eric Dickerson who averaged over 20 carries per game in more than twice as many games?

    Even with ratings of 10, I'm seeing some guys need a breather during games. More times than not this happens to D Linemen, which seems realistic to me. I would say that of all the starting 22 on a team, D Lineman sub in and out more than any other position. I think if we decrease all the players we will see this happen more often to more players. That's where the back-ups will come into play. And those teams who drafted smarter will have an advantage. That's what I've wanted to see all along. Avelek (IMO) wasted a pick on a 3rd QB. Although I think Vick was a great pick, he hasnt even seen the field yet considering Brady is his starter. That makes him thin elsewhere. I think his team should see some disadvantages by taking the greedy sexy pick over the more practical one.

    I really wish there were two categories, one for how often they get hurt and one for how many snaps they can play. Call it a Conditioning rating. This would be an offseason topic, but maybe we use that one Durability grade as a combination of true Durability and Longevity. Again, this would be for next season. And I would ask that someone else do the work if they have some time as I'm getting a little burned out with all this research. But I think this would work:

    Combo Durability/Longevity Rating - We would use the existing Durability grade (which is actually a Longevity grade, so we will change the name of that metric to be called Longevity. On the next version of our Ranking Spreadsheets, this will be a standard column) and average that wth a newly created category that will be the "True Durability" grade (just called Durability)

    What we would do is take the total number of regular season games a player played throughout his career (we already have that documented) and divide it by the possible number of regular season games a player could have played during his career. it wont be a difficult project, just time consuming. I could set up the spreadsheet and ask someone to do the leg work on this. What you would need to do is go to Pro-Football-Reference.com to determine how many games his team played while he is with each team.

    That might make things more fair. That way a player is being graded half on his longevity and half on his durability. Might level the playing field a little. Just a thought.
    Last edited by Goose31; 02-01-2012 at 03:39 PM.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts
    Posts
    39,946
    And this is absolutely in the best interest of the game. Its trying to follow the rules we all agreed upon prior to the season. As I've pointed out, the players who are some of the biggest violators of this rule (Bo, Sayers, Boselli, etc.) are dominating the game so far. And these are players we all watched pass us by in the draft as we picked more durable guys eventhough the three players I just mentioned are among the most talented the game has ever seen.

    I think that's absolutely true. My concern right now is any ripple effect due to some of your changes... I'd rather have Gale Sayers and Boselli dominate then have something odd happen. So that's why I'm asking for some examples for position and I assume some test runs...

    I know this is likely a big effort on your part but I really would like to salvage the season since it's been tons of fun so far. Even if I'm getting my butt kicked by pretenders!

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,154
    After these changes do you guys still not approve of a re-draft after this year? I think really we might as well just play this one out as is and then re-draft after the year with all appropriate ratings and changes
    What we've got here is failure to communicate....some men you just can't reach

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    3,277
    Goose, if you need someone to do the leg work on the potential games spreadsheet, shoot it my way. Once the spreadsheet's set up, I'll take a look and see what I can come up with. Let me know what kind of deadline I'm working with, and I'll do my best.

    One thing that's tricky, though: do we penalize a player who spent multiple years as a backup, for not playing in games he technically could have, but didn't due to a coach's decision? That's not a measure of his durability, but rather a reflection on his depth chart position. I'm thinking here especially of Steve Young, who certainly could have played 16 game seasons from 1987-1991, if it weren't for the slight complication of some shlub named Montana racking up 2 MVP trophies during that time period.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    7,791
    Goose:

    What are you planning to do for the rest of the season based off the comments? I liked what you wrote in your response to my last post, but that is incredibly time consuming and would definitely have to wait until the off-season, which will give us plenty of time.

    Are you planning on just leaving everyone at a 10 for the remainder of the year or have you begun to adjust the durability back to what we drafted on?

    Either way, i'm fine.
    Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

    Joseph Palmi: Let me ask you something... we Italians, we got our families, and we got the church; the Irish, they have the homeland, Jews their tradition; even the niggers, they got their music. What about you people, Mr. Wilson, what do you have?

    Edward Wilson: The United States of America. The rest of you are just visiting.

    "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
    -George Orwell

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Republic of Texas
    Posts
    19,405
    Quote Originally Posted by Goose31 View Post
    I think this would work:

    Combo Durability/Longevity Rating - We would use the existing Durability grade (which is actually a Longevity grade, so we will change the name of that metric to be called Longevity. On the next version of our Ranking Spreadsheets, this will be a standard column) and average that wth a newly created category that will be the "True Durability" grade (just called Durability)

    What we would do is take the total number of regular season games a player played throughout his career (we already have that documented) and divide it by the possible number of regular season games a player could have played during his career. it wont be a difficult project, just time consuming.
    I really don't see why we should care about longevity at all.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,154
    I'm willing to help with the leg work as well (as much as I can)....I almost think we just just super sim (1 sec sim) the rest of this season just to see results and then begin fixing all our issues and have a re-draft
    What we've got here is failure to communicate....some men you just can't reach

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  






Fantasy Football Rankings


Part of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.