IDP's - should we consider taking the Frenzy to the next level for 2006?

[Preds]

I've been in a few IDP (Individual Defensive Players) leagues, and they add a whole new dimension to FF. Basically, you sign and play DL's, LB's and DB's much like you would RB's and WR's.

I think it would be neat to take the Frenzy to the next level by eliminating team defenses and drafting an IDP stratagy. Obviously the cap would have to be raised to accomodate larger rosters, we'd need to develop a scoring system, and we'd have to decide how many IDP poistions to start (I'd advocate a full D of 11 players with 4 DL's, 3 LB's, and 4 DB's), and maybe add a spot or 2 to the Tax Squad for development of IDP's as well.

This would make the rookie draft far more interesting since a lot of the reaches on offense in the later rounds won't be necessary with the extra depth of defensive talent each year. It will also greatly enhance the ability to trade and manage a roster.

I'm thinking we could bump the cap to 20,000 and add an additional 18 roster spots (11 starters and 7 backups) for a total of 36. We could require that no more than 18 roster spots are used by either offense or defense as well to keep teams from stacking up.

Anyhow, just throwing this out there for discussion. It would need a lot of fine tuning, but at the moment I do not believe anyone has a D under contract for 2006 nor have any 2006 picks been traded yet.

So what do the Frenzy masses have to say on this?

[Liquid Swords]

I'd love to see IDPs added to this league!

....I believe I have the Broncos D thru 2006, but I'm sure we can work something out if the rest of the league is interested in adding IDPs for 2006.

[Mutts]

My initial reaction to this isn't excitement. IMO we have a huge amount to manage as it is. I'd hate to see more owners forced out of the Frenzy because they don't have the extra time to dedicate - which I believe is a possible result of incorporating IDPs.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Wonder Mutts

My initial reaction to this isn't excitement. IMO we have a huge amount to manage as it is. I'd hate to see more owners forced out of the Frenzy because they don't have the extra time to dedicate - which I believe is a possible result of incorporating IDPs.

Really? I think we've had a stable group of dedicated ownership for a couple years now. IDP's would be more work (though not an intense amount, more administrative than anything), but would also add a huge new dimension to the league. The mid to late rookie draft picks would be greatly enhanced in value as well with the deeper pool to select from.

Just curious... have you ever tried an IDP league before? If so what did you think?

[Nittany Dodgers]

I have mixed feelings on adding IDP to the Frenzy. On the plus side, I think adding IDP is in one sense, the only way to go. IPD is increasing in popularity, and the Frenzy being what I think has to be one of the greatest leagues around really needs to stay on the cutting edge. I think IDP will be in a few years what auction/salary leagues are today, what separates the real leagues from the more casual. I’ve never played in an IDP league, and have wanted to try it for a few years.


On the downside, when I first read Mike’s post, before I got all the way though it I thought to myself “I’d like this idea if we can start slowly, adding a few IDPers and working our way up.” Then I see Mike wants to go full bore in with 11 starters. Yikes. My concern is that it will upset the balance of the league that’s been building for five years.

My biggest concern would be the scoring. Talking in really rough numbers, our offense currently accounts for around 100 points, and the defense for another 10 per game. What kind of scoring are we looking at if we go IDP? Are we thinking the D players will still average around 10+ points per game, or are we going to bump that up to 20, 30 or more? If we’re going to have half the rosters taken up by D players, I would want to improve on the consistency, and predictability of defensive scoring. Right now, defensive scoring can range from 0 to 30 points. Sometimes good games are predictable, other times not. There have been plenty of great defensive games that don’t translate well into good D scores, so if we are increasing the defensive scoring as a percentage of the total, I’d want to cut down on that. I’d be frustrated if we spend that much time drafting and signing players, but their production is no more consistent than it is now.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Really? I think we've had a stable group of dedicated ownership for a couple years now. IDP's would be more work (though not an intense amount, more administrative than anything), but would also add a huge new dimension to the league. The mid to late rookie draft picks would be greatly enhanced in value as well with the deeper pool to select from.

Just curious... have you ever tried an IDP league before? If so what did you think?

I think we'd have to add rounds to the draft, readjust the size of the Taxi squad, and possibly the new practice squad.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Part of me thinks this would be very cool to add. Part of me thinks I suck now, how bad would it be with more to try and keep track of. I guess if could do it in a phased approach I would be willing to give it a shot.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I have mixed feelings on adding IDP to the Frenzy. On the plus side, I think adding IDP is in one sense, the only way to go. IPD is increasing in popularity, and the Frenzy being what I think has to be one of the greatest leagues around really needs to stay on the cutting edge. I think IDP will be in a few years what auction/salary leagues are today, what separates the real leagues from the more casual. I’ve never played in an IDP league, and have wanted to try it for a few years.


On the downside, when I first read Mike’s post, before I got all the way though it I thought to myself “I’d like this idea if we can start slowly, adding a few IDPers and working our way up.” Then I see Mike wants to go full bore in with 11 starters. Yikes. My concern is that it will upset the balance of the league that’s been building for five years.
:p:p

My biggest concern would be the scoring. Talking in really rough numbers, our offense currently accounts for around 100 points, and the defense for another 10 per game. What kind of scoring are we looking at if we go IDP? Are we thinking the D players will still average around 10+ points per game, or are we going to bump that up to 20, 30 or more? If we’re going to have half the rosters taken up by D players, I would want to improve on the consistency, and predictability of defensive scoring. Right now, defensive scoring can range from 0 to 30 points. Sometimes good games are predictable, other times not. There have been plenty of great defensive games that don’t translate well into good D scores, so if we are increasing the defensive scoring as a percentage of the total, I’d want to cut down on that. I’d be frustrated if we spend that much time drafting and signing players, but their production is no more consistent than it is now.

Brian,

Some good concerns. Just to reiterate, I brought this up as a discussion, no plan is hard or in stone by any means, and we have the flexibility to craft this as the league as a whole would see fit. I was just tossing out some ideas.

I could see starting slowly, maybe 1 starter at each position for the 1st year, and adding a 2nd player to each position the following year. We could debate just how large we want the starter pool to be.

As for scoring, most IDP systems give 2 pts a tackle and 1 for an assist (I'd advocate 1/.5 for the Frenzy.) Additionallly, turnovers are usually credited anywhere from 2-4pts, (some leagues also credit for forced turnovers, not just the turnover itself, so say 1 player forces a fumble, and another recovers, they'd both get points). Sacks are anywhere from 1-4pts in most leagues (I'd advocate 2), TD's are anywhere from 6-12 pts (I'd advocate 6). Anyhow the big variability an dunknwon each week is turnovers and TD's, they can make or break a team on any given week. You look for solid consistent tackles, but sacks, turnovers and TD's are where the big weekly fluctuations appear. Mathups can also be huge. On a bad wk, an IDP may only get you a couple points, on an avg week about 7-8, and a good week 15+. Those numbers are per starter BTW.

Anyhow, again, I wanted to bring this up for discussion and debate, I personally have no set proposal that I'm hugely advocating aside from the inclusion of IDP's themselves.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

How do special teams figure in if we go IDP? Could we (would we) start to credit individuals with their special teams production (yards/TD's)? Just a thought as it would make some rookies a little more valuable and also maybe some CB's would handle return duties.

[Liquid Swords]

Originally Posted by Preds

I could see starting slowly, maybe 1 starter at each position for the 1st year, and adding a 2nd player to each position the following year. We could debate just how large we want the starter pool to be.

Good idea.

Scoring I've used in an IDP league:
Punt/Kickoff Return TDs: 6pts
Fumble Recovery/Interception Return TDs: 6pts
Blocked FG/Punt Return TDs: 6pts
Fumble Recoveries: 4pts
Interceptions Caught: 4pts
Blocked FG/Punt: 4pts
Tackles: 1pt
Assists: 0.5pt
QB Sack: 4pts
Safeties: 6pts

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Brian,

Some good concerns. Just to reiterate, I brought this up as a discussion, no plan is hard or in stone by any means, and we have the flexibility to craft this as the league as a whole would see fit. I was just tossing out some ideas.

I could see starting slowly, maybe 1 starter at each position for the 1st year, and adding a 2nd player to each position the following year. We could debate just how large we want the starter pool to be.

As for scoring, most IDP systems give 2 pts a tackle and 1 for an assist (I'd advocate 1/.5 for the Frenzy.) Additionallly, turnovers are usually credited anywhere from 2-4pts, (some leagues also credit for forced turnovers, not just the turnover itself, so say 1 player forces a fumble, and another recovers, they'd both get points). Sacks are anywhere from 1-4pts in most leagues (I'd advocate 2), TD's are anywhere from 6-12 pts (I'd advocate 6). Anyhow the big variability an dunknwon each week is turnovers and TD's, they can make or break a team on any given week. You look for solid consistent tackles, but sacks, turnovers and TD's are where the big weekly fluctuations appear. Mathups can also be huge. On a bad wk, an IDP may only get you a couple points, on an avg week about 7-8, and a good week 15+. Those numbers are per starter BTW.

Anyhow, again, I wanted to bring this up for discussion and debate, I personally have no set proposal that I'm hugely advocating aside from the inclusion of IDP's themselves.

I know we're just in the discussion stage at this point.

After reading this follow up, if players can range from nothing to 15+ points, I would really hesitate going with 11 starters at any point, but definitely not immediately. With our current scoring system, we have ranges of 100 points sometimes from worst to best in any given week. My personal opinion would be to not do anything to scoring to considerably increase that margin. Adding in a defensive scoring system that could range from 15-20 points for some teams in a given week on the low end to 100 points for the good performances doesn't strike my fancy.

Anyone know of a good mock draft for IDPs from last year? I'd like to run through, set up 12 fake defenses, and plug in last years numbers and see what kind of variety we're really seeing here.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I know we're just in the discussion stage at this point.

After reading this follow up, if players can range from nothing to 15+ points, I would really hesitate going with 11 starters at any point, but definitely not immediately. With our current scoring system, we have ranges of 100 points sometimes from worst to best in any given week. My personal opinion would be to not do anything to scoring to considerably increase that margin. Adding in a defensive scoring system that could range from 15-20 points for some teams in a given week on the low end to 100 points for the good performances doesn't strike my fancy.

Anyone know of a good mock draft for IDPs from last year? I'd like to run through, set up 12 fake defenses, and plug in last years numbers and see what kind of variety we're really seeing here.

You make some good points, I'll see if I can find an IDP mock for you, though in reality what you need to see is just IDP stats from last year IMO.

ANyhow, IDP's are always going to outscore a team D (at least in most cases). You can usually expect to see the scores increase 50-100% in an IDP league (depending on the number of starters).

In light of that, I could see going with 2 starters at each position, (for a total of 6) plus backups. I would suspect we can create a scoring system where these starters will score anywhere from say 15-20 on a bad week, and 60+ on a REALLY good week).

I can see your point on not going will a full 11 man D in light of devaluing the offense too much, but I think 6 is a good number. I also think you need to be somewhat open to the fact that league scoring will increase if IDP's were used... the question is by how much, which we can somewhat control by the scoring system and the number of starters.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

You make some good points, I'll see if I can find an IDP mock for you, though in reality what you need to see is just IDP stats from last year IMO.

ANyhow, IDP's are always going to outscore a team D (at least in most cases). You can usually expect to see the scores increase 50-100% in an IDP league (depending on the number of starters).

In light of that, I could see going with 2 starters at each position, (for a total of 6) plus backups. I would suspect we can create a scoring system where these starters will score anywhere from say 15-20 on a bad week, and 60+ on a REALLY good week).

I can see your point on not going will a full 11 man D in light of devaluing the offense too much, but I think 6 is a good number. I also think you need to be somewhat open to the fact that league scoring will increase if IDP's were used... the question is by how much, which we can somewhat control by the scoring system and the number of starters.

The only reason I'd like to see a mock is to have a tool to create unbalanced teams. If I do a draft based on the stats, the teams are going to be too balanced. I want to see bad Ds and good Ds and the differences. I'm sure there's another way of doing this without mocks (or even preseason rankings) but I thought this would be easiest if anyone had one handy.

I understand that D scoring will increase, and there will be a coinciding devaluation of offensive scoring (never a good thing IMO), and I would be fine with that to a degree, and if the scoring system was fair, balanced, and predictable. Heck, I'm sure someday down the road I won't be looking at this like "the defensive scoring is out of whack" but that "wow, we really need to fix the scoring on linebackers," and IDPs will just be another position to find the propper balance with the others.

[Flaxwless]

This sounds like an interesting idea and I would be all for if two points are met:

1) Our roster and contracts for the players we have now are stablized somewhat. Meaning that our current set up of active roster/ts/ps is how it will stay for awhile. Also the structure of contracts, salaries, and so forth are pretty much set. The reason for this is we have intriduced so many changes the past two years I believe we should find out what works and what doesn't. Change is a good thing and it's what keeps this league interesting, but too much at once can be quite difficult.

2) We introduce it slowly at least the first year, to test waters and get people used to it who haven't played IDP (such as myself). I wouldn't mind doing like half of the IDPs the first year and then the second year making it the expected total.

For the most part it seems as if we've tweaked enough and the system we have in place looks like it should work. Most if not all of the original contracts are running out. This will be our 2nd year into the RFA period. Also this is our 2nd year with the accelerated cap hit. So we are just getting used to that and trying to get the kinks worked out. This year we implemented a new TS/PS so we'll see how that goes. So #1 should be alright.

From what people have posted, introducing it slowly would be met without any protest.

So basically I'm all for it and here are some thing I was thinking about while reaidng the posts:

1) As for DEF scoring.... I don't know if our software can handle this, but instead of counting points totaled by each idividual player and adding that to our team score, maybe we could add the difference between the two teams total IDP score (where you either get 0 or +#). That's one possible way to address those concerned about IDPs making scoring out of whack. The individual performance still matters, but doesn't reflect as much on the final score.

2) I wouldn't be for simply doubling all of our standards right now, meaning capspace, contract years, ts, and ps spots and years. We'd have to make it a little less than that, make it more challenging where signings on a particular team would affect the other. B/C if we just double everything especially capsapce it is as if we are running two teams one for O and one for D.

The problem with something like this is it would affect all of our market values again. Just as last year makin retroactive changes to rookie contracts gave people more money and thus inflated RFA and FA prices, adding IDPs will throw that all out of the loop again. It's expected, but I wouldn't want drastic changes and people who make long-term signings now be affected by adding IDPs.

That's all but I'm excited and since expansion doesn't seem practical at all, IDPs is the next way to keep this league fresh.

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

I have no personal experience with IDP. I've always been turned off by the fact sometimes IDP doesnt strike me as a true measure of how good certain players are. Seems like a "shut down" corner wouldnt get passed on as much, thus leading to less tackles, pass deflections, and INTs. Conversely a rookie who is thrust into the lineup would make a great IDP fantasy player because he would get thrown at alot, leading to more fantasy points. I could be completely wrong but that's how I've always viewed IDP. I would be open to trying it however but I would want to make sure it is done in a sure manner. I mean we've had 4 years to work out the kinks with the current system. If we introduce something as radical as IDP its sure to upset the balance for a few years minimum.

[Liquid Swords]

Here's the IDP I've been involved in the past few years. It takes you to the Central Division but you should also be able to check out the other 4 divisions to get a nice comparison of where players were drafted (IOP and IDP combined). Just click on the draft results link for each division.

http://football.myfantasyleague.com/2004/home/79949

Let me know if you can't view the link.

[Ypsilanti Undead]

Originally Posted by Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers

I have no personal experience with IDP. I've always been turned off by the fact sometimes IDP doesnt strike me as a true measure of how good certain players are. Seems like a "shut down" corner wouldnt get passed on as much, thus leading to less tackles, pass deflections, and INTs. Conversely a rookie who is thrust into the lineup would make a group IDP fantasy player because he would get thrown at alot, leading to more fantasy points.

Hmmm... RBs get points per carry, WRs get points per catch... can IDPs get points per snap taken, to balance out the issue Joe rightfully brings up?

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Ypsilanti Undead

Hmmm... RBs get points per carry, WRs get points per catch... can IDPs get points per snap taken, to balance out the issue Joe rightfully brings up?

It's a quirk in IDP with CB's (and pretty much only CB's), but one you just have to get over. The best IDP CB's are those that traditionally struggle and are not shut down corners. Rookie CB's often have a big impact the first couple seasons then have their numbers drop after they've established themselves as solid cover guys.

BTW, Safeties are actually pretty consistent to real life. You're best DB's are generally safeties anyhow, CB's are like stepchildren because they are much less reliable with tackles and whatnot.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Personally, I have no interest in adding IDPs to this league. It would require a lot more time on my part... just when I feel like I have a good balance of time spent with my wife, kids, work, God & sports. Knowing how much I like to put 100% into whatever I do, this would be a HUGE change for me. Having said that, I'm not saying right now that I'd drop out of this league... but if you want my honest opinion, I'm just not interested in it.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

1) As for DEF scoring.... I don't know if our software can handle this, but instead of counting points totaled by each idividual player and adding that to our team score, maybe we could add the difference between the two teams total IDP score (where you either get 0 or +#). That's one possible way to address those concerned about IDPs making scoring out of whack. The individual performance still matters, but doesn't reflect as much on the final score.

I don't know about others, but this is exactly my concern. I'm not really concerned about the total scores going drastically up (though it is nice to have consistency from year to year so stat geeks like me can have something to look at). What I'm concered with is having a scheme where one team can score 80 points on D, while they play a team who only gets 15 (or some other out of whack system). As we have it now, one team with Baltimore D can play the Cleveland D, and the Baltimore D can have a great game realistically, holding their oppoent to 10 points, but get no turnovers, and give up a bunch of garbage time yards. You would look at the boxscore and say great job by the D, but not many points. Meanwhile, the Cleveland D is in a shootout with someone, gives up loads of yards and points, but gets a few picks, a few sacks, a fumble, whatever. On paper I would say that's a bad game, but they get a bunch of frenzy points.

It's one thing when you get outscored at the RB position by 60 points when you play against Priest and LT2, but getting outscored by Ron Dayne and William Green at that level doesn't happen as often as the current defensive anomolies.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers

I have no personal experience with IDP. I've always been turned off by the fact sometimes IDP doesnt strike me as a true measure of how good certain players are. Seems like a "shut down" corner wouldnt get passed on as much, thus leading to less tackles, pass deflections, and INTs. Conversely a rookie who is thrust into the lineup would make a great IDP fantasy player because he would get thrown at alot, leading to more fantasy points. I could be completely wrong but that's how I've always viewed IDP. I would be open to trying it however but I would want to make sure it is done in a sure manner. I mean we've had 4 years to work out the kinks with the current system. If we introduce something as radical as IDP its sure to upset the balance for a few years minimum.

I think this is not that much different than what we have now with fantasy football. Most people agree that Tom Brady is a great QB, but with the relatively conservative offense they run, he's not a fantasy star. Likewise, Aaron Brooks sucks as a QB by most measurables that matter, but he's a decent QB because he puts up the stats. Plenty of RBs who have starting jobs aren't all that good, but we know they are worth more because their situation is better than a more talented RB that is in a worse situation. It wouldn't be hard to figure out the nuances of the same types of thing on defense. Just as we learn that a bad QB running the run and shoot offense is worth more than a good QB playing for a power running team, we'll learn that rookie corners can be more valuable that seasoned shut down corners (I would think).

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

Personally, I have no interest in adding IDPs to this league. It would require a lot more time on my part... just when I feel like I have a good balance of time spent with my wife, kids, work, God & sports. Knowing how much I like to put 100% into whatever I do, this would be a HUGE change for me. Having said that, I'm not saying right now that I'd drop out of this league... but if you want my honest opinion, I'm just not interested in it.

The last thing I'd want is to lose any of our owners because of a rules change, particularly one as major as this would be. I'd hope before something like this went into play we had a major majority of 75% plus owners in favor (I'd prefer unaminity). If we have/had even just one team vastly opposed I'd say it should be tabled.

If that does turn out to be the case, I'd be open to creating a new league based on what we've done in the Frenzy that incorporates IDP's and invite and and all willing members from this board (or wherever) to give IDP a shot. I'll call it Frenzy Too, or Frenzy IDP or something lol. Seriously, if some owners are opposed I see no reason to change the status quo when instead I could just start one from the ground up and keep the Frenzy the great league it already is.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

The last thing I'd want is to lose any of our owners because of rules change, particularly one as major as this would be. I'd hope before something like this went into play we had a major majority of 75% plus owners in favor (I'd prefer unaminity). If we have/had even just one team vastly opposed I'd say it should be tabled.

If that does turn out to be the case, I'd be open to creating a new league based on what we've done in the Frenzy that incorporates IDP's and invite and and all willing members from this board (or wherever) to give IDP a shot. I'll call it Frenzy Too, or Frenzy IDP or something lol. Seriously, if some owners are opposed I see no reason to change the status quo when instead I could just start one from the ground up and keep the Frenzy the great league it already is.

Heck, if you wanted to go with 11 IDP starters, you could just have a defensive league, and everyone could draft one "offense."

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Mike, if I'm the only one who's not interested in it... I'll consider ways to get around the workload required in competing in an IDP league. I don't want to be the "one wet blanket" that keeps the league back from evolving into whatever everyone else wants it to be. I have a lot invested in this league, and it's brings me a tremendous amount of joy (plus, it's the only fantasy league I've ever been involved in which I haven't won a championship yet!).

I was just giving my initial honest opinion...

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Heck, if you wanted to go with 11 IDP starters, you could just have a defensive league, and everyone could draft one "offense."

THAT would be unique!

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Heck, if you wanted to go with 11 IDP starters, you could just have a defensive league, and everyone could draft one "offense."

, actually I like the idea of 6 starters and 6 reserves.

Frank and I chatted and came up with the idea of adding cap commesurate with what our average cap dollars spent per player is for each new position added. For the last 3 years we've averaged about 600 a year per player, so we came up with an increase of ~7200 (600*12) which could be adjusted split into 2 seasons so the IDP's could be incorporated 50% 1 year and 50% the next. Thus the 2006 cap could be 14,000 (10,500 plus 3,500) and 2007 17,500 (10,500 plus 7,000).

Actually the more I think about it, I'm concerned about impactig those who have no interest in IDP's.

M

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

Mike, if I'm the only one who's not interested in it... I'll consider ways to get around the workload required in competing in an IDP league. I don't want to be the "one wet blanket" that keeps the league back from evolving into whatever everyone else wants it to be. I have a lot invested in this league, and it's brings me a tremendous amount of joy (plus, it's the only fantasy league I've ever been involved in which I haven't won a championship yet!).

I was just giving my initial honest opinion...

An opinion I absoplutely respect, seriously, it'd be easy to create a 2nd league and keep the Frenzy what it is.

We have a great group, I'd hate to ruin it with some experimentation.

So... who'd be interested in the new spinoff league ;) Frenzy IDP anyone?

[Philadelphia Freedom]

So... who'd be interested in the new spinoff league Frenzy IDP anyone?

I can get a fresh start? That sounds like something I could go for. I am also pretty sure I could find another person that would be very interested in something like this. Particularily if it keeps the current cool features of the Frenzy.

BTW- did we ever cover special teams credit?

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

I can get a fresh start? That sounds like something I could go for. I am also pretty sure I could find another person that would be very interested in something like this. Particularily if it keeps the current cool features of the Frenzy.

BTW- did we ever cover special teams credit?

Why not, we could hold an auction for this year (we have plenty of time) and basically use the Frenzy rule-set as a base. This could truly be a spinoff league that keeps a Frenzy tie-in (staying consistent with the same Frenzy scoring and rules and whatnot, with the exceptions of the IDP parts).

As for ST's, yardage generally isn't credited to IDP's (though I suppose we could grant a partial credit like .01 per yard or something). TD's are generally credited to the IDP player however.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

So... who'd be interested in the new spinoff league ;) Frenzy IDP anyone?

I would, though it would be a side project as far as I was concerned. I probably wouldn't put the same effort into it that I do into the Frenzy. Well, I might but I wouldn't intend to.