SACD Rules Vote - Add new lineup sets - VOTE PASSES 10-2

[Burt the Butcher]

Vote in the above poll.

The vote is to add 2 new lineup sets to our current format:

We already have the existing options:
QB 2RB 3WR 1TE K 2DL 2LB 2DB
QB 2RB 2WR 2TE K 2DL 2LB 2DB
Should we add these 2 sets?
QB 1RB 4WR 1TE K 2DL 2LB 2DB
QB 1RB 3WR 2TE K 2DL 2LB 2DB

A YES vote would be to add the 2 new set. A NO vote would be to keep lineups as they are.

[Preds]

This one's pretty cut and dry IMO.

[Nittany Dodgers]

I'll be real disappointed if this one passes. This is a huge change in league strategy, balance, and player valuation, IMO.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I'll be real disappointed if this one passes. This is a huge change in league strategy, balance, and player valuation, IMO.

Sometimes change is good Brian. Trust me, on this one, it's a good thing.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Sometimes change is good Brian. Trust me, on this one, it's a good thing.

I don't know. This seems to me like change for changes' sake. Hey', I've been at the forefront of many of the changes in the Frenzy over the years. I'm not afraid of change. I just don't like how this changes things.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Okay, what am I missing here? I can't imagine how this is a bad thing. I would imagine that a 2 RB would still be the normal play (I would think a study of the numbers would prove this out). However, having the flexibility particularily since we can't know bye schedules year to makes sense in a dynasty league. This should help teams to always be able to field some viable combination of starting IOP's.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Okay, what am I missing here? I can't imagine how this is a bad thing. I would imagine that a 2 RB would still be the normal play (I would think a study of the numbers would prove this out). However, having the flexibility particularily since we can't know bye schedules year to makes sense in a dynasty league. This should help teams to always be able to field some viable combination of starting IOP's.

GoodPost

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Okay, what am I missing here? I can't imagine how this is a bad thing. I would imagine that a 2 RB would still be the normal play (I would think a study of the numbers would prove this out). However, having the flexibility particularily since we can't know bye schedules year to makes sense in a dynasty league. This should help teams to always be able to field some viable combination of starting IOP's.

I just think it is a situation ripe for unintended consequences.

I'm not going to fall on my sword over it, and with 6 votes for already at this point, it's probably not worth wasting many more key strokes about it.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I just think it is a situation ripe for unintended consequences.

I'm not going to fall on my sword over it, and with 6 votes for already at this point, it's probably not worth wasting many more key strokes about it.

Unintended? I've used these formations in my local league for years. What Matt describes is exactly what the intent here is (IMO at least). The ability to field more flexible lineups will allow teams to remain competitive when injures or byes or lack of cap space hit them. The rigidity of the 2RB rule has forced teams to start garbage on several occasions (hell, just look at the garbage I had to reach down to this past year when injuries decimated my top 3 RB's), which results in less competitive matchups and skews the standings. The extra formations allow teams to remain within their budget, and play to their strengths. If that strength is at WR or TE, so be it. At least we'll be playing each others best week in and week out.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Unintended? I've used these formations in my local league for years. What Matt describes is exactly what the intent here is (IMO at least). The ability to field more flexible lineups will allow teams to remain competitive when injures or byes or lack of cap space hit them. The rigidity of the 2RB rule has forced teams to start garbage on several occasions (hell, just look at the garbage I had to reach down to this past year when injuries decimated my top 3 RB's), which results in less competitive matchups and skews the standings. The extra formations allow teams to remain within their budget, and play to their strengths. If that strength is at WR or TE, so be it. At least we'll be playing each others best week in and week out.

I know what Matt pointed out is the intended consequence, and I don't have a huge problem with that (though, with all the things we do to make managing a team difficult, I'm not sure why we want to give freebies on the issue of starting lineups). I just think this kind of change can have effect we do not forsee. Such as a team that pays through the nose for a stud RB now has an easier way of filling out his starting lineup. Instead of having to find another starter caliber RB to go with his LT or Alexander, or whatever, now all he has to do is find another WR3 caliber player. Maybe this will drive up WR prices, and drive down 2nd/3rd tier RB prices. I don't know. I do think people are going to keep this in mind going into the RFA period, draft and free agency.

I'd rather see something like a limited number of 1 RB lineups allowed through the season to allow for byes and short term injuries (long term injuries should have an effect on all but the best managed teams), or larger rosters/TS/PS to allow teams more flexibility during the season.

We make teams make hard choices throughout the season, such as decided which limited number of players they will keep through RFA, which limited number of rookies will be kept on the roster, how long of a contract will a player get? These are all tough choices that impact a teams success, and all have real consequences. Why the free pass when you haven't made good choices among those to have so many choices as to who you are going to start?

That's rhetorical. I'm not interested in debate, or selling people at this point.

[Valencia]

I see both sides of this argument... Well, maybe not.. I think that Brian just likes to always make an argument.
If you really think about it, what are the chances of a 1RB team having any consistancy over the 13 week season + the playoffs? ( rhetorical also)
Every team will still have to have a solid #2RB... This just allows a little more flexability to the teams that have a rough season w/injuries etc.
Just my 2cents
Looking forward to RFA bidding getting started... Have a good trip and get back safe .. I am already jonesin' for FF action. :armed :champ
Late,

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I know what Matt pointed out is the intended consequence, and I don't have a huge problem with that (though, with all the things we do to make managing a team difficult, I'm not sure why we want to give freebies on the issue of starting lineups). I just think this kind of change can have effect we do not forsee. Such as a team that pays through the nose for a stud RB now has an easier way of filling out his starting lineup. Instead of having to find another starter caliber RB to go with his LT or Alexander, or whatever, now all he has to do is find another WR3 caliber player. Maybe this will drive up WR prices, and drive down 2nd/3rd tier RB prices. I don't know. I do think people are going to keep this in mind going into the RFA period, draft and free agency.

I'd rather see something like a limited number of 1 RB lineups allowed through the season to allow for byes and short term injuries (long term injuries should have an effect on all but the best managed teams), or larger rosters/TS/PS to allow teams more flexibility during the season.

We make teams make hard choices throughout the season, such as decided which limited number of players they will keep through RFA, which limited number of rookies will be kept on the roster, how long of a contract will a player get? These are all tough choices that impact a teams success, and all have real consequences. Why the free pass when you haven't made good choices among those to have so many choices as to who you are going to start?

That's rhetorical. I'm not interested in debate, or selling people at this point.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Valencia

I think that Brian just likes to always make an argument.

Hey, I resemble that remark.

[Preds]

FYI - we still need votes from:
Crestone Needles (Doggler)
The Wallace Clan of Elderslie (Cheezy)

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I know what Matt pointed out is the intended consequence, and I don't have a huge problem with that (though, with all the things we do to make managing a team difficult, I'm not sure why we want to give freebies on the issue of starting lineups). I just think this kind of change can have effect we do not forsee. Such as a team that pays through the nose for a stud RB now has an easier way of filling out his starting lineup. Instead of having to find another starter caliber RB to go with his LT or Alexander, or whatever, now all he has to do is find another WR3 caliber player. Maybe this will drive up WR prices, and drive down 2nd/3rd tier RB prices. I don't know. I do think people are going to keep this in mind going into the RFA period, draft and free agency.

I'd rather see something like a limited number of 1 RB lineups allowed through the season to allow for byes and short term injuries (long term injuries should have an effect on all but the best managed teams), or larger rosters/TS/PS to allow teams more flexibility during the season.

We make teams make hard choices throughout the season, such as decided which limited number of players they will keep through RFA, which limited number of rookies will be kept on the roster, how long of a contract will a player get? These are all tough choices that impact a teams success, and all have real consequences. Why the free pass when you haven't made good choices among those to have so many choices as to who you are going to start?

That's rhetorical. I'm not interested in debate, or selling people at this point.

Not that we need to bring this back up but I was thinking about this and if it would ever make sense for someone to try go big for one RB and then go with 4 WR’s (or 2 WR’s and 2 TE’s).

To try and skew this as much as possible (to make a point) I looked a team that had the top RB and the top 4 WR’s. Here is what that team would like based on points per game (for players with enough points to qualify for Top 300 status at the end of last year):

Position => Pos # => Player => Points => GP => Avg
RB => 1 => Tomlinson, Ladainian SDC RB => 541.9 => 16 => 33.9
WR => 1 => Smith, Steve CAR WR => 222.2 => 13 => 17.1
WR => 2 => Harrison, Marvin IND WR => 255.1 => 16 => 15.9
WR => 3 => Colston, Marques NOS WR (R) => 188.8 => 12 => 15.7
WR => 4 => Owens, Terrell DAL WR => 246.5 => 16 => 15.4

For the comparison I looked at a team that took the next two RB’s and the next 3 WR’s available:

Position => Pos # => Player => Points => GP => Avg
RB => 2 => Johnson, Larry KCC RB => 462.5 => 16 => 28.9
RB => 3 => Jackson, Steven STL RB => 460.9 => 16 => 28.8
WR => 5 => Jackson, Darrell SEA WR => 197.1 => 13 => 15.2
WR => 6 => Houshmandzadeh, T.J. CIN WR => 210.5 => 14 => 15.0
WR => 7 => Wayne, Reggie IND WR => 232.0 => 16 => 14.5

The 1 RB and 4 WR group would score 99.5 points between them (based on their averages). The 2 RB and 3 WR group would score 104.0 points between them (based on their averages).

I know that this is not a scientific study but I think it proves out that going with a 2nd RB is almost always going to be the better play.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Matt, that's way simplistic, or missing my point. The decision for a team is not between the players at the top of the ranking, it is between the players at the bottom. Your choice is either 1 RB and 4 WRs for your lineup, or 2 RBs, and 3 WRs. So, you need to compare the fringe starting RBs against the fringe starting WRs. For the sake of arguement, I'd say the ppg difference between the fringe starting RBs and the fringe startings WRs is about what you came to above (~5 ppg). However, that's not the end of the analysis. The next question is cost. The fringe starting Rbs are much more expensive than the fringe starting WRs. With those added cbs, you can bid more money on your #1 RB, and thus driving up the stud RB prices.

This is going to be a snowball effect. What do you think will be the effect of the number of RBs on team's rosters with this new lineup option? Teams won't need to carrry so many RBs because if they lose one, they can always go with a receiver instead.

The rule passed, so arguing is pointless at this point, but I think we will see a difference in the number of RBs carried on rosters, as well as the number of times this option is used.

And I'll go back to my point, if the point is to allow flexibility, why not allow a limited amount of flexibility? If everyone in favor of the additional lineups agree that of course starting 2 RBs is what all teams will try to do anyway, then why not just allow a limited number of 1 RB lineups through the year to account for byes/short term injuries? If we're concerned with everyone being able to field competitive lineups, then why not allow our developmental rosters to be endless, and never have to cut a rookie pick? Then we'll always have talent waiting in the wings. I just don't get the overwhelming support for this.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I guess that was my point. Basically the fringe RB's will typically outscore the fringe WR by a large margin (5-10 pts). I will have to look at the numbers again but the one thing that jumped out at me was how you could have essentially a RB3 outscoring a WR2 (or WR1). That would seem to indicate that you will be better off with RB's over WR's (in terms of the flex spot). The other factor about salary and roster spots might be valid but I think you will still see but since we need to have 3 WR's (or 2 TE's) each week we would likely have 5 - 7 WR's on each roster.

I guess my original thought was could you make a case for a run and shoot style offense and I don't think you can do it (at least not successfully). If you pay half as much for a WR you would still likely need two of them to replace the same production from one RB. If anything I think it would drive up the value of the all decent RB's not just the studs.

Again, not that any of this matters at this point. I was just trying to drum discussion while we wait for the RFA period to start!!

[Nittany Dodgers]

[quote=Philadelphia Freedom]I guess my original thought was could you make a case for a run and shoot style offense and I don't think you can do it (at least not successfully). If you pay half as much for a WR you would still likely need two of them to replace the same production from one RB. If anything I think it would drive up the value of the all decent RB's not just the studs.[quote]

How about a real life example? Let's look at the Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers from the Frenzy last year. With spending 3450 on LT, and 1925 on Lamont Jordan, he had little depth at RB after Lamont went down (well, busted pretty much for the whole season). Being contrained by the cap, there was not much he could do to go out and get another RB that would fit on his roster, or could be had.

However, there were 27 wide receivers that scored more points for the year, and more points per game than Lamont Jordan did for the year, and cost less than Lamont Jordan. Could he have gotten any/all of those 27 players? No, and two of them were on his team, but that leaves over 2 wrs per the other 11 teams that could be traded for and have helped him out. All he needed was to be able to trade for one of those guys, and he'd have been better off.

Heck, if you want to lower the standards even further to the points scored by the RBs he played other than LT and Jordan (Verron Hayes, Leon Washington, TJ Duckett, and Michael Turner totalled 19.3 points in 7 games for the Insects) the number of WRs that could have helped the Insects explodes.

A run and shoot option for the Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects would have definitely been beneficial for him.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

How about a real life example? Let's look at the Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers from the Frenzy last year. With spending 3450 on LT, and 1925 on Lamont Jordan, he had little depth at RB after Lamont went down (well, busted pretty much for the whole season). Being contrained by the cap, there was not much he could do to go out and get another RB that would fit on his roster, or could be had.

However, there were 27 wide receivers that scored more points for the year, and more points per game than Lamont Jordan did for the year, and cost less than Lamont Jordan. Could he have gotten any/all of those 27 players? No, and two of them were on his team, but that leaves over 2 wrs per the other 11 teams that could be traded for and have helped him out. All he needed was to be able to trade for one of those guys, and he'd have been better off.

Heck, if you want to lower the standards even further to the points scored by the RBs he played other than LT and Jordan (Verron Hayes, Leon Washington, TJ Duckett, and Michael Turner totalled 19.3 points in 7 games for the Insects) the number of WRs that could have helped the Insects explodes.

A run and shoot option for the Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects would have definitely been beneficial for him.

I guess I fail to see that this is a bad thing. Making a team more competitive, how is that bad? We are all pretty savvy owners, so if playing 1 RB + 4 WR would give a team an advantage, wouldn't we all see that? And if a team can remain competitive when key players go down or simply suck, how does that lower the standards?

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

I guess I fail to see that this is a bad thing. Making a team more competitive, how is that bad? We are all pretty savvy owners, so if playing 1 RB + 4 WR would give a team an advantage, wouldn't we all see that? And if a team can remain competitive when key players go down or simply suck, how does that lower the standards?

The problem is the Insects were 9-5 (2nd best record in the league), won the wildcard, and were 4th in the league as scoring, and this rule change would allow a similarly structured team to be better than they already are.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

The problem is the Insects were 9-5 (2nd best record in the league), won the wildcard, and were 4th in the league as scoring, and this rule change would allow a similarly structured team to be better than they already are.

And it also would have allowed a team like Preds, who lost the #1 RB of 2006 for half the season, to be more competitive and maybe regain that 0.75 points that cost him the championship. Seems like a good thing to me. Well, not the getting Preds into the playoffs thing, but the competitive thing.....

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Okay, so maybe I am just being dense but I am still not sure how a 1 RB & 4 WR would ever make sense as the normal play. I agree that it would make sense if byes/injuries took away a teams ability to field two decent RB’s however in general RB’s up and down the board outscore WR’s.

I broke the numbers down in groups of 12 (or one for each team in theory) and for RB’s it went like (in terms of average pts per game):

RB#1 (1-12) => 24.1
RB#2 (13-24) => 17.3
RB#3 (25-36) => 14.3

For the WR’s it looked like this:

WR#1 (1-12) => 14.9
WR#2 (13-24) => 12.6
WR#3 (25-33) => 10.1

These numbers make me think that all things being equal the team that goes with a 4 WR set is almost always going to be at disadvantage (ie as a base strategy to start the season). Not sure what I am missing and again this is a totally moot point but I guess until the RFA bidding opens it can’t hurt to kick it around.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Okay, so maybe I am just being dense but I am still not sure how a 1 RB & 4 WR would ever make sense as the normal play.

Then read post #17 again. It's a real life example of how 1 RB and 4 WRs would play better.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Okay, I think we agree here. The difference in mind is the idea of the "normal play". You noted yourself that it was because of injuries. To me the normal play would be your planned starting line-up at the beginning of the season. Obvisously you will not always be able to use the line-up but it is your preferred option.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

And it also would have allowed a team like Preds, who lost the #1 RB of 2006 for half the season, to be more competitive and maybe regain that 0.75 points that cost him the championship. Seems like a good thing to me. Well, not the getting Preds into the playoffs thing, but the competitive thing.....

I just don't buy the argument of allowing something because it allows teams to be more competitive. If that is the justification, then why do we have limited rosters, salary caps, limited developmental rosters where we are forced to cut rookie picks every year, etc etc? All of these things are challenges that are directly contradictory to the argument of allowing teams to all be competitive.

If allowing poorly managed teams, or teams hurt by injuries, to compete is justification for anything, then lets expand the rosters. Then we can all have as many players at a position we want. If I don't sign any good RBs, then I can just sign 20 of them and see if 1 of them works out. Why not get rid of the salary cap, and just have free pickups. Then anyone can pick up anyone, and the bad teams can just pick up the mid season breakout players for free. That would help teams be more competitive. Why not have huge developmental rosters so we can keep all of our rookie picks, and then when our active roster craps out, at least someone we've drafted should be able to help.

Of course this is all sarcasm, because we have all of these things in our league because the present a challenge for teams to manage a competitive roster. We only have 4 out of 12 teams going to the playoffs because we want to reward the best of the best. We don't play for money, because we are playing for pride and bragging rights. We want this league to be difficult, and letting teams start whatever combination of players they want flies directly in the face of that.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Okay, I think we agree here. The difference in mind is the idea of the "normal play". You noted yourself that it was because of injuries. To me the normal play would be your planned starting line-up at the beginning of the season. Obvisously you will not always be able to use the line-up but it is your preferred option.

Only partially. In the Insects instance, even if Jordan had remained healthy (and remained on the same pace), he was still would have been outscored by over two dozen WRs at a cheaper price. Having 20/20 hindsight, we see how it would have been beneifically to go RB/4WRs from day one.

As far as injuries, that is why I think a compromise is to allow the 1RB lineup only a limited number of times to allow for byes and injuries. People keep saying we do this so teams can "remain competitive." Well, you don't need to "remain competitive" from day one, so allow 1 RB lineups x number of times for each team, or allow 1 RB lineups the last 5 weeks of the season, or something like that. Allowing them from day 1 does not jive with the supposed justification, but allows for the unintended consequences I have tried to illustrate as possibilities.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I just don't buy the argument of allowing something because it allows teams to be more competitive. If that is the justification, then why do we have limited rosters, salary caps, limited developmental rosters where we are forced to cut rookie picks every year, etc etc? All of these things are challenges that are directly contradictory to the argument of allowing teams to all be competitive.

If allowing poorly managed teams, or teams hurt by injuries, to compete is justification for anything, then lets expand the rosters. Then we can all have as many players at a position we want. If I don't sign any good RBs, then I can just sign 20 of them and see if 1 of them works out. Why not get rid of the salary cap, and just have free pickups. Then anyone can pick up anyone, and the bad teams can just pick up the mid season breakout players for free. That would help teams be more competitive. Why not have huge developmental rosters so we can keep all of our rookie picks, and then when our active roster craps out, at least someone we've drafted should be able to help.

Of course this is all sarcasm, because we have all of these things in our league because the present a challenge for teams to manage a competitive roster. We only have 4 out of 12 teams going to the playoffs because we want to reward the best of the best. We don't play for money, because we are playing for pride and bragging rights. We want this league to be difficult, and letting teams start whatever combination of players they want flies directly in the face of that.

That may be true, but I also thought this league was setup to mirror the NFL as much as possible, and the NFL is not restricted to start or always play 2 RB - 3 WR sets. Granted, we don't change sets on each play of a game, but at least this gives us the flexibility of starting lineups that match up with the NFL rules.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

That may be true, but I also thought this league was setup to mirror the NFL as much as possible, and the NFL is not restricted to start or always play 2 RB - 3 WR sets. Granted, we don't change sets on each play of a game, but at least this gives us the flexibility of starting lineups that match up with the NFL rules.

I don't agree with that argument either, because NFL teams have consistent offensive philosophies. With few exceptions (New England comes to mind), teams have the same basic strategy from week to week. IE, Green Bay runs the WCO, Denver is going to base their offense on their zone blocking run game, the Martz Rams ran a wide open passing game. It is not an NFL where Green Bay runs the WCO until a player gets hurt, and then switches to the run and shoot for a week, only to switch to primarily 2 TE sets for a few more weeks. Players get hurt and are replaced, usually, into the same system.

Allowing teams to change their lineup makeup from week to week, if anything, moves us further from the NFL than towards it.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I don't agree with that argument either, because NFL teams have consistent offensive philosophies. With few exceptions (New England comes to mind), teams have the same basic strategy from week to week. IE, Green Bay runs the WCO, Denver is going to base their offense on their zone blocking run game, the Martz Rams ran a wide open passing game. It is not an NFL where Green Bay runs the WCO until a player gets hurt, and then switches to the run and shoot for a week, only to switch to primarily 2 TE sets for a few more weeks. Players get hurt and are replaced, usually, into the same system.

Allowing teams to change their lineup makeup from week to week, if anything, moves us further from the NFL than towards it.

Well, they may not change, but they have the ability to. And I really don't see teams switching their lineup sets weekly. They may change them 2 or 3 times a year, based on bye weeks. We for sure can't exactly mirror the NFL when it comes to lineups, one big reason is we have players from multiple teams, thus not everyone on our roster shows up to play every week. So giving us the flexibility to go with a set that matches our team strength brings us in line with the NFL as far as each team is a bit different in offensive strategy.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

Well, they may not change, but they have the ability to. And I really don't see teams switching their lineup sets weekly. They may change them 2 or 3 times a year, based on bye weeks. We for sure can't exactly mirror the NFL when it comes to lineups, one big reason is we have players from multiple teams, thus not everyone on our roster shows up to play every week. So giving us the flexibility to go with a set that matches our team strength brings us in line with the NFL as far as each team is a bit different in offensive strategy.

Interesting spin. We'll have to agree to disagree I guess.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Interesting spin. We'll have to agree to disagree I guess.

I have no problem with that....the differences of opinions of everyone here is what keeps things interesting...