ExtremeSkins FF Dynasty League

[ChrisCooleyFunkFactory]

So Sleepy was targeted 87 times and had 59 catches in 12 games
92 targets for Gresham and 61 catches in 15 games

I expect both players to imrpove...

Sorry for not replying till now but I pretty much agree with Fancy and Riggo on Gresham. He's younger, taller, I think faster, so I dont see why he is anywhere near his potential currently, which could project for a finley syle celing. Sleepy is smooth and a great athlete, tough to bring down but I think he benefits more from his system than Gresham does. Those stats 28 provided show they catch the ball at about the same rate per looks but Sleepy just got more looks in fewer games. If ever the Redskins get a true #1 or Sleepy goes some place else, he may take a dip in value.

Here's hoping for the former, not the latter. Either way, it seems like a dynamic thats likely to change. A developing Gresham and the developing Bengals may end up being a better fantasy situation than smoked out Sleepy and the bumbling Redskins.

[Drop]

Interesting values all over the place on Fred Davis. I don't know, i like Gresham a LOT, and i did take Gresham and the 2.8 for Davis and the 4.7......but i still can't help but feel like Freddy's worth a significant amount more.

Thanks for your input fellas.

---------- Post added February-23rd-2012 at 06:35 AM ----------

ok, i'm done derailing the offseason discussions with player value nonsense. lol....CCFF what do you have next for us boss?

[GOSKN5]

well I have Fred on my squad in this league...

but in the league I just joined, I have Jimmy Graham and have considered sending out a trade offer to the Fred Davis owner involving Graham and a few other big pieces.....

So I am pretty high on Fred.. I think he comes back focused with his head on straight and finishes the year in the top 10 or better... I also think he rises to top 5 and stays there for several years...

all that said, I like Gresham a pretty good bit... but I value Fred higher...

---------- Post added February-23rd-2012 at 07:21 AM ----------

This is the squad I just took over... 3 years ago it would have been dominate... now it is aging and needs some changes... the league starts 7 IDP players... 2 at each position and 1 flex IDP...


Cassel, Matt KCC QB - 6
Fitzpatrick, Ryan BUF QB (P) - 7
Rivers, Philip SDC QB - 6
Gore, Frank SFO RB - 7
Hillis, Peyton CLE RB - 5
Hunter, Kendall SFO RB - 7
McCluster, Dexter KCC RB - 6
Rodgers, Jacquizz ATL RB - 8
Turner, Michael ATL RB - 8
Bennett, Earl CHI WR - 8
Bess, Davone MIA WR (P) - 5
Heyward-Bey, Darrius OAK WR - 8
Jackson, Vincent SDC WR - 6
Moore, Lance NOS WR - 11
Shipley, Jordan CIN WR - 7
Thomas, Mike JAC WR - 9
Wayne, Reggie IND WR - 11
Graham, Jimmy NOS TE - 11
Tamme, Jacob IND TE - 11
Bailey, Dan DAL PK - 5
Ngata, Haloti BAL DT - 5
Smith, Justin SFO DE - 7
Harris, David NYJ LB - 8
Maualuga, Rey CIN LB - 7
Miller, Von DEN LB - 6
Timmons, Lawrence PIT LB - 11
Williams, Jacquian NYG LB - 7
Nelson, Reggie CIN S - 7
Polamalu, Troy PIT S - 11
Quin, Glover HOU S - 11[COLOR="Gold"]

---------- Post added February-23rd-2012 at 07:22 AM ----------

[Drop]

GO, you have a decent shot at packaging some of that age for some youth and upside. Take your pick between the Gore/Hunter combo, and the Turner/Quizz combo...package that with someone like Reggie Wayne or V-Jax to a contender who might only be a piece or two away, and see what that might net you.

[ChrisCooleyFunkFactory]

ok, i'm done derailing the offseason discussions with player value nonsense. lol....CCFF what do you have next for us boss?

no worries. i love weighing in on the TEs. always thought of them as my specialty. its probably how i've improved my team the most. traded away cooley for a first and player as soon as i got in the league, picked up Finley and Celek as FAs in the feeding frenzy, traded them at peak value, drafted Jimmy Graham and Jared Cook...

and GO, if you're making offers including Graham I think you should ask for the house and then some. he's a top 20 player at any position, who's value is increased because he is at a lower valued position. love this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THga4PW97TM

Ok, back to the offseason stuff. Love the discourse and and appreciate the compromises everyone. We're moving at a good clip.

Next up, lineup changes.

I would like to make it easier for teams to go 2 TE. This lineup change allows 2 more possible lineups in addition to everything we do now.

1RB, 3WR, 2TE, or
3RB, 1WR, 2TE.

The TE position has a lower value than the RB or WR position so I dont see any inherent competitive advantage in allowing teams to use more of them at the sake of higher valued position. The biggest incentive is the flexibility.

Our new lineup would look like this:

1WR
1WR/TE
1RB
1RB/TE
1TE
1RB/WR/TE

In extreme situations, managers could start up to 4TE (like Stanford or something) but I dont think is likely to happen and again I dont have any problem with managers doing that if thats what they want.

[Drop]

wow, starting two tightends is a lot. I don't know how i'd feel about someone hoarding them in an attempt to be able to start 3 or 4 top 8 guys every week. Although that may be far fetched, it does become a possibility with this change. I'll have to think about this one some more.

[MattFancy]

Why not just change the flex we have now to a RB/WR/TE? That would be the easiest thing.

[ChrisCooleyFunkFactory]

Why not just change the flex we have now to a RB/WR/TE? That would be the easiest thing.

it already is. currently, teams can go to 2 TEs, this rule just allows for more flexibility.

[MattFancy]

it already is. currently, teams can go to 2 TEs, this rule just allows for more flexibility.

So then I don't understand. If you really want to start 2 TEs, we already can. I'd rather leave it the way it already is.

[Drop]

With CCFF's proposal, you'll be able to start up to 4 tight ends.....that's the thing that I don't know if i'm on board with. I don't like the 1 RB/3 WR or 3 RB/1 WR thing honestly. And that's the way you're going to acheive the additional tight end flexibility without expanding the rosters.

So far, i'm not so big on this. I'd like to hear what others have to say though.

[MattFancy]

With CCFF's proposal, you'll be able to start up to 4 tight ends.....that's the thing that I don't know if i'm on board with. I don't like the 1 RB/3 WR or 3 RB/1 WR thing honestly. And that's the way you're going to acheive the additional tight end flexibility without expanding the rosters.

So far, i'm not so big on this. I'd like to hear what others have to say though.

I agree with you. I think its fine the way it is. Why would you want to start 4 TEs? I don't think many even start 2.

[Drop]

Yeah i understand the added flexibility...i'm just not sure we need it. It basically comes down to wether or not you think we should be able to start up to 4 tight ends any given week.

I think i'm gonna firmly plant myself in the "no" group on this one. I just don't see the need to start 3 or 4 tight ends. I think two is plenty, and i'm a fan of our current lineup format.

[ChrisCooleyFunkFactory]

Yeah i understand the added flexibility...i'm just not sure we need it. It basically comes down to wether or not you think we should be able to start up to 4 tight ends any given week.

I think i'm gonna firmly plant myself in the "no" group on this one. I just don't see the need to start 3 or 4 tight ends. I think two is plenty, and i'm a fan of our current lineup format.

Im not concerned with teams going 3 or 4 TEs because TEs dont score as points as WRs or RBs. I dont see any reason why a team would want to, except if they found them selves in such a bad injury situation at the other (more important) positions. In those cases, I say let them. I dont see the value in hoarding TEs and dont think it will happen in this league.

I do think that the value of the TE position is changing as the NFL develops further into a passing league and I think our rules should reflect that. RBs are becoming less available so that starting 2, especially on bye weeks becomes more difficult. Meanwhile, TEs are becoming more relevant with the best becoming elite, and an overall increase in production of the average TEs.

Similar to the QB position, the value of TE position is capped by the starting lineup constraints. We only start 12 QBs so the 13th QB doesnt have much value. By allowing managers to have more flexibility in putting another TE in their lineup, the value of the 13th TE is increased. This is the heart of my argument. If we can agree on this we could compromise by making some amendment that teams are not allowed to actually start 4 or even 3 TEs even though it is technically possible with the FF lineup.

[Drop]

hmmm....interesting point of view CCFF. I still gotta think about wether or not I like this. Let's see what some of the rest of the league thinks.

[f_trizzy]

I think it's rare anyone will ever start 2 TE's let alone 3 or 4. And this coming from the guy who owns the #3 and #6 ranked TE's from last season.

That being said, at the same time I don't really see harm in it. Like CCFF said it does add some flexibility, which is always a good thing to have in case of extreme injury situations etc. I also agree that I don't think it would cause people to start hoarding TE's either. I'm not sure but I would imagine most of the TE's with value are already dispersed pretty evenly throughout the league?

I don't know, I guess my opinion is I don't think it's neccessary but I also don't see it having a negative effect on the league either.