|
|
Post by Washington Captals on Mar 3, 2007 14:19:21 GMT -5
These are just some thoughts I have that I was wondering how others feel about them. Take what you will from them.
I feel that 36% D is way too much D on offense on a daily basis. Forwards are dominantly more valuable than the D position yet we are letting D play a such prodominant role. Shitty fantasy players will be hot commodities (D) but great F's will just be sitting on someones bench, farm or worse the FA list lol.
If it were up to me we would either...
C,C,LW,LW,RW,RW,D,D,D,Util,Util or...
C,C,C,LW,LW,LW,RW,RW,RW,D,D,D,D,Util and then have a shorter bench.
Also the fact the bench and farm combined is so much deeper than the roster spots seems a little lopsided...
But the main thing is I hate having shitty D be such a big part of the daily lineup.
I would propose we vote on a change not this year (that wouldn't be fair) but perhaps for our second year... 2008-2009.
Just my thoughts... hopefully some of you will agree now or in the future. If not that is fine... just wanted to get them out there.
thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Montreal Canadiens on Mar 3, 2007 14:32:04 GMT -5
I would agree with adding more forward spots to our scoring lineup. I don't think eliminating any D spots would be fair to the teams that have tried to adddress the current roster requirements as those teams probably passed on better offensive talent in order to get those Dmen.
Considering our benches (including minor league team) contain more players than our starting rosters it seems a little backwards to me as the players on our 'benches' will actually outscore the players we have playing on any given week. More roster spots would also increas the importance of the next 15 rounds
|
|
|
|
Post by Washington Captals on Mar 3, 2007 14:34:22 GMT -5
Also we could just add a W or F or Util or two. I think a general F would make a lot of sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Washington Captals on Mar 3, 2007 14:34:52 GMT -5
and then take away a bench spot or two to balance the addition and keep it at 28 of course
|
|
|
|
Post by patriot0103 on Mar 3, 2007 14:42:39 GMT -5
I would agree with adding more forward spots to our scoring lineup. I don't think eliminating any D spots would be fair to the teams that have tried to adddress the current roster requirements as those teams probably passed on better offensive talent in order to get those Dmen. Considering our benches (including minor league team) contain more players than our starting rosters it seems a little backwards to me as the players on our 'benches' will actually outscore the players we have playing on any given week. More roster spots would also increas the importance of the next 15 rounds Yea, I agree with the idea for the most part, and I hate defense as well, but even adding offensive spots might not be a good idea. People may have taken prospects thinking they could fill their other starting spots later...now if we're increasing the amount of starting spots you have then all of a sudden their strategy backfires quite a bit because they may have taken more NHL regulars earlier in the draft. Regardless, everyone drafted expecting these settings, if we're changing stuff now, it can't be put into effect until next year, ABSOLUTE EARLIEST, just because people drafted expecting what it is now. Just my $.02 |
|
|
|
Post by Washington Captals on Mar 3, 2007 14:45:08 GMT -5
Also wanted to mention... every change of this level would adversly affect one team along the line at least a little... no matter when we do it. We just must make the most helpful changes with the least harm to teams.
I am just bringing these up for what I see as the best for the league in the long run, although some may disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Washington Captals on Mar 3, 2007 14:59:20 GMT -5
Yeah I don't think doing it this year is necessary or fair... damn I wish I would have brought this up before the draft. Ugghh lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Wild on Mar 3, 2007 15:19:04 GMT -5
I've always been a fan of the way the settings are now (althought I usually only go with 3 D anyways) because it's 2 full lines on an actualy team. But if the majority would like more forward positions added that can be put up to a vote for the 2008-2009 season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Washington Captals on Mar 3, 2007 16:07:55 GMT -5
yeah I think 2008-2009 would be far enough in advanced IMO.. but who knows what the league thinks... you could put up a poll asking extra F,W,UTIL, or none
That would be cool
|
|
|
|
Post by chgorman on Mar 3, 2007 16:22:19 GMT -5
I've always been a fan of the way the settings are now (althought I usually only go with 3 D anyways) because it's 2 full lines on an actualy team. But if the majority would like more forward positions added that can be put up to a vote for the 2008-2009 season. Agreed. This is much more realistic IMO, then having 2.5 lines of forwards and only 1.5 lines or D. In the NHL, D make up 33% of the players on the ice at any time, so why would we deviate from that? We can't start changing the rules now or anytime in the future just because a few guys don't have enough good D and now want to make them less important. I don't think that's really fair to those of us who were smart about our draft and have chosen a balanced team. Who cares if D don't get as many points as forwards do, they're still integral parts of any fantasy team, just as they are in the NHL. Just 'cause the good ones only get 60-70 pts a year, while the best forwards get 100-120 pts a year, doesn't make D 'shitty', they're still an important part of fantasy. And if anything, it makes the good D even more important because there's less of them. No offence, but to me, this sounds like a guy who just realized he's f*cked on D and now wants to have the rules changed to better suit his team cause he knows he gonna have a big hole on D, so he wants to minimize that. Call me a jerk, but I'm just callin' it as I see it. The rules were set out from the start, and everybody is working with the same rules, so we're all on a level playing field. Changing the rules now or anytime in the next few years really changes things. I know everybody is thinking 'oh, well you just don't want to change it 'cause you have 4 decent D already', and yeah, that would be completely true. I looked at the rules, devised my strategy, and drafted accordingly. I don't think I should be penalized now or anytime in the near future (i.e. next few years) just because I gave more priority to D than most others. That's pretty retarded IMO if that happens. |
|
|
|
Post by Washington Captals on Mar 3, 2007 16:49:58 GMT -5
I didn't think about how many quality forwards are going to be sitting on benches all year in relation to the half ass D. THIS IS NOT THE NHL! THIS IS FANTASY. Having 36% D I am realizing is like having a third of your team as catchers in baseball. They just suck.
It has absolutely 0 to do with my team's situation. I have 2 solid options already. Some teams have NONE!
You and your novels and assuptions really piss me off. I was just starting discussion. You didn't have to escalate it for no reason. We havnt done anything!
|
|
|
|
Post by Washington Captals on Mar 3, 2007 16:57:26 GMT -5
great players will have to sit while 40 pt defenseman play every day
I just really wished we would have discussed it before... looks like we are stuck with it. I wish you could see it would be better for the league to allow more offense to play everyday but you are too selfish. Gawd!
|
|
|
|
Post by Washington Captals on Mar 3, 2007 17:05:32 GMT -5
Just so you know... I am done. It is very ignorant to think I started this discussion for myself. I just hate D in fantasy and didn't realize the quality of players that will have to sit while they play. Now I do... but it is too late. Just assume this post never happened... should have known better than to try to start up a discussion with fools like the thrashers running their mouth.
Cya
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Bruins on Mar 3, 2007 17:16:16 GMT -5
I agree with pitts for whatever it is worth, rules can be changed, not for next year but going forward.....
And it doesn't mean he thinks he is f-ed at d and wants rule changes all of a sudden just because he is porposing changes that could improve the league...
|
|
|
|
Post by Montreal Canadiens on Mar 3, 2007 17:49:03 GMT -5
It's probably best to just hold off anything with the rosters at least until the draft is done. I do think it is always in the league best interest to expand roster positions to include more players contributing to the teams totals on a daily/nightly basis.
Maybe mid season it will be more of an issue when we see how many starts are missed each week because of full rosters.
|
|
