1. #135821
    Hall of Famer MattMeyerBud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    60,564

    Re: THEE NYG SWAG THREAD

    [quote user="JPizzack"][quote user="DavenIII"][quote user="lttaylor56"][quote user="JPizzack"]


    YO</P>


    i know i dont have a vote, cuz i wasnt in A-league last year....but, whats with this "compromise" vote??

    I mean, I thought the vote was standard (3WR/2RB) vs Flex (2RB/2WR/+flex)

    now call me crazy....but why would someone have voted standard if they knew that that this 2nd vote would essentially open up the SAME EXACT ****ing option. </P>


    the way I see it, the flex spot already devalues RB selections cuz traditionally you want the consistency from RBs...if you have 3 WRs already, who is going to start a 4th WR in the flex spot?? nobody. These votes essentially FORCE extra RBs on your roster no matter what the decision is....</P>


    [/quote]Pizz makes good sense with this one. Btw--How are we on the board today? I thought it shuts down today?[/quote]

    LT+Kase+Pizz

    THIS is what happened.

    3WR vs 2WR=Flex was in the middle of being voted on and Matt came up with a "compromise" 3 WR + Flex

    I mentioned I would like that...so what we did was we finished the 3WR vs 2WR+Flex vote...

    2WR+Flex won.

    then after that Matt started ANOTHER separate vote, that vote was to see if we as a league should accept the compromise Matt came up with instead of the regular 2WR+Flex that we had just decided upon.

    that vote was pretty unanimous there was enough votes from the people here at the time that it was passed.*
    [/quote]</P>


    wtf.....thats insane how ppl voted for both...
    2WR+flex....there's a choice...
    3WR + flex.....there's no choice what im doing with that slot....</P>


    it's as if youre voting on whether or not you actually want control of your team....if you DONT....3wr + flex is the way to go...lol</P>[/quote]


    you can go for the 3 RBs, but then your WRs will take a serious hit. It plays into the stats that Daven was saying yesterday (which he over exaggerated though, but the main point was correct).

    You can't disregard WRs with a 3 WR flex like u can with the 2 WR flex, it has to be accounted for.

    You can also use TEs as a Flex
    Fear the name, appreciate the game

  2. #135822
    Hall of Famer MattMeyerBud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    60,564

    Re: THEE NYG SWAG THREAD

    and the compromise is that people wanted flex because they say its more strategic, i was against 2 WR flex because WRs and everybody can just go 3 RBs right away because WRs are so deep. Go look at some of the projected WR3s and tell me they wouldn't be just as good as WR 2s...

    I would say even WR4s are pretty stacked this year
    Fear the name, appreciate the game

  3. #135823
    All-Pro JPizzack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Poughkeepsie, NY
    Posts
    26,105

    Re: THEE NYG SWAG THREAD



    [quote user="MattMeyerBud"]You can't disregard WRs with a 3 WR flex like u can with the 2 WR flex, it has to be accounted for. You can also use TEs as a Flex[/quote]</P>


    Let me translate what you just said here:

    "You have to use a 3rd RB regardless of your original plan."</P>


    because Matt, if you have 3 WR already, then there will be no players left to play, unless you happen to be extremely high on Ramses Barden this year or something. Youre really stretching for like 4th string WRs, it just aint happening.
    The only saving grace here is that teams are using more RBs....but that just means less production from individual players overall.

    They shouldnt call this fantasty football, they should call it "good luck fielding a team" football. lol</P>
    Oderint Dum Metuant

  4. #135824
    Hall of Famer MattMeyerBud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    60,564
    Quote Originally Posted by JPizzack View Post
    [quote user="MattMeyerBud"]You can't disregard WRs with a 3 WR flex like u can with the 2 WR flex, it has to be accounted for. You can also use TEs as a Flex
    </P>


    Let me translate what you just said here:

    "You have to use a 3rd RB regardless of your original plan."</P>


    because Matt, if you have 3 WR already, then there will be no players left to play, unless you happen to be extremely high on Ramses Barden this year or something. Youre really stretching for like 4th string WRs, it just aint happening.
    The only saving grace here is that teams are using more RBs....but that just means less production from individual players overall.

    They shouldnt call this fantasty football, they should call it "good luck fielding a team" football. lol</P>[/QUOTE]

    zang

  5. #135825
    Hall of Famer MattMeyerBud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    60,564
    don't quote any past quotes from the old boards or its going to come up weird

  6. #135826
    Hall of Famer MattMeyerBud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    60,564
    Quote Originally Posted by MattMeyerBud View Post
    don't quote any past quotes from the old boards or its going to come up weird
    testing zdgvbghd

  7. #135827
    All-Pro Kase-1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    BK 2 LI
    Posts
    12,202
    Quote Originally Posted by DavenIII View Post

    Btw--How are we on the board today? I thought it shuts down today?
    LT+Kase+Pizz

    THIS is what happened.

    3WR vs 2WR=Flex was in the middle of being voted on and Matt came up with a "compromise" 3 WR + Flex

    I mentioned I would like that...so what we did was we finished the 3WR vs 2WR+Flex vote...

    2WR+Flex won.

    then after that Matt started ANOTHER separate vote, that vote was to see if we as a league should accept the compromise Matt came up with instead of the regular 2WR+Flex that we had just decided upon.

    that vote was pretty unanimous there was enough votes from the people here at the time that it was passed.[/QUOTE]

    OK thanks for the clarification
    Round1: AA-Ron Donald, DT, Pitt
    Round2: Kareem Martin, UNC, DE
    Round3: Austin Seferian-Jenkins, TE, Washington
    Round4: Travis Swanson, C, Arkansas
    Round5: Cyril Richardson, OG, Baylor
    Round5: Brandon Coleman, WR, Rutgers

  8. #135828
    All-Pro Kase-1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    BK 2 LI
    Posts
    12,202
    NY Rangers get Rick Nash for Brandon Dubinsky and next to nothing....For all those that dont know about Rick Nash, peep the youtube vid

    http://youtu.be/_WqRt1rk8uE
    Round1: AA-Ron Donald, DT, Pitt
    Round2: Kareem Martin, UNC, DE
    Round3: Austin Seferian-Jenkins, TE, Washington
    Round4: Travis Swanson, C, Arkansas
    Round5: Cyril Richardson, OG, Baylor
    Round5: Brandon Coleman, WR, Rutgers

  9. #135829
    All-Pro Morehead State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Westfield, MA
    Posts
    43,422
    How come I can't use an avatar?

  10. #135830
    All-Pro Kase-1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    BK 2 LI
    Posts
    12,202

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by Morehead State View Post
    How come I can't use an avatar?
    Because you didnt vote for Obama
    Round1: AA-Ron Donald, DT, Pitt
    Round2: Kareem Martin, UNC, DE
    Round3: Austin Seferian-Jenkins, TE, Washington
    Round4: Travis Swanson, C, Arkansas
    Round5: Cyril Richardson, OG, Baylor
    Round5: Brandon Coleman, WR, Rutgers

Posting Permissions

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