- 3,359
- California
- PumpinNumbies
GTPlanet 2012 Fantasy Football League
- Thread starter FoolKiller
- 643 comments
- 24,256 views
- Status
- 4,445
- Colorado
- GTP_UnoMOTO
You Said...
Isolated statistical evidence does not prove your point. If selecting entire teams were truly competitive, the millions of fantasy players would be all over it. Just sayin
- 3,359
- California
- PumpinNumbies
First of all, let me say, I forgot to add in Witten's 1 point = 95.52
How is it isolated? A 24 point game isn't a rarity for the Cowboys.
Your argument is what, that we're only looking at week one? Should I make up numbers for week 2 to prove my point? Should I calculate the Team Numbers for the same players last year, replacing Ogletree with Luarent Robison? And you think the numbers are going to magically change? What else should I base my statement on, other than this years results thus far? What else do I have?
Or is your argument that Ogletree won't have another 23 point week?
Because next week you think that Ogletree's 23 points will all go to someone NOT named Romo, Murray, Witten, Dez, Austin or Bailey?
Just because it isn't a widely used strategy, doesn't mean it isn't viable
People avoid it, because if Dallas tanks any week, it's a guaranteed loss.
Because most people can build a better team, with players from multiple teams.
Because lots of people don't like the idea of purposely losing one week.
Because if one of your 'stars' gets hurt, you can't replace them with a 'star' from another team you drafted, you're stuck with a practice squader who lacked the talent to be a first stringer to begin with. And finally, because it's difficult to pull off in a draft.
There's quite a few teams this would work with, but pulling it off in the draft room means 1 of two things. Either A: You reach for players and draft them earlier than their value indicates.
Or B: you have to hope they fall to you.
Both instances defy the basic logic of draft day value and ranking strategy.
But... just because it doesn't make 'draft day sense' doesn't mean it won't translate to the fantasy stat sheet.
To even further prove my point. Take the teams 95.52, let's subtract 1 touchdown, and 100 total yards.
Romo -2 Passing Touchdown (50% of pass/rush TD)
-2 50 passing yards
-5 50 passing yards
-5 50 rushing yards
-6 Receiving or rushing TD
+3 Field Goal
-20 Points + 3 = 17 points lost in total
95.52-17= 78.52 which is still enough to beat 7 of the teams last week.
- 4,687
- Golden State
- xViLLaiNx12
Sent you an offer.
Adrenaline is playin lunacy football, not fantasy football. Don't bother.
- 3,359
- California
- PumpinNumbies
Yeah, I can do math, so I'm crazy. For all the skeptics I did 9 more teams off the top of my head:
Baltimore Ravens: 112.66 - Would have beaten 15 teams this week
Atlanta Falcons: 107.96 - Would have beaten 15 teams this week
Washington Redskins: 99.1 - Would have beaten 14 teams this week
Dallas Cowboys: 95.52 - Would have beaten 14 teams this week
Houston Texans: 92.94 - Would have beaten 13 teams this week
San Francisco 49ers: 88.74 - Would have beaten 12 teams this week
New England Patriots: 87.04 - Would have beaten 10 teams this week
New Orleans Saints: 83.16 - Would have beaten 9 teams this week
Philadelphia Eagles: 80.48 - Would have beaten 9 teams this week
Detroit Lions: 77.4 - Would have beaten 6 teams this week
I'm not going to do all 32 teams, but I'm willing to bet the Packers, Giants, Vikings, Bengals, Bears, Jets and Steelers all would have done well too, and that's just teams off the top of my head. You can claim whatever you want, but at least I can back up and prove my standpoint with actual evidence.
Baltimore Ravens: 112.66 - Would have beaten 15 teams this week
Atlanta Falcons: 107.96 - Would have beaten 15 teams this week
Washington Redskins: 99.1 - Would have beaten 14 teams this week
Dallas Cowboys: 95.52 - Would have beaten 14 teams this week
Houston Texans: 92.94 - Would have beaten 13 teams this week
San Francisco 49ers: 88.74 - Would have beaten 12 teams this week
New England Patriots: 87.04 - Would have beaten 10 teams this week
New Orleans Saints: 83.16 - Would have beaten 9 teams this week
Philadelphia Eagles: 80.48 - Would have beaten 9 teams this week
Detroit Lions: 77.4 - Would have beaten 6 teams this week
I'm not going to do all 32 teams, but I'm willing to bet the Packers, Giants, Vikings, Bengals, Bears, Jets and Steelers all would have done well too, and that's just teams off the top of my head. You can claim whatever you want, but at least I can back up and prove my standpoint with actual evidence.
- 4,445
- Colorado
- GTP_UnoMOTO
Keep going with your thought process to your hearts content, but you still would have been crushed by the mix of rookies and second stringers which compromise the league leaders this week.
QB--Aaron Rodgers --22.82
WR--Kevin Ogletree--23.40
WR--Julio Jones------22.80
RB---C.J Spiller-------23.40
TE---Jimmy Graham---14.50
W/R--Alfred Morris----21.60
K-----Billy Cundiff----18.00
DEF--Cleveland-------19.00
---------------------165.52
I understand the point you are making, but in head to head leagues, you only play teams one at a time so how many teams you would beat in a week is somewhat irrelevant. In our league, the Ravens would have only beaten ONE team last week.
The first year we did this league, I lead the league in points but finished sixth out of twelve if I recall correctly. I do not put stock in total points scored.
QB--Aaron Rodgers --22.82
WR--Kevin Ogletree--23.40
WR--Julio Jones------22.80
RB---C.J Spiller-------23.40
TE---Jimmy Graham---14.50
W/R--Alfred Morris----21.60
K-----Billy Cundiff----18.00
DEF--Cleveland-------19.00
---------------------165.52
I understand the point you are making, but in head to head leagues, you only play teams one at a time so how many teams you would beat in a week is somewhat irrelevant. In our league, the Ravens would have only beaten ONE team last week.
The first year we did this league, I lead the league in points but finished sixth out of twelve if I recall correctly. I do not put stock in total points scored.
- 3,359
- California
- PumpinNumbies
Apples to Oranges.
A: I have already clearly stated I think going with a single team fantasy team, is not giving you the best 'draft day value'. I was correct.
B: My initial stand point, was that 'if done correctly' you could be 'competitive week in and week out'. I was correct.
C: I provided proof, you claimed it was 'isolated'. You were wrong, I've proved to you why.
D: All of my examples are realistic and actually can be accomplished.
E: Your above example is impossible to obtain in a draft, therefore meaningless.
F: It doesn't matter how many people you play in a week. That's not what I illustrated above. What I pointed out was that with this 'Single Team, Team' you would have beaten X/16 matchups. Yes you only beat 'one' a week, but knowing you would have Won, regardless of your matchup, DOES hold value, whether you're willing to admit it or not.
Having said all that, I agree, 'Strength of Schedule' is far more important that total points. In my main league, I scored the 3rd highest points this week, but unfortunately I was playing one of the teams that scored top 2. But it doesn't lower the 'value' or 'strength' of my overall team, on a weekly basis.
And that's what this all boils down to. A 'same team, team' if done correctly, could and would be competitive week in and week out. Will they win every week? No, but neither would your week 1 dream team you listed above. Straw man arguments will not hold here.
My original claim was and still is true. I was correct. Regardless of how you want to spin it, I still stand by my original claim. You disputed it, for whatever reason, and I very calmly, civilly and logically proved you wrong.
Agree to move on?
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
I think the OP is in need of an update
I can't get GTP at work on the computers and don't get a lot of time at home. So usually the fantasy stuff has been done by pulling up the league on my work breaks and editing GTP on my phone. But we are hosting a conference Friday and I've been busy at work and out of town on the weekends.
I'll get to that once work slows down.
- 3,359
- California
- PumpinNumbies
Okie dokie! I just realized there's no return points, so I suppose he's not as awesome in this format as my others. But he's still my favorite receiver in the league!
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
This raised a flag in my head. Yahoo changed some stuff on me. Returns used to be part of defense/special teams but they have a separate points category for kick/punt returns now. That means transferring all previous settings did not turn this on. I can turn this on, if agreed upon. But we are past week 1, so it needs a consensus.
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
Turn it on.
- 4,687
- Golden State
- xViLLaiNx12
Are you serious about trading these guys or not? Sent you three offers already with zero communication from you on what you want.
- 4,445
- Colorado
- GTP_UnoMOTO
Sure...We will see how it works out for Cowboys965 AKA 'Doomsday Defense' by the end of the season. I'll eat my words and comments then.
In other news, have you guys clicked the 'last week's recap' link yet. Stephen (FoolKiller) used to wrap it up like that once upon a time. It is a nice little feature.
- 3,273
- London
- Chqr
No worries, bro.
I think the best way to trade would be over Yahoo! and proposing a trade offer through there.
Additionally, thanks for accepting my offer Isaiah.
- 3,359
- California
- PumpinNumbies
- 7,517
- Connecticut
- Cowboys965
Well, I've never done this before, so I thought bench players had to be actual bench players, but that's where I screwed up, since I'm stuck with Nick Foles, etc.
If you guys want one of my players that bad all you have to do is offer a trade.
If you guys want one of my players that bad all you have to do is offer a trade.
- 20,820
- NJ/USA
- Blitzbay
- Blitzbay
No, never actual bench players. If that were the case you'd have some good RB sitting on WW.
- 4,687
- Golden State
- xViLLaiNx12
Well now you're talking. Are you willing to move Jason Witten?
- 2,110
villain what team are you again?
- 7,517
- Connecticut
- Cowboys965
Villain
Pretty much anyone.
- 3,359
- California
- PumpinNumbies
- 4,687
- Golden State
- xViLLaiNx12
Gooks of Hazard
- Status
