Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

Anti-Fantasy Draft and Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

Posted
Okay, well that was what I wasn't sure of. That changes things for me, and lets just all go on the assumption that that is how it will be. So if I want the option of running a 3-4 or a 4-3 I will take a DT as a bench spot and not as a TE spot.
  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
I think the idea is that he would like to have sort of a hybrid defense' date=' where he could have the flexibility to switch off between a 3-4 and a 4-3. I'd like to do the same thing, but I don't want to use a bench spot on it.[/quote']

 

This was what I was looking at until we decided that it was a 2nd ILB or a 2nd DT.

Posted
We can do that if we add another position to the draft to even out the rounds.

 

Hmm, I guess the other position would have to be a FB or a nickel-back. I thought you guys were against the idea of adding another position though?

Posted
Okay' date=' well that was what I wasn't sure of. That changes things for me, and lets just all go on the assumption that that is how it will be. So if I want the option of running a 3-4 or a 4-3 I will take a DT as a bench spot and not as a TE spot.[/quote']

 

 

For now, I think that this is the best way to go. I wouldn't draft a 4th DT+ILB combo until after we get an official ruling. I don't want to f*** over anyone's draft so we should keep it as it is for now, and if something changes, we'll make it official.

Posted
For now' date=' I think that this is the best way to go. I wouldn't draft a 4th DT+ILB combo until after we get an official ruling. I don't want to f*** over anyone's draft so we should keep it as it is for now, and if something changes, we'll make it official.[/quote']

 

OK, for now, lets go with this assumption.

Posted
We can do that if we add another position to the draft to even out the rounds.

 

No, it's fine, I just interpreted the chart differently than the rules apparently said. I wanted to mainly go 3-4 regardless of anything, so if we keep it as is, I'm fine with it, and if I decide on a DT for my bench then that's what I do.

Posted
Hmm' date=' I guess the other position would have to be a FB or a nickel-back. I thought you guys were against the idea of adding another position though?[/quote']

 

 

I just don't want it to get so convoluted that it doesn't get finished. I was against the back up spots in the first place, mainly because I felt that if a player was drafted when healthy, than an injury to that player AFTER he was drafted shouldn't hurt the owner that drafted him. In any case, if Kilo is ok with adding another 2 rounds (one for the DT/ILb) and one for the other player (either a FB or a 3rd bench player of owner choice) then I'm ok with it. But I'm not going to tell you guys to do it and have you change your drafts accordingly and then have you go back to what it was because that will screw you guys over.

Posted
I just don't want it to get so convoluted that it doesn't get finished. I was against the back up spots in the first place' date=' mainly because I felt that if a player was drafted when healthy, than an injury to that player AFTER he was drafted shouldn't hurt the owner that drafted him. In any case, if Kilo is ok with adding another 2 rounds (one for the DT/ILB) and one for the other player (either a FB or a 3rd bench player of owner choice) then I'm ok with it. But I'm not going to tell you guys to do it and have you change your drafts accordingly and then have you go back to what it was because that will screw you guys over.[/quote']

 

OK, that's fine. At this point, with the end near, we might just be better off finishing the draft with the current format.

Posted
OK' date=' that's fine. At this point, with the end near, we might just be better off finishing the draft with the current format.[/quote']

 

I agree here, nothing should be added. I just interpreted everything differently.

Posted
I agree here' date=' nothing should be added. I just interpreted everything differently.[/quote']

 

I was thinking the exact same thing as you were, and it was a question I posed a few pages back. The only reason I assumed that we weren't meant to draft two of each is because I just figured most people wouldn't think/want to draft a hybrid style defense.

Posted
I think we should do:

 

backup QB

backup ILB/DT

FB

 

Well you can take two of those with your bench spots. Other than that, I think we have to wait and see what TK says on the matter.

Posted
Not to mention that it would be an odd number of additions, and we need an even number of rounds. In any case, I'm sure that Kilo will grace us with his wisdom (and MSU's draft pick) early in the morning tomorrow, long before I'm awake to notice.
Posted

I'm fine with that, especially since we're coming up to the end of our starting players anyway (minus the last section which really isn't THAT important/differentiated in the scheme of things)

 

So starting with RSSFL's pick we'll go to 6 hours.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
The Talk Sox Caretaker Fund
The Talk Sox Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Red Sox community on the internet.

×
×
  • Create New...