Thats interesting.
Never heard of that.
I dont know if I would like that or not.
I kind of like the luck factor myself.
For instance the RX $500 league.
I have been in this league both seasons.
Last year I finished dead last.
But I had the 2nd most total points in the entire league.
I really had a great team last year but finished 2-12.
I would lose 140-135 almost every week.
It was insane.
This season my team sucks. But my luck has been the opposite.
Won a lot of 60 to 50 type games.
Pulled off some miraculous(1 week wonder) waiver wire pickups.
But I am playing in the finals next week for 3K.
My team last season on paper would destroy my team this season but thats the way it goes.
Yup in the $100 rx league I led the league in total points, was scoring 180ish (or more) for 4 straight weeks, then just lost 130-122 in the semis.
No question in my mind I had the best team in that league.
I don't like the luck factor. That same league with no D and no K takes almost all luck out as it is also total points only, no playoffs. Runs all 17 weeks, standings are just total points, no head to head. I prefer it that way personally.
No question in my mind I had the best team in that league.
I don't like the luck factor. That same league with no D and no K takes almost all luck out as it is also total points only, no playoffs. Runs all 17 weeks, standings are just total points, no head to head. I prefer it that way personally.
Do you have to put in a starting lineup every week or is it total points from the entire team?
But stuff like this makes me wonder how much luck is involved in the real NFL.
I bet it plays a much bigger role then we think.
Lets go back to week 3 of the football season.
The Houston Texans were 2-0 at the time.
At that time everyone thought the Texans were going to have a typical 10 to 12 win type season.
They were up big in week 3 at home to Seattle winning 20-3 or something like that in the 4th quarter headed for 3-0.
Then all of a sudden they fall apart and give the game away to Seattle.
It makes me wonder how much that pick 6 cost Houston for the season.
If they would have held on to that game it might have changed the entire outlook of Houston's season.
But that one game changed it all.
They are 2-12 right now.
2-0 before that loss.
I dont think there is any chance that they would only be 3-11 right now if they would have won that game.
You're one of my favorite posters here, and not just because you're a fellow Saints fan, but also because you're one of the more intelligent ones here. This post is further evidence of that.
That's why I always like to stress, not just in my own handicapping but in general of team sports as well, the key to sustaining winning or any type of success is one's mental mindset. In the case of the Texans, as you detailed, their mental make-up completely started to break down after that collapse against the Seahawks, and voila, the situation that is in Houston right now was the climax result.
That's how it is for every team. Everything is mental, and significant events are what can change that. That's why mental strength and mindset are such crucial, crucial factors, yet unfortunately, get overlooked by a lot of people out there (For handicapping purposes as well).
You could say the same for Atlanta also. Their mental make-up obviously isn't what it normally is right now/the past several weeks compared to what it was prior to that awful MNF loss versus the Jets. If they won that game, even without Julio Jones for the bulk of the season, their record is probably considerably different from what it is now. (By the way, Chop, not sure how you feel about the Falcons as a Saints fan, but as one myself, I actually respect them and don't dislike them as much as I do for other division rivals of my favorite teams in other sports. Just curious about your opinion on the Atlanta organization, because I feel like I'm in the minority of Saints fans who feel that way lol)
Streaks and momentum are so crucial. The Jaguars won four out of five off their bye week after being 0-8 or whatever it was... if they started the year with that 4-1 streak, their season storyline would be different, thus they'd be much better collectively both mentally and physically. Similar situation for Tampa Bay. When people are winning, you have that belief and confidence in each other, but when things go south, everything can just drop quickly, relative to one's situation at that point of occurrence. If the Bucs started the year on their current run, and the newfound belief in their formerly-despised head coach, that football team is in a much different position, probably a lot closer to our beloved Saints and [hated] Panthers.
Oh, and let me throw in my two cents about this topic:
You're all correct in saying there's more luck involved with the kicker. BUT, there are certainly plenty of instances where a lot of luck is involved with how many points a fantasy defenses gives you. For example, I'm one of those guys who usually waits till Sunday morning to pick up my defense for the week, a strategy that has actually proven to be successful for me over the years, since I combine that with my handicapping (Ex. Whatever under I like most, I try to secure one of the defenses from that particular game in a lot of cases; other times, I look for a back-up or a QB who is playing for the first time under a new system; Ex. Acquiring bottom-five-at-the-time Giants defense versus Josh Freeman and the Vikings at home on MNF was the reason I won my matchup that week). At the same time, there have been a number of times where you're not really rewarded for that ability. If you pick up a defense in a game that you know is going to be low-scoring, and they hold their opponent to a measly 7 or 10 points, but do nothing else, you only get four fantasy points. Meanwhile, a team could play in a 38-35 shootout, but still easily pick up double-digit points on defense if there's a lot of turnovers/sacks (And maybe a defensive TD) involved.
If you play in a league without a kicker and a defense, that's very interesting. Never came across any leagues that didn't feature those two positions, but certainly would be unique to play in one of those. I'd rather participate in the old-school way of doing it of having both, because I'm smart enough to reach for Matt Prater like I did this year, while applying my strategy for defense that I talked about above. So they're two strengths of mine that I like to have on an annual basis, although it is maddening when you're the guy who faced the guy who started a defense or kicker that scored over 20 points in a week. Overall, I prefer to have them, though.
You're all correct in saying there's more luck involved with the kicker. BUT, there are certainly plenty of instances where a lot of luck is involved with how many points a fantasy defenses gives you. For example, I'm one of those guys who usually waits till Sunday morning to pick up my defense for the week, a strategy that has actually proven to be successful for me over the years, since I combine that with my handicapping (Ex. Whatever under I like most, I try to secure one of the defenses from that particular game in a lot of cases; other times, I look for a back-up or a QB who is playing for the first time under a new system; Ex. Acquiring bottom-five-at-the-time Giants defense versus Josh Freeman and the Vikings at home on MNF was the reason I won my matchup that week). At the same time, there have been a number of times where you're not really rewarded for that ability. If you pick up a defense in a game that you know is going to be low-scoring, and they hold their opponent to a measly 7 or 10 points, but do nothing else, you only get four fantasy points. Meanwhile, a team could play in a 38-35 shootout, but still easily pick up double-digit points on defense if there's a lot of turnovers/sacks (And maybe a defensive TD) involved.
If you play in a league without a kicker and a defense, that's very interesting. Never came across any leagues that didn't feature those two positions, but certainly would be unique to play in one of those. I'd rather participate in the old-school way of doing it of having both, because I'm smart enough to reach for Matt Prater like I did this year, while applying my strategy for defense that I talked about above. So they're two strengths of mine that I like to have on an annual basis, although it is maddening when you're the guy who faced the guy who started a defense or kicker that scored over 20 points in a week. Overall, I prefer to have them, though.
Hey cats.
The Atlanta question.
My answer not only applies to Atlanta but all 31 other teams in the NFL.
I honestly do not hate a single team in any sport.
I never understood how people can hate teams.
I dont hate any team.
Every team in the NFL is paid to do one thing.
And thats to beat the other team they play.
Its nothing personal, its what they are paid to do.
I laugh everytime someone bumps up a thread like "I love it when the cowboys lose" or "I love it when the Yankees lose".
Its just childish to me.
If Atlanta comes to town and whips the Saints ass one year there is no need for me to hate them.
I can hate the result. But why should I hate the Falcons just because they came in the building and did what they were paid to do.
Now with all that being said it is extremely rare that I will ever find myself pulling for the Falcons.
But that has nothing to do with love or hate.
Most of the time it is not in the Saints best interest that the Falcons win.
But in a year like this year when the Falcons are completely out of any kind of contention I pull hard for the Falcons against Seattle and San Francisco because Atlanta beating those teams are in the Saints best interest this season.
But I have never hated a team before.
I find that absolutely childish.
Nothing wrong with hating a team/player really. Provided you are under 17 years old....
This makes the world go round though, the more polarizing the team/player the more interest across the board. Look at the Miami Heat since they got LeBron, this board is buzzing when the Heat are playing in the playoffs...
Yea, the more I think about it the more I want to change my answer.
I still think kickers are the most unpredictable BUT, the chances of a defense scoring 30 fantasy points are a lot higher then the chances of a kicker scoring 30 fantasy points.
The 6FG's by Tucker are extremely rare and there is no real way to predict when thats going to happen.
But a Fantasy team scoring 25 points on defense is pretty common.
And its actually a little bit easier to predict.
Although its harder to predict when a kicker is going to go Justin Tucker on you since it happens so rarely I guess that makes defenses the one that causes more fantasy games to be won and lost due to luck.
Its not surprising when a defense goes off in fantasy if they are #1 a good defense and #2 playing against Geno Smith or Eli Manning.
Your right but I changed my mind anyway due to the fact that kickers in general do not score as many points as a team defense does.
Defenses score outside of their standard deviation far more than kickers do though.
A fumble return TD, a pick6 return TD, a punt return TD...These things are all much harder (read impossible) to predict than say oh Matt Prater is the #1 FF kicker, well he is in the #1 offense in the league. The variance of his pts isn't close to the variance of pts for defenses usually. There are exceptions but overall defenses can go 25+ and 6 or less. Whereas kickers from the most part are between 6-12pts
Seattle might score 200pts in a year, but they will probably get half of that total in 4 games.
