LISTEN: Are The 49ers Showing Their Hand? →

There are 243 users in the forums

NBA Fantasy League - Webzone Diehards

Oct 19, 2009 at 5:14 PM
  • Dino
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 22,423
can't wait
Oct 19, 2009 at 11:09 PM
  • 4ML
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 51,574
I have one small tiny little suggestion, well not really a suggestion...just somethin' to debate about. I personally prefer roster positions to be, G, F, C, Util because Yahoo sometimes screws up the positions.

I have one problem with this though. Even though a 20 member league is completely different than playin' in a 12 league team, but switchin' it to G,F,C will make it just like crzy's league. Anyway...what do you think?
Oct 19, 2009 at 11:23 PM
  • crzy
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 40,285
Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:
I have one small tiny little suggestion, well not really a suggestion...just somethin' to debate about. I personally prefer roster positions to be, G, F, C, Util because Yahoo sometimes screws up the positions.

I have one problem with this though. Even though a 20 member league is completely different than playin' in a 12 league team, but switchin' it to G,F,C will make it just like crzy's league. Anyway...what do you think?

I prefer it that way as well, but including positional eligibility's in fantasy basketball does add another layer of difficulty.

Personally, I think that SG's and SF's are often interchangeable in the NBA, as are PF's and C's.
Oct 19, 2009 at 11:42 PM
  • 4ML
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 51,574
Originally posted by crzy:
Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:
I have one small tiny little suggestion, well not really a suggestion...just somethin' to debate about. I personally prefer roster positions to be, G, F, C, Util because Yahoo sometimes screws up the positions.

I have one problem with this though. Even though a 20 member league is completely different than playin' in a 12 league team, but switchin' it to G,F,C will make it just like crzy's league. Anyway...what do you think?

I prefer it that way as well, but including positional eligibility's in fantasy basketball does add another layer of difficulty.

Personally, I think that SG's and SF's are often interchangeable in the NBA, as are PF's and C's.

That's would be true if Yahoo could get their positions correct. I mean, Wade has PG eligibility and Granger has PF eligibility??? WTF?!? That's absurd.
Oct 20, 2009 at 6:46 AM
Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:
Originally posted by crzy:
Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:
I have one small tiny little suggestion, well not really a suggestion...just somethin' to debate about. I personally prefer roster positions to be, G, F, C, Util because Yahoo sometimes screws up the positions.

I have one problem with this though. Even though a 20 member league is completely different than playin' in a 12 league team, but switchin' it to G,F,C will make it just like crzy's league. Anyway...what do you think?

I prefer it that way as well, but including positional eligibility's in fantasy basketball does add another layer of difficulty.

Personally, I think that SG's and SF's are often interchangeable in the NBA, as are PF's and C's.

That's would be true if Yahoo could get their positions correct. I mean, Wade has PG eligibility and Granger has PF eligibility??? WTF?!? That's absurd.

Yahoo's generous positional rankings are part of the reason that I like the PG, SG, etc. format as opposed to G, F, C. Someone like Al Harrington is listed as a F,C...which means that he can cover 2 out of the available 3 positions. In this instance, it's 2 out of 5.
Oct 20, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Can I draft TJ Kidd's head to protect the paint and block shots?

Oct 20, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Oh s**t, TJ can already grow an Adam Morrison-like molestache!

Oct 20, 2009 at 10:08 AM
f**kin Sixth.
Oct 20, 2009 at 11:56 PM
  • 4ML
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 51,574
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:
Originally posted by crzy:
Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:
I have one small tiny little suggestion, well not really a suggestion...just somethin' to debate about. I personally prefer roster positions to be, G, F, C, Util because Yahoo sometimes screws up the positions.

I have one problem with this though. Even though a 20 member league is completely different than playin' in a 12 league team, but switchin' it to G,F,C will make it just like crzy's league. Anyway...what do you think?

I prefer it that way as well, but including positional eligibility's in fantasy basketball does add another layer of difficulty.

Personally, I think that SG's and SF's are often interchangeable in the NBA, as are PF's and C's.

That's would be true if Yahoo could get their positions correct. I mean, Wade has PG eligibility and Granger has PF eligibility??? WTF?!? That's absurd.

Yahoo's generous positional rankings are part of the reason that I like the PG, SG, etc. format as opposed to G, F, C. Someone like Al Harrington is listed as a F,C...which means that he can cover 2 out of the available 3 positions. In this instance, it's 2 out of 5.

Hmm...I see what you are sayin' but then a player like D. Wade can play PG, SG, and G. 3 out 6 positions, whereas he will be only playing G in other format. Either way, I don't care all that much, but I wish Yahoo fixed their positional groups. Granger is not a PF, Brandon Roy is not a PG...who the hell inputs these groups?
Oct 21, 2009 at 6:47 AM
Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:
Originally posted by crzy:
Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:
I have one small tiny little suggestion, well not really a suggestion...just somethin' to debate about. I personally prefer roster positions to be, G, F, C, Util because Yahoo sometimes screws up the positions.

I have one problem with this though. Even though a 20 member league is completely different than playin' in a 12 league team, but switchin' it to G,F,C will make it just like crzy's league. Anyway...what do you think?

I prefer it that way as well, but including positional eligibility's in fantasy basketball does add another layer of difficulty.

Personally, I think that SG's and SF's are often interchangeable in the NBA, as are PF's and C's.

That's would be true if Yahoo could get their positions correct. I mean, Wade has PG eligibility and Granger has PF eligibility??? WTF?!? That's absurd.

Yahoo's generous positional rankings are part of the reason that I like the PG, SG, etc. format as opposed to G, F, C. Someone like Al Harrington is listed as a F,C...which means that he can cover 2 out of the available 3 positions. In this instance, it's 2 out of 5.

Hmm...I see what you are sayin' but then a player like D. Wade can play PG, SG, and G. 3 out 6 positions, whereas he will be only playing G in other format. Either way, I don't care all that much, but I wish Yahoo fixed their positional groups. Granger is not a PF, Brandon Roy is not a PG...who the hell inputs these groups?

It's actually 3 out of 7 spots (SF, PF, F, C), and it's just intended to minimize that effect, not eliminate it. I'd rather have players eligible for 3 out of 7 than 2 out of 3. Wade's case is different, and there would be a few others, but I just think it's a different angle than the other league that's interesting. If a couple of other people feel like it should be changed, I'll change it.
[ Edited by LA9erFan on Oct 21, 2009 at 6:49 AM ]

Oct 21, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Originally posted by AmpLee:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:
Originally posted by crzy:
Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:
I have one small tiny little suggestion, well not really a suggestion...just somethin' to debate about. I personally prefer roster positions to be, G, F, C, Util because Yahoo sometimes screws up the positions.

I have one problem with this though. Even though a 20 member league is completely different than playin' in a 12 league team, but switchin' it to G,F,C will make it just like crzy's league. Anyway...what do you think?

I prefer it that way as well, but including positional eligibility's in fantasy basketball does add another layer of difficulty.

Personally, I think that SG's and SF's are often interchangeable in the NBA, as are PF's and C's.

That's would be true if Yahoo could get their positions correct. I mean, Wade has PG eligibility and Granger has PF eligibility??? WTF?!? That's absurd.

Yahoo's generous positional rankings are part of the reason that I like the PG, SG, etc. format as opposed to G, F, C. Someone like Al Harrington is listed as a F,C...which means that he can cover 2 out of the available 3 positions. In this instance, it's 2 out of 5.

Hmm...I see what you are sayin' but then a player like D. Wade can play PG, SG, and G. 3 out 6 positions, whereas he will be only playing G in other format. Either way, I don't care all that much, but I wish Yahoo fixed their positional groups. Granger is not a PF, Brandon Roy is not a PG...who the hell inputs these groups?

It's actually 3 out of 7 spots (SF, PF, F, C), and it's just intended to minimize that effect, not eliminate it. I'd rather have players eligible for 3 out of 7 than 2 out of 3. Wade's case is different, and there would be a few others, but I just think it's a different angle than the other league that's interesting. If a couple of other people feel like it should be changed, I'll change it.

I say keep it; it's a dimension that fits this league.
Oct 22, 2009 at 7:07 AM
Quick reminder...the draft is tonight. I'll PM everyone in a bit.
Oct 22, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Quick reminder...the draft is tonight. I'll PM everyone in a bit.

Has the order been determined?
Oct 22, 2009 at 12:36 PM
  • crzy
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 40,285
I'm excited. I love drafting deep sleepers that aren't worth drafting in a 12 team league.
Oct 22, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Originally posted by StOnEy333:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Quick reminder...the draft is tonight. I'll PM everyone in a bit.

Has the order been determined?

It's determined 30 minutes before the draft.

I'm excited too...don't steal my sleepers crzy. Oh, and BTW...I'm drafting Channing Frye in the 5th round.
Search
YouTube
Flipboard
Threads
×
Share 49ersWebzone