Me too, though my MLB is old. The reason I have good linebackers and RB though is I have been drafting high up the chain forever
http://www.thecfl.us/forum/ |
|
| Next years draft http://www.thecfl.us/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4075 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Marven [ Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Next years draft |
I have noticed through recent years the league has been getting strong at some positions. The LB position on defense and RB on offense seem to be lacking the star power that are really deserving of high dollar contracts. If the game keeps true this year will be a big year for LB and RB. Almost everyone in the league needs a good LB or RB. It will be interesting to see who the draft gives us this year. |
|
| Author: | Taco [ Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Early in the league it seemed like we were loaded with quality LBs. I guess by now most of them have retired. |
|
| Author: | Doug5984 [ Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I remember the first few seasons everyone was stacked at LB, with not only star starters, but star backups as well... Now its hard to have a complete and solid LB core. |
|
| Author: | TurfToe [ Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote1802436="Taco"]Early in the league it seemed like we were loaded with quality LBs. I guess by now most of them have retired.[/quote1802436] Yes, it was called the FOF 2004 to FOF 2007 conversion. It's not so hard to build a solid LB corps if you draft the position, it's just that the opportunity costs mean you aren't building elsewhere. The Rounders are a perfect example, specifically the offensive backfield and the interior D-line. |
|
| Author: | timmynausea [ Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
According to my scout there are 6 backs with a rating over 65 and 10 over 60 plus Durham's rookie Abrams, who appears to be on his way into that group. I don't think that's too bad. With Liszkiewicz and Spearman dropping off in recent years, I agree that we no longer have 1 or 2 absolute superstar guys up in the 80s, though Chasser has certainly produced on that level. Still, I don't think depth at RB is that bad. I'm not saying it's great, but it's not too far off from what I'd expect to see. I do think OLB is a weak spot. I think the most interesting spot to watch will be QB. 13 of the top 20 QBs in the league are in their 9th year or beyond. I can't imagine there will be anywhere near that many QBs with future ratings over 65 or 70 in the next 3 or 4 drafts. |
|
| Author: | General Mike [ Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have some good LBs, and a good RB. |
|
| Author: | Fastcat [ Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Me too, though my MLB is old. The reason I have good linebackers and RB though is I have been drafting high up the chain forever
|
|
| Author: | TurfToe [ Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quotee5536d4="Fastcat"]Me too, though my MLB is old. The reason I have them though is drafting high up the chain forever [/quotee5536d4]I found some of my better players down the chain. Does that make me good or everyone higher up the chain bad? 
|
|
| Author: | Fastcat [ Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I can only answer for myself, and I am a bad drafter after the 1st round. I have a couple of 2nds and a 4th or 5th here and there that have panned out but for the most part I suck in the later rounds. |
|
| Author: | TurfToe [ Thu Jan 24, 2008 6:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote5818190="Fastcat"]I can only answer for myself, and I am a bad drafter after the 1st round. I have a couple of 2nds and a 4th or 5th here and there that have panned out but for the most part I suck in the later rounds.[/quote5818190] That's not good. If you can't hit at least one or two solid players in rounds 2-5 you can find yourself drafting in the top half every year. I seem to struggle with the even numbered rounds (2 & 4) but can usually depend on my 3rd and 5th round picks for some reason. Maybe because I am odd? |
|
| Author: | Stretch [ Sat Feb 02, 2008 4:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Somebody posted this list on FOF Central about FOF 2007: Rating: 32-37: decent backup 38-44: solid backup/marginal starter (would start for maybe 1/4 to 1/2 of the teams in the league) 45-50: starter for most teams at most positions 51-56: solid starter for most teams 57-62: very good starter...all-pro candidate many years 63-68: star player..could be one of the very best at his position 69-74: usually one of the top 2 or 3 players at his position any time in any universe 75-88: top-of-his-generation star...sure-thing HOFer if he doesn't get hurt 89-100: rare superstar who dominates the league..a Deion/Peyton Manning/Walter Payton, who comes along once in generation, if that generation is lucky Obviously each league is a little different but I've kept this list in mind when looking over players. It's not biblical truth but it does keep me in perspective when I'm thinking, "Where are the 85+ guys in 2007?" On the subject of drafting, you've GOT to hit with the later round picks. Otherwise you're buying all of your players through free agency and you'll either get mediocre talent or will be up against the cap every year. |
|
| Author: | fantastic flying froggies [ Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Probably applies more to single player than multi player, but still some truth in it. Also, keep in mind most of our players are still originally from FOF2004... |
|
| Author: | fantastic flying froggies [ Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
any idea what the draft order looks like? Based on the season standings, here are the records, but I don't know what the tiebreakers are: 1. Arizona (1-15) 2/3: Shreveport, Texas (3-13) 4/5: Anchorage, Tulsa (4-12) 6/7/8/9: Albany, Detroit, Honolulu, Huntington Beach (5-11) 10: Chicago (6-10) 11/12/13: Baltimore, Oregon, San Antonio (7-9) 14/15/16/17/18/19/20: Boston, Brooklyn,Cleveland, Fargo, Las Vegas, Memphis, Seattle (8-8) 21/22/23: Atlantic City, Charleston, Long Beach(9-7) 24. Denver(10-6) 25: El Paso (11-5) 26/27/28/29: Boise, Durham, Hartford, Tampa Bay(12-4) 30. Santa Cruz (13-3) 31. New Orleans (14-2) 32. Tucson (15-1) Last 2 spots obviouly subject to change depending on CFL Bowl finalists. |
|
| Author: | Hoosier [ Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well, we're making progress. . .
|
|
| Author: | baildog [ Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ask Hoosier, he should know all the tie-breakers now
|
|
| Author: | Stretch [ Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Tiebreakers are (at least in the NFL): * Strength of schedule * Division record (if in same division) * Conference record * Coin flip So, I *THINK* it will be: 1. Arizona 2. Shreveport (2-10 Conf) 3. Texas 4. Anchorage (worse SoS) 5. Tulsa 6. Albany 7. Honolulu 8. Detroit 9. Huntington Beach 10. Chicago etc. |
|
| Author: | Hoosier [ Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
In the UFL, Baildog's Breakers and my Blitz tied for the #1 seed. We had identical overall records, identical conference records, but I had a better in division record. Baildog won the #1 seed so it must go Overall record conference record strength of schedule division record also, should you get into a second overtime, the game treats it as the end of a quarter. No new coin flip, no new kick off. The team with control of the ball at the end of the first overtime gets it at the same down at the same position on the field. Just remember Baildog. . .it took TWO overtimes to beat my defending champs. . ..TWO!!!! and I get everybody BACK!
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC-07:00 |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|