NBA Fantasy League - Webzone Diehards

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Quick reminder...the draft is tonight. I'll PM everyone in a bit.

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?