What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

This is Why Daily Beats Season-Long FF (1 Viewer)

just_want_2_win

just_want_2_win

Footballguy
Teams riding Aaron Rodgers and Andrew Luck got a rude awakening today.

Calvin, Jordy, and JJ owners getting little or nothing from their WRs because of injury or matchup.

Who cares if you can take your team to the playoffs if just because you hit a on few bad matchups you're up the creek?

 
just_want_2_win said:
Teams riding Aaron Rodgers and Andrew Luck got a rude awakening today.

Calvin, Jordy, and JJ owners getting little or nothing from their WRs because of injury or matchup.

Who cares if you can take your team to the playoffs if just because you hit a on few bad matchups you're up the creek?
Click to expand...
Oh, did daily fantasy players not play Rodgers, Luck, Jordy, and Calvin today?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
just_want_2_win said:
Teams riding Aaron Rodgers and Andrew Luck got a rude awakening today.

Calvin, Jordy, and JJ owners getting little or nothing from their WRs because of injury or matchup.

Who cares if you can take your team to the playoffs if just because you hit a on few bad matchups you're up the creek?
Click to expand...
Them's the bones.

Just curious, why is it called "daily"... shouldn't it be "weekly"... or does the instant gratification crowd bet on things like injury designations during the week?

 
If your main goal is to gamble money on sports against total strangers, have fun with the daily sites.

The only reason I play FF is to have fun with my friends. Sure, we play for money, but it's more about the comradery.

 
Please address this:

Did DF players not start Rodgers, Jordy, Calvin, Charles, etc. today?

Beyond being butt-hurt whining, you thread also makes no sense.

 
just_want_2_win said:
Teams riding Aaron Rodgers and Andrew Luck got a rude awakening today.

Calvin, Jordy, and JJ owners getting little or nothing from their WRs because of injury or matchup.

Who cares if you can take your team to the playoffs if just because you hit a on few bad matchups you're up the creek?
Click to expand...
If Jordy Nelson doesn't drop a 94 yard TD pass, the history of the world is changed. It happens.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe the original poster is simply providing commentary on how fast an entire seasons worth of effort and strategy can be quickly erased by bad luck or injury.

 
I get your frustrations. I ponder if the answer isn't playing dailys, but instead format the playoffs better? Maybe a two week matchup in the round before the championship? Maybe if there are 4 teams, instead of head to head, the top 3 move on, then the next week the top 2, then the last week is the championship. Have money divided evenly between regular season accomplishments and playoffs? Kinda like that one .

 
cayronut said:
I believe the original poster is simply providing commentary on how fast an entire seasons worth of effort and strategy can be quickly erased by bad luck or injury.
Click to expand...
Bingo. Maybe in daily your discomfort in Rodgers vs. BUF means you don't use him. In season-long you have to hang your hat on him.

Love/hate discusses how matchups can crush your team. http://espn.go.com/fantasy/football/story/_/page/TMR141211/matthew-berry-love-hate-list-sleepers-busts-best-starts-sits-fantasy-football-week-15

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cayronut said:
I believe the original poster is simply providing commentary on how fast an entire seasons worth of effort and strategy can be quickly erased by bad luck or injury.
Click to expand...
Sounds like sports. You know, the thing we're trying to simulate here.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ConnSKINS26 said:
Please address this:

Did DF players not start Rodgers, Jordy, Calvin, Charles, etc. today?

Beyond being butt-hurt whining, you thread also makes no sense.
Click to expand...
His point was daily players had the option not to start these guys if they didn't like the matchup. And yes, the majority of daily players did not start those guys today vs. their positional peers.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Peyton Marino said:
ConnSKINS26 said:
Please address this:

Did DF players not start Rodgers, Jordy, Calvin, Charles, etc. today?

Beyond being butt-hurt whining, you thread also makes no sense.
Click to expand...
His point was daily players had the option not to start these guys if they didn't like the matchup.And yes, the majority of daily players did not start those guys today vs. their positional peers.
Click to expand...
:blackdot:

You can use your knowledge more in daily. In season-long start/sit, blah blah sometimes you're stuck, esp. this late in the year when you can't trade or maybe even hit the wire (what's left of it, anyway).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
fantasy stud said:
I get your frustrations. I ponder if the answer isn't playing dailys, but instead format the playoffs better? Maybe a two week matchup in the round before the championship? Maybe if there are 4 teams, instead of head to head, the top 3 move on, then the next week the top 2, then the last week is the championship. Have money divided evenly between regular season accomplishments and playoffs? Kinda like that one .
Click to expand...
As much as people like to bang on ESPN, their leagues have four playoff teams and each round is two weeks' combined scores: semi final is Week 14 and 15; final is Weeks 16 and 17.

 
Jack White said:
fantasy stud said:
I get your frustrations. I ponder if the answer isn't playing dailys, but instead format the playoffs better? Maybe a two week matchup in the round before the championship? Maybe if there are 4 teams, instead of head to head, the top 3 move on, then the next week the top 2, then the last week is the championship. Have money divided evenly between regular season accomplishments and playoffs? Kinda like that one .
Click to expand...
As much as people like to bang on ESPN, their leagues have four playoff teams and each round is two weeks' combined scores: semi final is Week 14 and 15; final is Weeks 16 and 17.
Click to expand...
Intrigued by that format

 
if you want low variance play fantasy basketball.

Did anyone have Buffalo beating GB today?

The movie is called Any Given Sunday for a reason.

 
ConnSKINS26 said:
Please address this:

Did DF players not start Rodgers, Jordy, Calvin, Charles, etc. today?

Beyond being butt-hurt whining, you thread also makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Not Jordy and Rodgers, unless you're new to the game and didn't realize how good the Bills D is.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
just_want_2_win said:
Teams riding Aaron Rodgers and Andrew Luck got a rude awakening today.

Calvin, Jordy, and JJ owners getting little or nothing from their WRs because of injury or matchup.

Who cares if you can take your team to the playoffs if just because you hit a on few bad matchups you're up the creek?
Click to expand...
So which fantasy site gave you a free roll this week to post this?

Or are you the guy I am beating this week when I rolled out Harry Douglas, Jeremy Hill and Derek Anderson?

 
SpruceGoose said:
if you want low variance play fantasy basketball.

Did anyone have Buffalo beating GB today?

The movie is called Any Given Sunday for a reason.
Click to expand...
Sharp money destroyed the Buffalo line so the answer is yes.

 
just_want_2_win said:
Teams riding Aaron Rodgers and Andrew Luck got a rude awakening today.

Calvin, Jordy, and JJ owners getting little or nothing from their WRs because of injury or matchup.

Who cares if you can take your team to the playoffs if just because you hit a on few bad matchups you're up the creek?
Click to expand...
except the only bad matchup you listed was Rodgers vs Buff. All other matchups were neutral to good, those players just didn't put up the numbers this week. Wouldn't have mattered if you were playing daily, season-long or eternity FF leagues. Sometimes the breaks don't go your way.

 
just_want_2_win said:
Teams riding Aaron Rodgers and Andrew Luck got a rude awakening today.

Calvin, Jordy, and JJ owners getting little or nothing from their WRs because of injury or matchup.

Who cares if you can take your team to the playoffs if just because you hit a on few bad matchups you're up the creek?
Click to expand...
I agree. I led in two leagues wire to wire. I will probably lose both league because of AJ Green, Rodgers, and most importantly Jamaal Charles. It really sucks. I think I'm going to give season long fantasy a break next year. I didn't even have any fun yesterday. It was the playoffs and all I did was fret all day. I'm in four leagues, made the playoffs in all four. Got bounced last week and appear to be getting bounced in the remaining three (first round byes in all) this week. Just isn't any fun anymore.

 
The mantra of almost all fantasy players is if I win then it was all due to my skill and do diligence. If I lose then it was simply a matter of bad luck.

 
Why do people start threads because they are angry their team sucks and feel they have to vent about it or others will cares?

 
just_want_2_win said:
Teams riding Aaron Rodgers and Andrew Luck got a rude awakening today.

Calvin, Jordy, and JJ owners getting little or nothing from their WRs because of injury or matchup.

Who cares if you can take your team to the playoffs if just because you hit a on few bad matchups you're up the creek?
Click to expand...
It's part of the game. The good and bad luck balances out over the years. Just take it for what it is, a fun past-time.

 
cayronut said:
I believe the original poster is simply providing commentary on how fast an entire seasons worth of effort and strategy can be quickly erased by bad luck or injury.
Click to expand...
So? I'm sure the other guy that you were playing put forth a seasons worth of effort and strategy as well. One team is going to win, one is going to lose. It's part of the game.

 
fantasy stud said:
I get your frustrations. I ponder if the answer isn't playing dailys, but instead format the playoffs better? Maybe a two week matchup in the round before the championship? Maybe if there are 4 teams, instead of head to head, the top 3 move on, then the next week the top 2, then the last week is the championship. Have money divided evenly between regular season accomplishments and playoffs? Kinda like that one .
Click to expand...
That's pretty much what we do (slightly different) and it's so much better. Eliminates the "one bad week" scenario and everyone has come away from it the few years we have been doing it saying they think it is more fair, more deserving teams are advancing, etc.

 
Daily and season-long are both great. I don't think it needs to be a competition (for some random reason it reminds me of this video where Win Butler's egging on his wife, saying everyone in the early 90s had to pick either Pearl Jam or Nirvana, and finally she just says she liked both and he's like, "Yeah, me too.") It seems like for some people they need to pick one format and defend it against the other. ¿Porqué no los dos?

I've found daily fantasy football to be the perfect complement to my season-long leagues with friends. With daily I can go heavy one week if I have a good feeling about matchups or just want some extra riding on the games, and I can take entire weeks off if I just have other stuff going on. In season-long you're kind of stuck with the guys you have, and if they get hurt or just put up a stinker, you never really had a choice (if Aaron Rodgers was your QB in your season-long league, you probably can't really swap him out in week 15 even if you correctly suspect he has a bad matchup). Yes, you're also susceptible to bad luck in daily as well, but at least you have more of an active choice every week.

It also lets you hedge your season-long outcomes. In the championship game next week in your season-long league? Roll out some daily lineups with the players on your opponent's team. If his team blows up and beats you, then you win some money on the daily side to make up for it. Can really take the sting out of losing a close final or something, I've done it a few times and it really leads to a more enjoyable Sunday imo, since I'm not so hellbent on this guy doing great or that guy doing terribly. When you start putting out multiple, diversified daily lineups you can pick exactly the players you want to root for, and can really just enjoy watching football again.

I've been in two local leagues with friends for 10+ years each, and I hope to continue playing in them for decades more. There's something great about that. I used to supplement that with additional season-long leagues but that just became a chore. The combo of a couple season-long leagues plus some daily action every week is just the right balance I think.

 
bicycle_seat_sniffer said:
dailies IMO are pretty boring

no smack talk there or rivalries or nothing
Click to expand...
Disclaimer that I have been following the daily system but have not yet played it but I don't think it could be boring at all just because if you are the type of person drawn to it, the "juice" of the money at stake on literally every game you play has to be providing the interest.

Somewhat related: I had a thread early in the year just asking about dailies vs. traditional and I saw SO MANY comments like what is said above re: smack talk and camaraderie, etc and maybe I'm in the minority but I don't get that at all. Sure, if you're 23 and/or only play in local leagues with your family or friends or something, I guess it's possible but when your league is scattered all over the Internet or you are an adult who (30+) who has been playing for several years and has real-life important obligations, its hard to think that the glue that maintains your whole belief in the traditional format is the joy of laughing at Bob because he started Crowell over J. Hill yesterday.

 
mrbigg said:
dailies are fun. They are the one night hook ups. But seasonal, they're the girls you come home too.
Click to expand...
..and the girls you leave after you get tired of their s$#t. LOL.

 
Dailies are for guys who have no skill at building a dynasty team and are bottom feeders in dynasty.

 
The only thing holding dailies back from being more fun is the Condia's of the world that jump in every single matchup that gets posted. The amateurs won't enjoy themselves and continue to play if they're faced up against experts every week. That's why seasonal fantasy works so well. You can get together in a group of people with equal skill.

Daily fantasy is just straight up gambling and you're forced to gamble against pros. Seasonal fantasy has a competitive and emotional side to it. You're building a team and maintaining them throughout the whole year.

 
steveski said:
The only thing holding dailies back from being more fun is the Condia's of the world that jump in every single matchup that gets posted. The amateurs won't enjoy themselves and continue to play if they're faced up against experts every week. That's why seasonal fantasy works so well. You can get together in a group of people with equal skill.

Daily fantasy is just straight up gambling and you're forced to gamble against pros. Seasonal fantasy has a competitive and emotional side to it. You're building a team and maintaining them throughout the whole year.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

This, in a nutshell, is the reason I don't play dailies. It's the same reason I never played online poker at anything above the smallest of micro stakes: I have no problem putting money behind something I do for fun - but only if it's something all participants are doing for fun. I don't want my leisure dollars going to pay some grinder's hourly.

I really feel there's an enormous business opportunity for a site like MFL to come in with a "social" type of daily / weekly league that will limit participation either to designees (as with traditional FF) or something like one's friends on Facebook. It would be twice as compelling a business proposition if it were priced akin to current FF leagues (a flat annual subscription as opposed to a 10%+ vig).

 
I see both sides of this argument, but it depends on what you want out of it. If you want to win money and play numbers, Daily works. If you want to build teams and have more social connections with league-mates, then seasonal is your thing. To me, they are much different animals.

I am a seasonal guy, and even then, much prefer dynastykeepers to redraft.

 
Mr. Irrelevant said:
steveski said:
The only thing holding dailies back from being more fun is the Condia's of the world that jump in every single matchup that gets posted. The amateurs won't enjoy themselves and continue to play if they're faced up against experts every week. That's why seasonal fantasy works so well. You can get together in a group of people with equal skill.

Daily fantasy is just straight up gambling and you're forced to gamble against pros. Seasonal fantasy has a competitive and emotional side to it. You're building a team and maintaining them throughout the whole year.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

This, in a nutshell, is the reason I don't play dailies. It's the same reason I never played online poker at anything above the smallest of micro stakes: I have no problem putting money behind something I do for fun - but only if it's something all participants are doing for fun. I don't want my leisure dollars going to pay some grinder's hourly.

I really feel there's an enormous business opportunity for a site like MFL to come in with a "social" type of daily / weekly league that will limit participation either to designees (as with traditional FF) or something like one's friends on Facebook. It would be twice as compelling a business proposition if it were priced akin to current FF leagues (a flat annual subscription as opposed to a 10%+ vig).
Click to expand...
That's one option and there are several others as well. They could limit the amount of games that people can play per week. If the pros can only play in 10 games per week, then they won't be wasting their time in the $5-10 games that the amateurs are doing just for fun. They could also make separate tiers based on how many games you've played. If you've played under 100 games then you only can see games with people that have played under 100. Again, there is no incentive for the sites to limit the pros though since they are just getting 10% of all their money.

It would be very difficult to estimate, but I wonder if they'd make more or less by limiting the pros and therefore encouraging the amateurs? I'm assuming they think they'd make less and that's why they've done nothing to fix this problem.

 
steveski said:
It would be very difficult to estimate, but I wonder if they'd make more or less by limiting the pros and therefore encouraging the amateurs? I'm assuming they think they'd make less and that's why they've done nothing to fix this problem.
Click to expand...
Oh, there's no question the DFS sites are bringing in much more money by allowing people to play as many entries as they want and collecting a vig on each one. MUCH more money. And I can't blame them - your average amateur might play 5-10 entries a week, meaning his statistical "long run", before he'd be able to calculate the impact of those pros on his EV, is probably measured in decades.

I like the idea of having "tiered" contests based on experience levels - but people will invariably find a way around those, and I'm sure the sites don't want themselves on the hook for cries of fraud after it's determined that some % of the "under 100 games" entrants are semi-pros under different SN's, bank accounts, etc.

I just can't imagine it would take all that much back-end coding to a site like MFL to make it work for a viable alternative to the big DFS's. But maybe that's why I'm not a programmer.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Travdogg's position rankings as of June 12th
2
Replies
61
Views
3K
travdogg
T
T
My final 2022 mock draft, 3 rounds
2
Replies
56
Views
3K
travdogg
T
T
Travdogg's Week 3 Predictions
Replies
0
Views
576
travdogg
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top