FF Dream Team Draft League 2016.

[nas]

So we field 13 each week then, correct?

Correct 13 on the field & 5 emerg.

This contradicts above when we said we name utilities when naming teams and also the OP when we said 2 utilities.

Ahh shizenhower, mistake made, need advice to make it 15 on the field. Do DT do utilities? Do we add to positions?

Sorry, need to rectify this asap. Suggestions?

[GoLions]

So we field 13 each week then, correct?

Correct 13 on the field & 5 emerg.

This contradicts above when we said we name utilities when naming teams and also the OP when we said 2 utilities.

Ahh shizenhower, mistake made, need advice to make it 15 on the field. Do DT do utilities? Do we add to positions?

Sorry, need to rectify this asap. Suggestions?

It seems as though Ringo and LF have drafted for utilities, and basically everyone else for not having them. I dunno if others were aware, but I was under the impression that we weren't having them once you said 13 on field, and I'm pretty sure Tom was on the same page as me. Probably easier if we don't have them, as Ringo and LF have awesome trading chips for defenders and forwards I guess? Depends what everyone else thinks though.

[LF]

I won't be trading anyone
Pretty sure others were drafting with utilities in mind as well

[nas]

Hey Nas,
Just looking back at the OP, I noticed that you mentioned Utilities,

Basically will be 8 teams, with 18 players on the following format D4 / M4 / R1 / F4 / Utility2 / Emerg 3.

When selecting, do we need to specify those selected as Utilities?
Are we still using Utilities?

No we have made the decision for drafting to use d4/m4/r1/f4 with 5 emergencies to make the 18.  However when we name teams we will be naming in the format. Nas to confirm nut that is my understanding.

We could also go this way as posted earlier?

[Ringo]

As I see it we have 2 options.

1 as above and as per OP with 2 utilities but to cater for those who drafted with 13 in mind and depending whether UF can accommodate Utilities can not be from the same position.

2. Restructure with 15 on field need to agree on this as there would be little difference if we increased mids by 2

Or just stick to 13 on field. Will disadvantage a couple but may be the best solution.

[GoLions]

Hey Nas,
Just looking back at the OP, I noticed that you mentioned Utilities,

Basically will be 8 teams, with 18 players on the following format D4 / M4 / R1 / F4 / Utility2 / Emerg 3.

When selecting, do we need to specify those selected as Utilities?
Are we still using Utilities?

No we have made the decision for drafting to use d4/m4/r1/f4 with 5 emergencies to make the 18.  However when we name teams we will be naming in the format. Nas to confirm nut that is my understanding.

We could also go this way as posted earlier?

This is what I assumed we were doing when you said we were fielding 13 players :P

[fanTCfool]

Hey Nas,
Just looking back at the OP, I noticed that you mentioned Utilities,

Basically will be 8 teams, with 18 players on the following format D4 / M4 / R1 / F4 / Utility2 / Emerg 3.

When selecting, do we need to specify those selected as Utilities?
Are we still using Utilities?

No we have made the decision for drafting to use d4/m4/r1/f4 with 5 emergencies to make the 18.  However when we name teams we will be naming in the format. Nas to confirm nut that is my understanding.

We could also go this way as posted earlier?

I can only speak for myself, but after being told that there are no utilities I have not drafted to my bench yet, and would feel a little disadvantaged if Utilities were added back in now. It would have completely changed my drafting, but I can understand both sides.
Those who drafted to the bench for Utilities would be handed a big advantage if Utilities were added back, and a disadvantage if they weren't. Tricky.

[fanTCfool]

It's currently my selection, but I would like to hold off until we decide on what we are doing regarding 13/15/Utilities etc. if that is okay with everyone?

[Ringo]

Another alternative although drastic may be to restart the draft from Round 7 as I think most will not change their first six picks but then strategies changed on the different intepretations of the 2 posts.

[LF]

Another alternative although drastic may be to restart the draft from Round 7 as I think most will not change their first six picks but then strategies changed on the different intepretations of the 2 posts.

My strategy has not changed at all and would still be the same regardless,so would prefer not to redraft

[GoLions]

Another alternative although drastic may be to restart the draft from Round 7 as I think most will not change their first six picks but then strategies changed on the different intepretations of the 2 posts.

The only pick I wouldn't change was taking Dusty. Wouldn't have gotten most of my defenders if it was clear we were having utilities

[Pkbaldy]

I've drafted in case of both... So screw doing a re-draft... I'm fine with my team how it is...

[Ringo]

Fair comments by both so how about this as a compromise.

We name 14 players on field 4D/5M/1R/4F with 4 emergencies named each week. No real disadvantage then to any one.

[GoLions]

Fair comments by both so how about this as a compromise.

We name 14 players on field 4D/5M/1R/4F with 4 emergencies named each week. No real disadvantage then to any one.

Probably fairest way to do it

[fanTCfool]

Fair comments by both so how about this as a compromise.

We name 14 players on field 4D/5M/1R/4F with 4 emergencies named each week. No real disadvantage then to any one.

I quite like this, everyone who went for a Utility went for a Mid, so that probably works nicely.
Realistically, most will have an emergency in each line, so 4 emergencies works well too.