July 22, 2023 • 43 mins
Ready for a brew-tiful journey and a fantasy football frenzy? Strap in as Scott and I take you through our craft beer escapades and the nitty-gritty of fantasy football. Let us set the scene with our visit to Monkish brewery in Bend, Oregon, and Icicle Brewing in Leavenworth - both brimming with flavors as diverse as the food truck delicacies that grace these establishments.
Our adventure isn’t just about satisfying our palates; it also involves tackling the proposed scoring change for receiving from one point to 0.5 points in fantasy football. We're breaking down the possible repercussions on the value of running backs versus wide receivers and evaluating the shifting sands of the NFL landscape. Will our proposed Superflex position shake up the game? How about abolishing the unpredictable kicker? These are some of the hard-hitting topics we'll dissect.
As we conclude, we ponder over the expansion of our fantasy football league and the potential for a full reset in 2024. We'll also discuss contingency plans for suspended or postponed games and the thrill of introducing an individual defensive player (IDP) position. Listen in as we relive the time two league members bunked at the J and Stands, and don’t miss the deadline for voting on these proposed rules. Tune in next time as we pull apart rosters and debate possible keepers. Prepare for an intoxicating blend of craft brews and fantasy football banter!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Slinging Sammy's
Fantasy Football Podcast.
I'm Chris and I'm here by bestbuddy, scott the functional
alcoholic.
How are you doing, scott?
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Hey Chris, my penis doesn't like it when you talk to
me like that.
I don't like that at all.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
I'm just slapping it around and do what you gotta do.
Nothing in order and you're in,okay.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
I'm doing okay.
I'm doing just great, Having afabulous summer, getting out to
some places, getting a chance totravel a little bit, getting a
chance to build up that brewerylist I think we're around 420,
somewhere around that totalbreweries.
So it's been a nice summer ofthat, getting out, doing some
hiking and doing some boatingand all sorts of great stuff.
How about you, man?
Speaker 1 (00:43):
Doing pretty much the same.
I didn't get to as manybreweries as you have, but it
was out in the sunshine of BendOregon, getting to see a bunch
of nature out there, and we'regoing to head over to Santa
Barbara next week, so that'swhat we've been working on a
little bit.
Did get to go to Crutch Brewery.
That was kind of a really goodplace.
What was it called Crux?
Yeah, it's a really goodbrewery there in Bend Oregon.
(01:04):
We used the original Brewmaster, ford chutes, and then he went
over to do his own new place, todo it better and I think
actually did so.
What was your favorite brewerythat you?
Speaker 2 (01:18):
went through this year.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
Yeah, when.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
I was there at Crux and I really, really enjoyed
Monkish Really good place.
It actually used to be CraftBrewing in Bend, overlooking one
of their entertainment venues,but just beautiful, wonderful
Belgian beers.
I think the best beer I had wasa peppercorn Belgian Imperial
Week or something like that andit was just amazing.
(01:40):
But I got to get some bigbrewers there too.
Went down to Passau Robleys inLA actually hit Firestone Walker
, hit Golden Road another bigbrewery.
They have a place in Sacramento.
They were fantastic.
And Bottle Logic is another bigbrewery now.
So got to a lot of good places,but Bend Monkish was my
favorite.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
Monkish was, I would get a chance to go there.
Of course we were a bunch ofkids so we didn't have a lot of
chances to get to Jiminy Brewery.
We only hit two.
Some were over there, some wereover there and we had to effort
to get to Cross.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Some were good.
I remember it being solid.
I didn't actually get to get tothis time, but it was solid,
yeah it was good beer.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
It was, yeah, it was just solid.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
I know the crazy thing about Bend every brewery
has two or three food trucks.
That's not something I see ofvery many places, but they have
two or three food trucks, unlessthey serve food of their own.
Otherwise they have every placewe went.
It's kind of nice becauseyou're like, hey, you can still
get food from a variety ofplaces, which is nice.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
And you have your options, because here,
unfortunately, my favoritebrewery, canary Bend, that just
reopened up, has been closedsince COVID, wow.
But occasionally they'll have afood truck out there, but
usually it's just your grab beerand that's all you can get,
which is fine.
But it's always nice to havethat food kind of keep you going
in case you want to have, youhave one too many, or fill that
belly, or hunger or whateveryou've got to do, and then we
(02:58):
have more than one.
That's even better, becausethen you've got the choices Okay
.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
Oh, wow, okay, so we officially it is 420 breweries
and we've hit 36 breweries thisyear.
A lot of those 36 were reallythree in the sense of the summer
, so it's kind of yeah, you guyswant to attract us to the
summer.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
on that brewery tour that was pretty impressive.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Yeah, a lot of great places.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
But practically.
If I'm wrong, you did.
And was it seven days?
How many brews?
Speaker 2 (03:28):
I think we were two weeks, I think we almost did
about 20 plus breweries or likethat.
Oh, mother Earth was anotherbig one.
It's another kind of a semi bigbrewery.
That's actually really good.
And I guess my other, probablyfavorite brewery Icicle Icicle
Brewing in LeavenworthLeavenworth is like a German
village.
You can sit out there.
That's like they havepedestrian streets.
You can see the mountains inthe background, but their beer
(03:50):
is fantastic.
Their Alpine Glow just won theWorld Beer Cup for the best Hazy
.
Oh, wow, okay.
They're a whole string of likethey had a whole flight of Hazys
that were all incredible.
Like I couldn't even tell youwhich one was the best one.
Like it's the one on one.
I guess that was good, but allof them are good.
Speaker 1 (04:04):
So if you were to get to Leavenworth, Icicle Okay,
awesome, were you able to pickup a bunch to take home, or did
you I?
Speaker 2 (04:09):
picked up some, like I picked up a few six packs here
and then actually we were downa store further away.
I thought, oh, we probablyaren't going to be able to get
them anymore.
But actually there was anotherstore in Ertugowin that carried
them, so I got some there.
But you know, it's always weirdhow much do you buy?
You can only buy so much, yeah,that's true, and then very
cheap For Golden Road.
(04:29):
Actually, we went to theHollywood Bowl, we went to
concerts.
There you can actually bring analcohol, so you can get wine,
beers, or I think we bought asix pack or something in there,
and so it's kind of a coollittle thing.
Speaker 1 (04:43):
Well, that makes it kind of fun.
I don't know how things do that, because I always want you to
buy their stuff or their vendorstuff or whatever, so that's
kind of nice to be able to dothat.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
Exactly, but when, of course, when I ran out, I had
to buy one of their beers and itwas like, ah, $18 for a 20
ounce can Come on, you'rekilling me and you're getting
course light right.
It was good beer.
At least it was good beer.
So it's actually one of thethings You're wrong.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
I don't mind a good course light once in a while,
but they're paying 18 bucks.
It's not what you want.
Absolutely, absolutely.
So, yeah, it's a good beers.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
And I hope, when we have our draft here in about
another month or so, I hope weget the opportunity to hit a few
breweries when you guys are uphere, so, but we'll see you.
We'll talk about draft day ordraft weekend festivities in
another cast.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
The draft weekend is almost upon a full week.
About 40, 30 days are on there.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
See it's a few seconds, so it's like five weeks
, I guess.
Five weeks, yeah, five, fiveweeks till draft time.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
You said 22nd in our draft.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
It is the weekend of the 26th Shut up.
You know when our draft is Shutup 26.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
Okay, yeah.
So we're basically right atthat one month mark almost huh.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
So how many times when you ask when's the draft,
Do you actually know when thedraft is?
Speaker 1 (05:56):
Are you just Well, I kind of know what it is.
I just need to make surebecause I don't want to, like,
get the wrong date, which youknow I do.
Sometimes I mix numbers up orget to put the wrong date down.
So I'm just making 100% surebefore I make a mistake, because
usually when I'm asking when'sthe draft, it's because I'm
looking at purchasing hotels,right, right, okay.
(06:17):
So I just want to make sure Igot the right date, so I don't
make a mistake.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
Yeah, which you.
You a Dougie and did a greatjob of getting some hotel rooms,
the suites and stuff like that.
So kudos to Dougie, Yep.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
Kudos to Dougie.
We're going to be in the grandSierra and we're going to be in
the big suites.
It'll be sweet.
So let's recap of what we hadfrom last year.
Hey, can you remind me ofhaving a hard time remembering,
because it's a while ago?
Who was the?
Speaker 2 (06:42):
winner.
I think it's some dirtbag namedPiss ailed, pissale, pissale,
pissale, pissale.
I think his name is Pissale.
I think that's his name.
Yeah, I'm a little close.
Yeah, I think the the great SanFrancisco 49ers Triant and what
is you know it was the weirdestfantasy football weekend and it
(07:05):
had to be on a championshipweekend of all time.
With the tragedy of Lamar.
This is his last name, LamarJackson.
Speaker 1 (07:14):
No.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
No Lamar For guys.
Ah, it's not me with theBuffalo Bills player, oh yeah,
the defensive player.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
Like, actually it's hurt.
I don't remember what they wereplaying, right?
Speaker 2 (07:24):
now, so that that that put up Paul the right thing
.
Everybody wasn't sure exactlywhat to do.
We had games in progress.
Your game was like 92 to 81.
He stole the bills, defensegoings.
One of those things were youknow, you never know things.
You go with the way I mean thebills going to run back a
touchdown or something.
You know you never, you neverknow.
So so yeah.
So we ended up just asettlement like gentlemen, I
(07:46):
believe we, we gave you thefinances.
It was if you said, if youwanted to send something to
Mikey, you could do that, andI'm not going to ask if you did.
So that's, that's between youguys.
But still, another greatfantasy football season, you
know.
Great job everybody.
And I'm sorry about the theNorth cow wine slingers.
Fortunately they came in lastplace.
And, mr Monk, get that, getthat checkbook ready.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Well, yeah, and just so you guys know, it was a
really difficult situation wherewe weren't quite sure what to
do.
We were thinking about rollingwith it.
I actually suggested just wejust roll with the defense for
the next week, and I actuallygot vetoed on that one.
And then the buck, the bill'sdefense court, like I think on
the first play, got a touch downand I and just I think we had
(08:30):
two touchdowns in that next gameand would have put Mike ahead
of if we had done that, but wedidn't.
I have not sent Mike money.
I haven't talked to Mike sincethe beginning of the thing, but
I think I think what you and Italked about and I think we're
we're going to more head with isand we can talk about that for
a minute is an actual fantasyfootball trophy which we've
never had before, and I'll thinkof maybe allocating some of the
(08:53):
funds for something like that.
The trick is like what kind oftrophy would we really want to
get for fantasy football?
For 30 plus years that we'vebeen doing that, we haven't done
once.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
So what do we get?
I think probably it'd be goodto get something with like a
plaque type thing so we couldactually put the winners by year
.
I think that would be a coolthing to do if we can figure out
how to do that.
And then, of course, room tohave to grow for however many
more years.
So I think that is somethingI'd like to see as kind of
mandatory, because I think it'skind of cool.
But again, that's a lot of textand space and we get these at a
(09:24):
plaque or something else.
That gets a little tricky.
So that would be one of myrequirements.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
My goal.
What I would love to have issomething exactly like what
you're talking about, but alsohave like chalice that you can
drink from.
Oh yeah, oh yeah, so you can bedrinking as a champion.
You know, and you know, beermade of senses coming from my
funds, say the crystal trophy.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
Well, and if we couldn't do both things, we
could always consider doing twothings.
You know, it's like okay, wehave the plaque with every name
and then we have like just maybea little more basic cup or
something, you know.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Championship cup or in the aquatrophy.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
Yeah, so we have options.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
Okay, I like the way that you think about these
things.
So, just for our listeners,what does the last place person
have to do?
Speaker 2 (10:11):
The last place person has to buy drinks for the
commissioner at the draft.
You know it's just a lot ofdrinks, buy drinks.
So, man come a thirsty guy.
So be ready.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
And just so you guys know, the original punishment
for being in last place was tobecome the commissioner.
But every time someone becomesthe last place, they don't want
to do it, and so it's becomeScott's kind of gig now.
And to compensate for Scott fordoing the commissioner of the
league for how many of you havebeen doing a row?
You think about 10?
.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
I think I took it over Doug like five, six years
ago.
Give or take.
Speaker 1 (10:43):
So and so the compensation is to make sure
that you're well-hygiened duringthe draft.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
Absolutely so.
Yeah, so good for Monk andwe'll see how things go.
We'll see if he tries todry-hump the other robot again.
That's would be a or.
Maybe they'll pass things upand get back together again.
We'll see.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
Yeah well, he wasn't the only one doing it, though
that's the thing we gottaremember.
He's the only one that got introuble for it.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
Yeah, I don't think the other day was doing anything
, but of course he always looked.
He always seems like he'sguilty.
So yeah, he always did.
What, what do you mean?
Speaker 1 (11:20):
What are you doing?
So we're coming into our 2021,2023, 24 year for Fantasy
Football, and usually we don'thave too many world changes In
fact, I don't know, can'tremember any significant change
that we've had in a while butthis year we have four or five
proposals.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
And that's what we decided when we went to like,
when we decided to finally go todecimal points.
That was one of the big ones,probably.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
Was that?
Speaker 2 (11:44):
sorry, then we went to the decimal points.
Yeah, decimal points, yes, thatwas a big one, I thought there
was something else that year aswell too, but I remember decimal
points.
And then there was somethingelse that we did, but I don't
remember now.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
Yeah well, we went to PTR at one point, so then that
was we did at the same time.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
It was PTR and then Android.
We had those two.
Those were the two big things.
I think that was like two yearsago we voted that in, if I
remember right.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
Yeah, but we really have.
Our league has pretty much beenstandard for a very long time
Went to PTR but we haven't had alot of influxes of changes in
what we've done for scoring orfor expansion or consolidating
or anything like that.
But this year we do have somethings.
You want to start us off?
What do we got?
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Yeah, so we got to.
The first real goal proposal isto shift from one point to
point five per reception.
So we were just talking aboutthat change two years ago.
You know there's a you know,either keep it at one or change
it to half point.
I think the rationale for thatis that it the one point puts a
(12:48):
little bit more of a slanttowards the receivers and the
running backs that catch a lotof passes.
So the thought is that itbrings balance back a little bit
more, and you know that thepoints get a little bit more
comparable between wide receiverand running back.
Otherwise we'd get a little bitmore of a gap of running wide
receivers scoring more points.
So so it seems like a goodproposal, you know, from my
(13:12):
perspective.
But how do you?
What do you?
How do you think?
Speaker 1 (13:15):
Yeah, I mean, if you look at the proposal and what
his logic is, like you said,it's sound logic in terms of,
like, trying to bring more valueinto the running back position
and you know maybe you know halfpoint to a point, I don't know
I mean, definitely make adifference in the scoring and
how you evaluate players.
It's going to make more runningback become more important.
(13:37):
That could be a good thingabout, depending on how you look
at stuff.
On the flip side, though, theNFL become a passing lead and
not to call running backsobsolete, because they're not
Very important in both footballand in fantasy football but the
(13:59):
release on passing and you know,fantasy football might need to
reflect that as well, andkeeping it at a full point might
be able to be a way to reflectthat it gives it an opportunity
to get some players that mightnot get too many points.
You'll be able to score alittle bit more.
It opens up the field to havingmore players that might be able
(14:19):
to be productive players foryou.
You know, wide receiver three,even a running back three or
something like that that youmight be able to be able to plug
and play during a buy leak,when you don't have much to go.
Half point would kind of shrinkthat total a little bit.
And with the running backs andmy kind of negative side on this
thing, you kind of propose alot of positives.
I'm trying to give somethingnegative here.
I think the negative side ofthat is also with the running
(14:42):
backs.
It gave value to the runningbacks, so they're past catching
running backs.
And you look at the a lot ofthe drafts that they're doing
nowadays, or regular NFL drafts,are picking running backs that
can catch the ball.
And why is that?
Because that's becoming moreand more important for running
back, not just to run betweenthe tackle, but it'll be able to
catch the ball, and so thatactually gives some of these
guys some points.
And with running back, withcommittees now especially, it's
(15:06):
going to give those third downbacks a chance to be able to get
some points that you canaccount for, or at least try to
account for, versus not.
And so on the flip side I wouldsay the negative is like okay,
if we go to 0.5, it actuallymight dilute the scoring
possibilities and playerproductivity that we can draw
from.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
Yeah, you, lot of these.
There's almost a new positionin NFL that's OW, it's an
offensive weapon, and so I meanthe Debo Saniel is an offensive
weapon, that the kind of theydrafted for the Lions offensive
weapon.
And there's other examplesaround the league of like, these
guys can do a little bit ofboth.
They'll go out as a widereceiver.
You know they do running back,you know they'll catch a lot of
passes out of the backfield.
(15:46):
So, and I agree with you, Imean, if you look at the
salaries, you know clearly thehighest played players now are
wide receivers.
You know, look at the contractwith Bonte, adams and guys like
that.
I mean they.
And you see guys like DalvinCook who are just struggling to
get back soccer on Barkley orjust kind of struggling to get
$10 million a year, $12 milliona year.
So your emphasis on widereceivers is correct and you
(16:09):
know, it's one of the reasonswhy, when we were talking about
quarterbacks, it was soappealing when we went from four
to six points.
It was appealing because, like,hey, quarterback is the most
important position on the field.
It's definitely that and Ithink that was a rationale there
and you could, as you kind ofmade the point kind of the
contrary point is like yeah,wide receivers are very
important and it's reflective inthe salaries that go around
(16:29):
around the league.
Speaker 1 (16:31):
And as it's reflected how.
If you look at the draftsnowadays, the NFL drafts, like
before, like running backs weregoing, you know, right next to
the quarterbacks.
Now we did have a couple ofrunning backs going in the first
round this year, but you don'tsee, by and large, too many
running backs going in the firstround anymore, Even in the
second.
You're looking to see them dropin third, fourth round, where
people are picking them upbecause that's, or teams are
(16:53):
picking them up because theirlack of better terms not as
valuable anymore, and eventhough they are, but a lot of
teams are.
What's really is happening?
A lot of teams are going torunning back by committees and
having multiple running backsthat they can do multiple things
with and change up thescenarios.
But you don't, the days ofhaving the Cowbell running back
(17:14):
aren't over, but they're just alot more diluted than we used to
.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
Absolutely absolutely so.
That's, that's proposal numberone.
So you know we'll, we'll see it, and I guess maybe one of the
things we need to talk about islike when do we want to finalize
?
I mean, I guess we maybe leaveit a few for, you know, a few
more days to see if there's anyother proposals that are out
there, and then we cut it off ata certain date and then we say,
okay, everybody vote and you'llget a week, but we can maybe
(17:38):
talk about that at the end.
Speaker 1 (17:40):
Yeah, yeah, some possibility that we might be
able to come up with?
Okay, I'll do this one and I'lldo the proponent for this one.
How about that?
Maybe you can give the negativeside.
Proposal two is also comingfrom Doug Johnson.
Proposals two says we should adda superflex position and ditch
(18:03):
the kicker.
In our proposal I kind ofmodified it a little bit by
saying hey, do we want to like?
What part of this do we reallywant?
Do you want to add a super flexand ditch the kicker, or do you
just want to add a super flexand not just a kicker?
And so you know, I gave a fewoptions within our proposal
sheet here, but the the just ofit is we want to add a super
flex, and what a super flexwould be was being able to put
(18:25):
anybody in a flex position,putting in a second quarterback,
and Doug's thought process onthat is that the quarterback is
one of the most importantpositions on the field and this
will allow us to be able toreflect that.
I think on the positive side,what we'll be able to do with
that is we'd be able to expandthe draft capital on
(18:48):
quarterbacks and so like nolonger would a team maybe have
one to two quarterbacks in theroster, but that might not be
good enough.
You might have, like, rosterone quarterback and maybe put in
someone that has high ceilingbut might be complete done,
where you're just rostering oneor rostered, hopefully, for a bi
week, or doing something likethat.
(19:08):
This will allow us to actuallyreally have to think about the
quarterback position from adifferent perspective too.
So like if you didn't get a toptier quarterback, you know, as
your first quarterback, youbetter have a couple of solid
ones.
Now no longer could you get bywith like a direct car on your
roster and but you know, greatteam for the rest of the thing,
you have direct car and say, youknow Smith, I don't know, but
(19:30):
you know pretty decent, I guess.
But assuming that if heregresses, which I think you
will, if you just have twoaverage quarterbacks, that could
be very difficult.
So it's got to add a newelement to the league that you'd
have to actually think about asyou're doing your draft
proposal, and it's going to addincreased value to the
quarterback position, which is,as you were saying earlier, one
of the most important positionson the field.
(19:50):
And so I think this word, doug,is coming from.
Kickers, as we also described,is really kind of hit and miss,
no matter what.
I think we've all lost a gameor two or one.
A game or two based on a kickerjust excelling or having like a
20 to 30 point a game.
But you just never account forsomething.
You never know what you'regoing to get from a kicker any
(20:11):
week.
There's no rhyme or reason forit.
There's no skill to it.
It's complete luck as to whenyou're going to get a hit on a
kicker.
I think that proponent Lee,that you know as a proponent of
it, are you in the proponentside of it.
I think that would be the twobiggest arguments for it.
Speaker 2 (20:26):
Gotcha, gotcha.
So I, so I've experienced inthis, I played in a, my league
is a two quarterback lead.
It will just super flex, whichand of course it is very rare
not to have a quarterback andyour super flex that that
something must have gonehorribly wrong for some reason.
You can't, you can't put asecond quarterback there and
that's that's a 12 team like.
So you think there's, there's,there's 32 starting quarterbacks
(20:47):
, that's, that's 24 you got, yougot eight left.
So I definitely, when you havethe, the, the two quarterbacks
that you, their, their value,likely will open the draft
because, again, if you, ifyou're putting a wide receiver
or you know what, any otherposition player in there,
they're not going to scoregenerally as much as a
quarterback.
This is not generally going tohappen.
(21:09):
So you get, you know, probablygood, I don't know, there's
probably some stats out there,but probably 48 points for eight
points more value or so, havingthat had that quarterback in
there.
Speaker 1 (21:19):
Well, especially when you get towards, like looking
at your second quarterbackversus a third wide receiver
three, or running back througheven for, like you know, you're
going to get more consistentvalue for the quarterback.
You're going to get pointsright, right, exactly, exactly
so.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
So it definitely.
I mean, as soon as you had thatsecond flex, the super flex
it's, it's pretty muchautomatically you're going to
put a, put a, put a quarterbackin that spot.
So to me, the values you know,there's a kind of a dearth of
wide receivers and running backsthat you could put in there.
There's a much limited numberof quarterbacks.
You're coming drawing from amuch smaller pool, so it makes
(21:59):
it really difficult and like, ifyou get, you get screwed on the
quarterbacks, you're really ata disadvantage where you know,
at least with wide receivers andrunning backs, you know there's
, there's always going to besomebody that pops any other
given week.
You know maybe multiple players, you know somebody gets into
the running back position.
Now you got, now you got hope.
So I think the super flex, Ithink the kind of that, it kind
(22:21):
of drains that pool of playersthat you can put in, that, put
in that position and to me itmaybe just slightly over
emphasize as the quarterbackposition Kicker hey, man,
kickers win championships,that's what they do.
We've had kicker since day one.
There are an offensive player,you know that, that scores
(22:44):
points.
You know we have.
Any player that scores pointsis on a roster, has been on a
roster.
Yeah, we don't put offensivelineman on there.
We don't put punches on therebecause they don't score points.
So kicker should be therebecause they are part of the
system of scoring points for NFLteams.
Speaker 1 (23:01):
Awesome, awesome.
I like her for fun.
I agree with you on what youhave to say on that.
There's a lot of good argumentswith that.
You know I'm not my only.
I guess my only negative reallythat the ad on that would be
how many teams have to put aboutsomething you know on the field
at any time?
How many decent ones?
Yeah, well, at the same time noone.
(23:22):
Well, I should, I shouldreplace that.
Sometimes there's a trick play,but it's very seldom you see
two quarterbacks on the fieldAny one time.
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
Yeah, it's not a, it's not a ton, so but I mean,
it's definitely a strategyaround it and it'd be
interesting to see, if we did doit, how that would work with
With an oxy style.
But again, I gotta think itstarted adding the values up a
little bit more.
That would be interestingbecause, yeah, you still see
running backs going for 50, 70bucks and I'm like during the,
during the action.
Speaker 1 (23:51):
So now, now, you got a, you got to re-emphasize and
which is the pro you got tore-emphasize to realize I gotta
say some money for anotherquarterback.
I gotta have at least one goodquarterback, if not to a decent,
two decent ones, and he nolonger the day can you stash a
quarterback hoping that theywould have like Quinn Richardson
might be a perfect candidate,like if I was to draft him.
(24:12):
I better have it like my homesor something like that, because
then I can, really I could justroll the dice on someone.
But if you're having twoquarterbacks you can't roll the
dice like that.
We could, but you probably wantsomething more consistently for
your second quarterback.
So I'm a little more on theaverage side that you know
you're gonna get the points forand it does bring that a unique
element to it and adds more tothe strategy.
(24:33):
Part of the panels football.
Speaker 2 (24:36):
Yeah, exactly, exactly so.
So I'm reading the Rembrynerproposed doing three again.
So I so I thought, doug, Ithought he had said His first
was it was super flex and ditchthe kicker, and then is that
caviar's, okay, we don't get,there's just a next rule.
And if that rule doesn't gointo effect on, the next rule
would be Just add the super flex.
(24:57):
I thought that's what he, whathe wanted.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
Oh, you just want to.
I thought he wanted to.
Maybe if you don't want thesuper flex, just do it.
A third flex position.
Speaker 2 (25:05):
No, no, I think he, I think he would give up on the
kicker and I think he, I thinkhe wanted the super flex more
than he wanted the ditch akicker.
Okay, okay.
And I think to me it's juststill two rules where you just
say, hey, the first one is okay,yeah, do you want super flex
and ditch kicker?
Yes, no.
And then the second one wouldbe like okay, do you just want
super flex?
And this rule would be null ofthe whatever, the first one
(25:26):
already.
Speaker 1 (25:26):
Yeah, and proposal to the way I kind of I put it in
was Should we add a super flexposition, ditch a kicker?
And there's four options add asuper flex and ditch a kicker.
Don't ever stick the super flexbut ditch kicker as super flex
only.
Or don't add super flex andkeep kicker, then, like it was
last year, there could beanother wild variant which is
like could we?
Speaker 2 (25:46):
we add a super flex and an extra flex, but that
would be a bit same that we got.
Keep Keep the flex positionthat it is and just add the
super flex.
Yeah, yeah it's not clear.
Speaker 1 (25:57):
I can put that as the option, that for sure right,
because it does not necessarily.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
I don't think the idea is not necessarily added.
It's like this the flex becomesthe super flex.
I think it's Doug's idea of it.
I kind of like the idea,potentially, of just adding
super flexes, of extra flex.
Speaker 1 (26:13):
I mean I have that option there because, like I
interpreted it as like we'regonna ditch the kicker position
and put this super flex in.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
That could be it too.
Okay, I could see that, buteither way, I would probably
take that in that way too.
Speaker 1 (26:24):
actually, now that you said it that way, you know,
when it's me and it's motto, andI'll think it's really a big
difference.
And well, we'll clarify, we'llclarify.
Speaker 2 (26:34):
So I think we kind of talked about both two and three
, but Already just talking aboutthe super flex and the kickers.
Yeah, I like the idea of an addanother, another flex.
I kind of like the idea ofanother flex for some reason.
More players, potentially morefun, but then that might impact
another rule code that we'regonna talk about.
Talk about next.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
Yeah, I think I hate to say, but, like you know, as I
put the rules together, you'dread a little title top like
basically we're gonna re-voteall this if the last proposal is
Accepted, because we couldeither do that for 2023 or 2024.
Maybe we'll start there, maybewe'll go there just jump down
real quick, if you don't mind.
That proposal is to expand theleague to 12 teams, and Weekend
(27:19):
there was some talk about seemedlike we have the momentum to go
into it to 2024, 25 year.
But then some people are sayingwhy don't we just do it now?
And so there's a proposal outthere for expanding the 12 teams
this year, which wouldbasically mean we need to
re-vote on everything that wejust voted for because we change
(27:39):
everything, or go to 2024 andexpand the 12 teams.
Do you want to give the theproponent-ness of that argument
for 2023 or 2021?
Speaker 2 (27:55):
Yeah, I want to get two clarifications out there
first.
Okay, so the first one is theperson that said want to just do
it now is the same person whobitched in the text earlier
about doing it and screwing thembecause they have a good team.
So that was totally compatiblewith this year.
So the second thing is Iremember you, you have selective
amnesia, like I remember like,oh come on, we got to get 12
(28:17):
people, we got to get this otherperson in and Dave is, we'll do
all we got to get to?
Speaker 1 (28:20):
No, I remember.
Speaker 2 (28:21):
You were really with him, like, and you're like oh,
what are you talking about?
Like, you left me hanging, youleft me hanging.
Speaker 1 (28:26):
Well, it's one thing to say, hey, I got some friends
that will be interested in it,and then to go to like, hey, you
got to, or this guy in because,like I got to, you know, make
sure that that something that wereally want to do.
It was one thing when you'rehaving beers and saying, oh,
that'd be fun, and then actualanother thing having that
conversation with the personsaying, okay, we're opening it
up, do you want to do it?
(28:47):
And I haven't had thatconversation, so yeah.
Speaker 2 (28:51):
And I'm going to be.
I'm going to be reallytransparent.
I don't I actually don'tnecessarily care whether we go
10 or 12.
I mean that I'm if we went 12,that's great.
If we stayed at 10, I'm greattoo.
I just don't know.
You know where I'm at, but Ithink the idea is that we
expanded the 12.
I think the reason for waitingwas the year again was to kind
of reward those people who didgood last, last year, that built
(29:11):
these good rosters, and let'ssee them at least reap the
benefits of that one more yearAttribute.
It's a bit too harsh to say, oh, we're going to do it like
right now, rip off the bandaidand go for it.
I think the second thing thatand I think you brought this up
was that, hey, maybe we can havethem come.
You know, like we can invitethem to the draft this year and
(29:32):
they could come and check it out, see what it's all about, see
if it's something for them andsee if it's something that they
really want to do, and you getcold feet.
Then we just say, okay, well,the rosters are still.
Speaker 1 (29:41):
You know, we just go with a regular 10, the following
year Exactly, and I think thatmight be the best way to go in
this situation.
What are the roles that we have?
Come back to some of theseroles, maybe in 2024, and see if
we want to change them as wellas we possibly expanded to 2020
and 2024, which seems like wehave a moment to do it.
(30:03):
Dave's got a buddy, Dean.
I think it would be an amazing,and I got a couple buddies here
, one in particular I think itwould be amazing, but I just got
to make sure that he would bewilling and wanting to do it.
So that would be the big cruxof that.
Speaker 2 (30:18):
Yeah, yeah, exactly exactly.
You know, well, you are one forone.
As far as bringing people inthe league, chris, no, no one
for one.
Speaker 1 (30:28):
For one, aren't you one for one?
I found like three people inthe league, but well, I guess
two are still there.
Oh, that's right, you had that,matt guy.
Speaker 2 (30:35):
Matt.
Speaker 1 (30:36):
Yeah, matt, was there for a bit my two
brother-in-law's now so youcould.
Oh, I'll try.
You did the same for him, so Iguess I have two for three.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
Two for three.
Okay, I'm thinking one forthree, but that's okay, just two
for three.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
I mean look at these rule proposals that we got to
discuss because one of thepeople I brought in all about
the rules.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
So yeah, I think more people, more fun.
Like I said, I just want tothrow it out there.
Like I said, people may bereally interested, but we kind
of take the cool approach and Imean we could throw out there
for 2023, but I mean that wasnot my proposal.
Speaker 1 (31:13):
No, I, just, on a selfish point of view, I agree
with you.
I think 2023 would be a littlebit of a rush to completely redo
everything.
If we know, if we go, we knowgoing to 2024, that we're going
to reset everything, then youcan draft the coordinate.
So, instead of picking up aflyer on a third you know a
receiver that might be great,the year after next that you
(31:36):
might have a stash or an IR guythat you might want to stack,
you're not going to do that thisyear because everyone's going
to reset, so it's not going tomatter.
And so, but just so everyoneknows that, if we decided to
expand to 2024, I do believethere's momentum, although we
need to vote on it that we wouldjust reset the whole league and
redraft everybody.
Speaker 2 (31:57):
Tricky thing could be in this like, say, we do the
super flex and all of a suddenthere's a little more emphasis
on quarterback.
So you might change yourstrategy slightly a little bit,
you know.
But then that might change, youknow, if we decide to stay just
stick with 10 teams, so theremight be a little bit there.
That's kind of funky, but Idon't think that's the end of
the world.
Speaker 1 (32:13):
No, I don't think so either.
I don't think so either.
Speaker 2 (32:18):
Yeah, so we'll see so again.
For me, I just like it as likethe way I propose it.
So the way I you know, we voteto expand the 12 teams in 2020,
the 2024, and we invite thosepeople to the draft so they can
see what it's about.
Speaker 1 (32:35):
Yeah.
I think that's a great idea andthat way they can come together
, they can save the standstogether, they can get involved
in the sand.
Oh, who's that he wouldn't winthat on my enemy?
Yes, oh, that was so bad.
Speaker 2 (32:50):
It's actually called the J now stands and they
spelled the J and it just looksas bad as it.
In fact it's got a blue facade,I guess for the blue-haired
people that are in theirspecials.
Speaker 1 (33:00):
Which is so bad for a couple of our fantasy football.
Our bottom-of-the-runk and Ryanof our league were not on it a
couple of years ago and hadstayed at the Sands and I mean
what it is, what it is sometimes.
That just happened, but theygot the room that stung, that
the air conditioning wassupposed to be the best one and
didn't work.
(33:20):
It was just so bad.
I felt so bad from that yearFor guys, for guys.
Speaker 2 (33:30):
So then that brings us to the last rule of code
proposal, which is to reduce thesizes from so.
Right now we have 18 players.
I guess we'll leave the injuryreserve out of that.
We have 18 players.
The proposal is to go to 16players or keep it the same as
this past year.
Speaker 1 (33:45):
Yeah, and if we decide to go to 16 players,
we're at what?
Currently 20?
Speaker 2 (33:52):
18 in an IR position 18 IR.
Speaker 1 (33:58):
I see the merit and the thought that the proponent
idea from Doug Johnson wasmaking up another proposal was
to allow for the free agentmarket to be a little bit more
robust, and I like that idea.
It's getting some morecompetition within each week.
You're gonna have to reallybudget yourself a little bit
(34:19):
more, a little better, becauseyou're not gonna have much of a
stash in your lineup and yourreserves.
So you're gonna have the budgeta little bit better than you do
the free agent auction betweeneach week, because you're going
to need to get some players andthis way there will actually be
players worth even getting,because we wouldn't have each.
(34:40):
You take away two.
What are we?
Two roster spots for 10 teams.
You got 20 extra players outthere.
And Doug does make a good pointabout being like when you're
starting to look at for freeagencies and there's really
nothing out there, it can be alittle deflating and you got to
pick up somebody that's justkind of you know like maybe a
(35:00):
third string running back whodid as a third downback on the
committee and that's where yougot to play in that week.
It can be a little deflating,but that would be the opponent
aspect of it.
You want to cover the negativeaspect of expanding or reducing
our roster to 16.
Speaker 2 (35:17):
Yeah, I think you know reducing the roster size, I
mean, a lot of the great thingsabout our league is that, is
that stashing dash just as astashing, stashing players, and
that's part of the.
I think that's part of the funof the league.
Not necessarily for everybody,maybe it's for certain people
over others, but I think havingthat kind of stash approach kind
of it's kind of fun for a lotof people.
(35:38):
I also know, as you mentioned,now you get 20 players in.
But again, I was in a full teamleague for many years now and
like if there's still even withthat, even with like I think we
only have like 14, like so wehave a really, really small
bench.
And even with that it was likestill, you're still scraping,
scraping the barrel trying toget certain players.
So sure you had 20 more playersin, but I don't think it's
(36:00):
gonna add that much depth, Ithink, because a lot of what we
do on our teams, a lot of thosetwo players are probably guys,
were just kind of speculated onanyways like oh you know, let's
pick the third string, let'spick up Mason for whatever, for
a San Francisco 49ers.
Yeah, he's not even close to thestart of now, but maybe five
weeks from now those guys gethurt and we can put him in.
So I think even if you go downto the 16, you're and you put
(36:24):
the 20 more players back in,you're still gonna have.
It's still gonna look likescrubs out there.
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (36:30):
I might be and this is my honest opinion like I
might give me more of a opponentfor if we expand to 12 teams,
but, as apparently with 10 teams, I don't I see a need.
What do you have your friend to?
I don't disagree with them butat the same time, like I said,
stashing his players at the sametime is fun, cause that's where
you get those jams.
Like Justin Jefferson was astashed player, for him he was
(36:51):
literally probably the lastplayer, first person.
I would have cut back in theday before I knew he was gonna
be good, because the first fewweeks of his rookie year he did
not have many yards and I'm like, okay, I don't know if I'm
gonna be able to keep this guyon the roster.
He would have been gone and Iwouldn't have won my
championship last year withoutit.
Man does put some emphasis onlike really making sure you know
(37:11):
who's available in the draft.
It does make more of a focus ofhaving a good draft and a good
draft, not I don't know what theplan is really difficult to
even say.
I mean one of these podcasts wecan go.
What is a good draft plan?
Because I don't know if therereally is one because you can go
in, and was like I'm gonna gotwo quarterbacks at the
beginning, go high, especiallyin an auction draft.
Like in a snake draft you mightbe able to get away with it a
(37:32):
little bit more, but in anauction draft you just don't
know what's gonna happen.
Speaker 2 (37:37):
Yeah, you gotta go with the flow of it.
Speaker 1 (37:39):
You gotta go with the flow, but being able to stash
those players in the draft andknowing who's available, knowing
what you have left, createsmore difficulty within the draft
and more talent in a good way.
Speaker 2 (37:52):
Absolutely, absolutely.
So, yeah, so draft better, doug, be part of that group, like
Mikey and Kristen and Dale.
You know you gotta be.
You try to put yourself in thatcrowd.
Speaker 1 (38:09):
I love Mikey's comment about that.
Basically, mike said well, doug, just draft better, be like
Kristen and me and God, I loveyou, I love you, I love you, I
love you, I love you, I love you, I love you Good times, our
brother loves.
Speaker 2 (38:24):
I do agree with you, though, that we do go to the 12
teams, and I wouldwholeheartedly back to the
proposal, and I'm not actuallynot saying I actually made a
vote, yes, for this.
I haven't decided yet and I'llhonesty.
Speaker 1 (38:35):
Yeah, no, I haven't either, but I'm more leading.
That way, I'd probably be a yesin 2024.
If it's a ban, I'm probably ano this year.
Speaker 2 (38:43):
Absolutely.
So those are the.
Maybe the other thing we shouldconsider, maybe just another
rule code that I don't know ifanything will pop in your head,
but maybe we should have acontingency.
Okay, we should probably haveanother contingency game, maybe
we just have a contingency forthe playoffs, or we could like
do it for any game.
Whatever we want to do, maybeif we have the, the Mark, the
Mark Hamlin, that's what theMark Hamlin, mark Hamlin.
Yeah, you know, if we haveanother, the Mark.
(39:03):
Hamlin scenario.
Maybe we should come up withsome things, Whether it's just
to say, hey, this is it.
You know, if it happens,whoever the winner at the time,
they win it.
You know sort of thing.
That's a good proposal.
Say like, for example somethinglike that happened.
Speaker 1 (39:16):
you go to your bench if it's a bench deep end and you
don't have one, you don't getpoints Like, for example say it
happened for your quarterback.
You can go to your backupquarterback, but you can put
that together.
I think that's a good proposal.
Yeah, it's like a positionplayer.
You go, maybe you go to likethe next ranked player or
(39:36):
something like that.
Speaker 2 (39:37):
You know like you, you look a little bit at the
back of your head.
You know like you look a littlebit, say, fancy raking,
whatever the next ranked guy onthere?
Speaker 1 (39:44):
Right, so not just best ball, it's by fantasy
raking.
Yeah, yeah yeah, so likesomeone goes off deep on your
roster and I thought that's whatI want now.
Speaker 2 (39:53):
No, no, it doesn't work.
It doesn't work that way.
Speaker 1 (39:55):
But I mean, it's one of those things.
Speaker 2 (39:56):
It may never happen again.
You know it may never happenagain, but probably be good to
have something in there.
Speaker 1 (40:01):
And you know, the other proposal I'd like I was
kicking around is maybe having,instead of a defense, maybe a
defensive player.
Having an IDP individualdefensive player might make it a
little bit more challenging andmore individualized to be able
to who you grab, like Nick Bozaor whoever else you want to.
(40:24):
Matt Crosby, you know, gettinga defense might add a little
more strategy to it Because,again, just like kickers,
defense are hit or miss.
You know we're knowing somedefense are going to be better
than others, but it might add anextra element to it.
But that's just something I wastrying to tell.
Speaker 2 (40:37):
Yeah, I might get it.
It's like, let's be honest, wedon't know the defensive players
as well as we should Probably.
We know the heck out of everygoddamn up and down the roster,
wide receiver running backquarterback on a team, but you
know we don't know.
I mean, we know we know NickBoza's, a few other guys, but
you know it'd be great to dothat just to get to know
defensive players a little bitmore.
Yeah well, that's my thought.
(40:58):
Yeah, I like that.
I think that's a dang dang goodthought.
Speaker 1 (41:03):
All right, well, add it to the list, chico.
Add it to the list.
Okay, so we got two addedproposals.
We're going to add a strategythat you and I can massage a
little bit about what to do incase of a suspension game or,
you know, postponed or whateveryou want to call it, and then
maybe go to a defensive plan.
Speaker 2 (41:20):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (41:21):
I love it.
Speaker 2 (41:22):
I love it.
All righty, I will put ittogether and I just, you know,
thank people for throwing outsome of those proposals.
I think most of them came fromDougie, but they came from Doug
and me, I think, for the mostpart.
But yeah and yeah, when you got, when you vote on these things,
don't worry about it.
If you like it and want to doit, go for it.
(41:43):
If you're like, hey, I want tokeep it the same.
No hard feelings of that aswell too.
So let's be honest, the leagueis great right now.
The league is fun.
I have fun every single week.
We do this.
So even if we kept the thing tosing, it's fun.
But we're also trying to like.
We're also always trying toimprove things a little bit and
make it better.
Speaker 1 (41:59):
So Exactly exactly, and that's all we're trying to
do is have fun.
That's all we ever do have,whether we any of these rules
make it or not not going tochange the fun aspect of it.
We're going to have fun withguys and so a lot of fun either
way.
We're just going to make itkind of make it some more
challenging versus notchallenging, or more fun or more
strategy.
(42:19):
We'll forget these things out.
The one question I do have foryou all is when do you want to
set a deadline for yourproposals, like voting?
Speaker 2 (42:29):
essentially, let's maybe say by the 25th we'll have
the rule codes refined, like ifthere's anything else that
we're missing, let's have thatby, I say, next Tuesday.
And then maybe let's say voteby August 1st, which is about a
week after.
Speaker 1 (42:44):
That'll be good to me .
Then we can tell you the votes.
Have a podcast about the draftcoming up.
We'll go from there.
Sweet Awesome.
All right, my friend, I thinkthat's it for me.
How about you?
Speaker 2 (42:56):
I'm good and I think maybe just to kind of tease,
hopefully we can get into maybeone or two of these in podcasts
in between and for the season,Of course, likely we'll.
Maybe the next one we'll focuson the rosters and start talking
about possible keepers andwe'll also talk about pre-draft
shenanigans.
Sounds good to me.
Speaker 1 (43:13):
All right, my friend, we're signing off here Slinging
Sammy's Penetrate Footballpodcast.
I'm Chris and you are.
Speaker 2 (43:18):
Scott, I'm calling, I'm calling, I'm calling, I'm
calling, I'm calling, I'mcalling, I'm calling, I'm
calling, I'm calling, I'mcalling.
Speaker 1 (43:29):
Thanks out, love you guys.
Bye.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Slinging Sammy's
Fantasy Football Podcast.
I'm Chris and I'm here by bestbuddy, scott the functional
alcoholic.
How are you doing, scott?
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Hey Chris, my penis doesn't like it when you talk to
me like that.
I don't like that at all.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
I'm just slapping it around and do what you gotta do.
Nothing in order and you're in,okay.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
I'm doing okay.
I'm doing just great, Having afabulous summer, getting out to
some places, getting a chance totravel a little bit, getting a
chance to build up that brewerylist I think we're around 420,
somewhere around that totalbreweries.
So it's been a nice summer ofthat, getting out, doing some
hiking and doing some boatingand all sorts of great stuff.
How about you, man?
Speaker 1 (00:43):
Doing pretty much the same.
I didn't get to as manybreweries as you have, but it
was out in the sunshine of BendOregon, getting to see a bunch
of nature out there, and we'regoing to head over to Santa
Barbara next week, so that'swhat we've been working on a
little bit.
Did get to go to Crutch Brewery.
That was kind of a really goodplace.
What was it called Crux?
Yeah, it's a really goodbrewery there in Bend Oregon.
(01:04):
We used the original Brewmaster, ford chutes, and then he went
over to do his own new place, todo it better and I think
actually did so.
What was your favorite brewerythat you?
Speaker 2 (01:18):
went through this year.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
Yeah, when.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
I was there at Crux and I really, really enjoyed
Monkish Really good place.
It actually used to be CraftBrewing in Bend, overlooking one
of their entertainment venues,but just beautiful, wonderful
Belgian beers.
I think the best beer I had wasa peppercorn Belgian Imperial
Week or something like that andit was just amazing.
(01:40):
But I got to get some bigbrewers there too.
Went down to Passau Robleys inLA actually hit Firestone Walker
, hit Golden Road another bigbrewery.
They have a place in Sacramento.
They were fantastic.
And Bottle Logic is another bigbrewery now.
So got to a lot of good places,but Bend Monkish was my
favorite.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
Monkish was, I would get a chance to go there.
Of course we were a bunch ofkids so we didn't have a lot of
chances to get to Jiminy Brewery.
We only hit two.
Some were over there, some wereover there and we had to effort
to get to Cross.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Some were good.
I remember it being solid.
I didn't actually get to get tothis time, but it was solid,
yeah it was good beer.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
It was, yeah, it was just solid.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
I know the crazy thing about Bend every brewery
has two or three food trucks.
That's not something I see ofvery many places, but they have
two or three food trucks, unlessthey serve food of their own.
Otherwise they have every placewe went.
It's kind of nice becauseyou're like, hey, you can still
get food from a variety ofplaces, which is nice.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
And you have your options, because here,
unfortunately, my favoritebrewery, canary Bend, that just
reopened up, has been closedsince COVID, wow.
But occasionally they'll have afood truck out there, but
usually it's just your grab beerand that's all you can get,
which is fine.
But it's always nice to havethat food kind of keep you going
in case you want to have, youhave one too many, or fill that
belly, or hunger or whateveryou've got to do, and then we
(02:58):
have more than one.
That's even better, becausethen you've got the choices Okay
.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
Oh, wow, okay, so we officially it is 420 breweries
and we've hit 36 breweries thisyear.
A lot of those 36 were reallythree in the sense of the summer
, so it's kind of yeah, you guyswant to attract us to the
summer.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
on that brewery tour that was pretty impressive.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Yeah, a lot of great places.
Speaker 1 (03:19):
But practically.
If I'm wrong, you did.
And was it seven days?
How many brews?
Speaker 2 (03:28):
I think we were two weeks, I think we almost did
about 20 plus breweries or likethat.
Oh, mother Earth was anotherbig one.
It's another kind of a semi bigbrewery.
That's actually really good.
And I guess my other, probablyfavorite brewery Icicle Icicle
Brewing in LeavenworthLeavenworth is like a German
village.
You can sit out there.
That's like they havepedestrian streets.
You can see the mountains inthe background, but their beer
(03:50):
is fantastic.
Their Alpine Glow just won theWorld Beer Cup for the best Hazy
.
Oh, wow, okay.
They're a whole string of likethey had a whole flight of Hazys
that were all incredible.
Like I couldn't even tell youwhich one was the best one.
Like it's the one on one.
I guess that was good, but allof them are good.
Speaker 1 (04:04):
So if you were to get to Leavenworth, Icicle Okay,
awesome, were you able to pickup a bunch to take home, or did
you I?
Speaker 2 (04:09):
picked up some, like I picked up a few six packs here
and then actually we were downa store further away.
I thought, oh, we probablyaren't going to be able to get
them anymore.
But actually there was anotherstore in Ertugowin that carried
them, so I got some there.
But you know, it's always weirdhow much do you buy?
You can only buy so much, yeah,that's true, and then very
cheap For Golden Road.
(04:29):
Actually, we went to theHollywood Bowl, we went to
concerts.
There you can actually bring analcohol, so you can get wine,
beers, or I think we bought asix pack or something in there,
and so it's kind of a coollittle thing.
Speaker 1 (04:43):
Well, that makes it kind of fun.
I don't know how things do that, because I always want you to
buy their stuff or their vendorstuff or whatever, so that's
kind of nice to be able to dothat.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
Exactly, but when, of course, when I ran out, I had
to buy one of their beers and itwas like, ah, $18 for a 20
ounce can Come on, you'rekilling me and you're getting
course light right.
It was good beer.
At least it was good beer.
So it's actually one of thethings You're wrong.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
I don't mind a good course light once in a while,
but they're paying 18 bucks.
It's not what you want.
Absolutely, absolutely.
So, yeah, it's a good beers.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
And I hope, when we have our draft here in about
another month or so, I hope weget the opportunity to hit a few
breweries when you guys are uphere, so, but we'll see you.
We'll talk about draft day ordraft weekend festivities in
another cast.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
The draft weekend is almost upon a full week.
About 40, 30 days are on there.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
See it's a few seconds, so it's like five weeks
, I guess.
Five weeks, yeah, five, fiveweeks till draft time.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
You said 22nd in our draft.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
It is the weekend of the 26th Shut up.
You know when our draft is Shutup 26.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
Okay, yeah.
So we're basically right atthat one month mark almost huh.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
So how many times when you ask when's the draft,
Do you actually know when thedraft is?
Speaker 1 (05:56):
Are you just Well, I kind of know what it is.
I just need to make surebecause I don't want to, like,
get the wrong date, which youknow I do.
Sometimes I mix numbers up orget to put the wrong date down.
So I'm just making 100% surebefore I make a mistake, because
usually when I'm asking when'sthe draft, it's because I'm
looking at purchasing hotels,right, right, okay.
(06:17):
So I just want to make sure Igot the right date, so I don't
make a mistake.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
Yeah, which you.
You a Dougie and did a greatjob of getting some hotel rooms,
the suites and stuff like that.
So kudos to Dougie, Yep.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
Kudos to Dougie.
We're going to be in the grandSierra and we're going to be in
the big suites.
It'll be sweet.
So let's recap of what we hadfrom last year.
Hey, can you remind me ofhaving a hard time remembering,
because it's a while ago?
Who was the?
Speaker 2 (06:42):
winner.
I think it's some dirtbag namedPiss ailed, pissale, pissale,
pissale, pissale.
I think his name is Pissale.
I think that's his name.
Yeah, I'm a little close.
Yeah, I think the the great SanFrancisco 49ers Triant and what
is you know it was the weirdestfantasy football weekend and it
(07:05):
had to be on a championshipweekend of all time.
With the tragedy of Lamar.
This is his last name, LamarJackson.
Speaker 1 (07:14):
No.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
No Lamar For guys.
Ah, it's not me with theBuffalo Bills player, oh yeah,
the defensive player.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
Like, actually it's hurt.
I don't remember what they wereplaying, right?
Speaker 2 (07:24):
now, so that that that put up Paul the right thing
.
Everybody wasn't sure exactlywhat to do.
We had games in progress.
Your game was like 92 to 81.
He stole the bills, defensegoings.
One of those things were youknow, you never know things.
You go with the way I mean thebills going to run back a
touchdown or something.
You know you never, you neverknow.
So so yeah.
So we ended up just asettlement like gentlemen, I
(07:46):
believe we, we gave you thefinances.
It was if you said, if youwanted to send something to
Mikey, you could do that, andI'm not going to ask if you did.
So that's, that's between youguys.
But still, another greatfantasy football season, you
know.
Great job everybody.
And I'm sorry about the theNorth cow wine slingers.
Fortunately they came in lastplace.
And, mr Monk, get that, getthat checkbook ready.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Well, yeah, and just so you guys know, it was a
really difficult situation wherewe weren't quite sure what to
do.
We were thinking about rollingwith it.
I actually suggested just wejust roll with the defense for
the next week, and I actuallygot vetoed on that one.
And then the buck, the bill'sdefense court, like I think on
the first play, got a touch downand I and just I think we had
(08:30):
two touchdowns in that next gameand would have put Mike ahead
of if we had done that, but wedidn't.
I have not sent Mike money.
I haven't talked to Mike sincethe beginning of the thing, but
I think I think what you and Italked about and I think we're
we're going to more head with isand we can talk about that for
a minute is an actual fantasyfootball trophy which we've
never had before, and I'll thinkof maybe allocating some of the
(08:53):
funds for something like that.
The trick is like what kind oftrophy would we really want to
get for fantasy football?
For 30 plus years that we'vebeen doing that, we haven't done
once.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
So what do we get?
I think probably it'd be goodto get something with like a
plaque type thing so we couldactually put the winners by year
.
I think that would be a coolthing to do if we can figure out
how to do that.
And then, of course, room tohave to grow for however many
more years.
So I think that is somethingI'd like to see as kind of
mandatory, because I think it'skind of cool.
But again, that's a lot of textand space and we get these at a
(09:24):
plaque or something else.
That gets a little tricky.
So that would be one of myrequirements.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
My goal.
What I would love to have issomething exactly like what
you're talking about, but alsohave like chalice that you can
drink from.
Oh yeah, oh yeah, so you can bedrinking as a champion.
You know, and you know, beermade of senses coming from my
funds, say the crystal trophy.
Speaker 2 (09:47):
Well, and if we couldn't do both things, we
could always consider doing twothings.
You know, it's like okay, wehave the plaque with every name
and then we have like just maybea little more basic cup or
something, you know.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Championship cup or in the aquatrophy.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
Yeah, so we have options.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
Okay, I like the way that you think about these
things.
So, just for our listeners,what does the last place person
have to do?
Speaker 2 (10:11):
The last place person has to buy drinks for the
commissioner at the draft.
You know it's just a lot ofdrinks, buy drinks.
So, man come a thirsty guy.
So be ready.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
And just so you guys know, the original punishment
for being in last place was tobecome the commissioner.
But every time someone becomesthe last place, they don't want
to do it, and so it's becomeScott's kind of gig now.
And to compensate for Scott fordoing the commissioner of the
league for how many of you havebeen doing a row?
You think about 10?
.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
I think I took it over Doug like five, six years
ago.
Give or take.
Speaker 1 (10:43):
So and so the compensation is to make sure
that you're well-hygiened duringthe draft.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
Absolutely so.
Yeah, so good for Monk andwe'll see how things go.
We'll see if he tries todry-hump the other robot again.
That's would be a or.
Maybe they'll pass things upand get back together again.
We'll see.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
Yeah well, he wasn't the only one doing it, though
that's the thing we gottaremember.
He's the only one that got introuble for it.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
Yeah, I don't think the other day was doing anything
, but of course he always looked.
He always seems like he'sguilty.
So yeah, he always did.
What, what do you mean?
Speaker 1 (11:20):
What are you doing?
So we're coming into our 2021,2023, 24 year for Fantasy
Football, and usually we don'thave too many world changes In
fact, I don't know, can'tremember any significant change
that we've had in a while butthis year we have four or five
proposals.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
And that's what we decided when we went to like,
when we decided to finally go todecimal points.
That was one of the big ones,probably.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
Was that?
Speaker 2 (11:44):
sorry, then we went to the decimal points.
Yeah, decimal points, yes, thatwas a big one, I thought there
was something else that year aswell too, but I remember decimal
points.
And then there was somethingelse that we did, but I don't
remember now.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
Yeah well, we went to PTR at one point, so then that
was we did at the same time.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
It was PTR and then Android.
We had those two.
Those were the two big things.
I think that was like two yearsago we voted that in, if I
remember right.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
Yeah, but we really have.
Our league has pretty much beenstandard for a very long time
Went to PTR but we haven't had alot of influxes of changes in
what we've done for scoring orfor expansion or consolidating
or anything like that.
But this year we do have somethings.
You want to start us off?
What do we got?
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Yeah, so we got to.
The first real goal proposal isto shift from one point to
point five per reception.
So we were just talking aboutthat change two years ago.
You know there's a you know,either keep it at one or change
it to half point.
I think the rationale for thatis that it the one point puts a
(12:48):
little bit more of a slanttowards the receivers and the
running backs that catch a lotof passes.
So the thought is that itbrings balance back a little bit
more, and you know that thepoints get a little bit more
comparable between wide receiverand running back.
Otherwise we'd get a little bitmore of a gap of running wide
receivers scoring more points.
So so it seems like a goodproposal, you know, from my
(13:12):
perspective.
But how do you?
What do you?
How do you think?
Speaker 1 (13:15):
Yeah, I mean, if you look at the proposal and what
his logic is, like you said,it's sound logic in terms of,
like, trying to bring more valueinto the running back position
and you know maybe you know halfpoint to a point, I don't know
I mean, definitely make adifference in the scoring and
how you evaluate players.
It's going to make more runningback become more important.
(13:37):
That could be a good thingabout, depending on how you look
at stuff.
On the flip side, though, theNFL become a passing lead and
not to call running backsobsolete, because they're not
Very important in both footballand in fantasy football but the
(13:59):
release on passing and you know,fantasy football might need to
reflect that as well, andkeeping it at a full point might
be able to be a way to reflectthat it gives it an opportunity
to get some players that mightnot get too many points.
You'll be able to score alittle bit more.
It opens up the field to havingmore players that might be able
(14:19):
to be productive players foryou.
You know, wide receiver three,even a running back three or
something like that that youmight be able to be able to plug
and play during a buy leak,when you don't have much to go.
Half point would kind of shrinkthat total a little bit.
And with the running backs andmy kind of negative side on this
thing, you kind of propose alot of positives.
I'm trying to give somethingnegative here.
I think the negative side ofthat is also with the running
(14:42):
backs.
It gave value to the runningbacks, so they're past catching
running backs.
And you look at the a lot ofthe drafts that they're doing
nowadays, or regular NFL drafts,are picking running backs that
can catch the ball.
And why is that?
Because that's becoming moreand more important for running
back, not just to run betweenthe tackle, but it'll be able to
catch the ball, and so thatactually gives some of these
guys some points.
And with running back, withcommittees now especially, it's
(15:06):
going to give those third downbacks a chance to be able to get
some points that you canaccount for, or at least try to
account for, versus not.
And so on the flip side I wouldsay the negative is like okay,
if we go to 0.5, it actuallymight dilute the scoring
possibilities and playerproductivity that we can draw
from.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
Yeah, you, lot of these.
There's almost a new positionin NFL that's OW, it's an
offensive weapon, and so I meanthe Debo Saniel is an offensive
weapon, that the kind of theydrafted for the Lions offensive
weapon.
And there's other examplesaround the league of like, these
guys can do a little bit ofboth.
They'll go out as a widereceiver.
You know they do running back,you know they'll catch a lot of
passes out of the backfield.
(15:46):
So, and I agree with you, Imean, if you look at the
salaries, you know clearly thehighest played players now are
wide receivers.
You know, look at the contractwith Bonte, adams and guys like
that.
I mean they.
And you see guys like DalvinCook who are just struggling to
get back soccer on Barkley orjust kind of struggling to get
$10 million a year, $12 milliona year.
So your emphasis on widereceivers is correct and you
(16:09):
know, it's one of the reasonswhy, when we were talking about
quarterbacks, it was soappealing when we went from four
to six points.
It was appealing because, like,hey, quarterback is the most
important position on the field.
It's definitely that and Ithink that was a rationale there
and you could, as you kind ofmade the point kind of the
contrary point is like yeah,wide receivers are very
important and it's reflective inthe salaries that go around
(16:29):
around the league.
Speaker 1 (16:31):
And as it's reflected how.
If you look at the draftsnowadays, the NFL drafts, like
before, like running backs weregoing, you know, right next to
the quarterbacks.
Now we did have a couple ofrunning backs going in the first
round this year, but you don'tsee, by and large, too many
running backs going in the firstround anymore, Even in the
second.
You're looking to see them dropin third, fourth round, where
people are picking them upbecause that's, or teams are
(16:53):
picking them up because theirlack of better terms not as
valuable anymore, and eventhough they are, but a lot of
teams are.
What's really is happening?
A lot of teams are going torunning back by committees and
having multiple running backsthat they can do multiple things
with and change up thescenarios.
But you don't, the days ofhaving the Cowbell running back
(17:14):
aren't over, but they're just alot more diluted than we used to
.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
Absolutely absolutely so.
That's, that's proposal numberone.
So you know we'll, we'll see it, and I guess maybe one of the
things we need to talk about islike when do we want to finalize
?
I mean, I guess we maybe leaveit a few for, you know, a few
more days to see if there's anyother proposals that are out
there, and then we cut it off ata certain date and then we say,
okay, everybody vote and you'llget a week, but we can maybe
(17:38):
talk about that at the end.
Speaker 1 (17:40):
Yeah, yeah, some possibility that we might be
able to come up with?
Okay, I'll do this one and I'lldo the proponent for this one.
How about that?
Maybe you can give the negativeside.
Proposal two is also comingfrom Doug Johnson.
Proposals two says we should adda superflex position and ditch
(18:03):
the kicker.
In our proposal I kind ofmodified it a little bit by
saying hey, do we want to like?
What part of this do we reallywant?
Do you want to add a super flexand ditch the kicker, or do you
just want to add a super flexand not just a kicker?
And so you know, I gave a fewoptions within our proposal
sheet here, but the the just ofit is we want to add a super
flex, and what a super flexwould be was being able to put
(18:25):
anybody in a flex position,putting in a second quarterback,
and Doug's thought process onthat is that the quarterback is
one of the most importantpositions on the field and this
will allow us to be able toreflect that.
I think on the positive side,what we'll be able to do with
that is we'd be able to expandthe draft capital on
(18:48):
quarterbacks and so like nolonger would a team maybe have
one to two quarterbacks in theroster, but that might not be
good enough.
You might have, like, rosterone quarterback and maybe put in
someone that has high ceilingbut might be complete done,
where you're just rostering oneor rostered, hopefully, for a bi
week, or doing something likethat.
(19:08):
This will allow us to actuallyreally have to think about the
quarterback position from adifferent perspective too.
So like if you didn't get a toptier quarterback, you know, as
your first quarterback, youbetter have a couple of solid
ones.
Now no longer could you get bywith like a direct car on your
roster and but you know, greatteam for the rest of the thing,
you have direct car and say, youknow Smith, I don't know, but
(19:30):
you know pretty decent, I guess.
But assuming that if heregresses, which I think you
will, if you just have twoaverage quarterbacks, that could
be very difficult.
So it's got to add a newelement to the league that you'd
have to actually think about asyou're doing your draft
proposal, and it's going to addincreased value to the
quarterback position, which is,as you were saying earlier, one
of the most important positionson the field.
(19:50):
And so I think this word, doug,is coming from.
Kickers, as we also described,is really kind of hit and miss,
no matter what.
I think we've all lost a gameor two or one.
A game or two based on a kickerjust excelling or having like a
20 to 30 point a game.
But you just never account forsomething.
You never know what you'regoing to get from a kicker any
(20:11):
week.
There's no rhyme or reason forit.
There's no skill to it.
It's complete luck as to whenyou're going to get a hit on a
kicker.
I think that proponent Lee,that you know as a proponent of
it, are you in the proponentside of it.
I think that would be the twobiggest arguments for it.
Speaker 2 (20:26):
Gotcha, gotcha.
So I, so I've experienced inthis, I played in a, my league
is a two quarterback lead.
It will just super flex, whichand of course it is very rare
not to have a quarterback andyour super flex that that
something must have gonehorribly wrong for some reason.
You can't, you can't put asecond quarterback there and
that's that's a 12 team like.
So you think there's, there's,there's 32 starting quarterbacks
(20:47):
, that's, that's 24 you got, yougot eight left.
So I definitely, when you havethe, the, the two quarterbacks
that you, their, their value,likely will open the draft
because, again, if you, ifyou're putting a wide receiver
or you know what, any otherposition player in there,
they're not going to scoregenerally as much as a
quarterback.
This is not generally going tohappen.
(21:09):
So you get, you know, probablygood, I don't know, there's
probably some stats out there,but probably 48 points for eight
points more value or so, havingthat had that quarterback in
there.
Speaker 1 (21:19):
Well, especially when you get towards, like looking
at your second quarterbackversus a third wide receiver
three, or running back througheven for, like you know, you're
going to get more consistentvalue for the quarterback.
You're going to get pointsright, right, exactly, exactly
so.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
So it definitely.
I mean, as soon as you had thatsecond flex, the super flex
it's, it's pretty muchautomatically you're going to
put a, put a, put a quarterbackin that spot.
So to me, the values you know,there's a kind of a dearth of
wide receivers and running backsthat you could put in there.
There's a much limited numberof quarterbacks.
You're coming drawing from amuch smaller pool, so it makes
(21:59):
it really difficult and like, ifyou get, you get screwed on the
quarterbacks, you're really ata disadvantage where you know,
at least with wide receivers andrunning backs, you know there's
, there's always going to besomebody that pops any other
given week.
You know maybe multiple players, you know somebody gets into
the running back position.
Now you got, now you got hope.
So I think the super flex, Ithink the kind of that, it kind
(22:21):
of drains that pool of playersthat you can put in, that, put
in that position and to me itmaybe just slightly over
emphasize as the quarterbackposition Kicker hey, man,
kickers win championships,that's what they do.
We've had kicker since day one.
There are an offensive player,you know that, that scores
(22:44):
points.
You know we have.
Any player that scores pointsis on a roster, has been on a
roster.
Yeah, we don't put offensivelineman on there.
We don't put punches on therebecause they don't score points.
So kicker should be therebecause they are part of the
system of scoring points for NFLteams.
Speaker 1 (23:01):
Awesome, awesome.
I like her for fun.
I agree with you on what youhave to say on that.
There's a lot of good argumentswith that.
You know I'm not my only.
I guess my only negative reallythat the ad on that would be
how many teams have to put aboutsomething you know on the field
at any time?
How many decent ones?
Yeah, well, at the same time noone.
(23:22):
Well, I should, I shouldreplace that.
Sometimes there's a trick play,but it's very seldom you see
two quarterbacks on the fieldAny one time.
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
Yeah, it's not a, it's not a ton, so but I mean,
it's definitely a strategyaround it and it'd be
interesting to see, if we did doit, how that would work with
With an oxy style.
But again, I gotta think itstarted adding the values up a
little bit more.
That would be interestingbecause, yeah, you still see
running backs going for 50, 70bucks and I'm like during the,
during the action.
Speaker 1 (23:51):
So now, now, you got a, you got to re-emphasize and
which is the pro you got tore-emphasize to realize I gotta
say some money for anotherquarterback.
I gotta have at least one goodquarterback, if not to a decent,
two decent ones, and he nolonger the day can you stash a
quarterback hoping that theywould have like Quinn Richardson
might be a perfect candidate,like if I was to draft him.
(24:12):
I better have it like my homesor something like that, because
then I can, really I could justroll the dice on someone.
But if you're having twoquarterbacks you can't roll the
dice like that.
We could, but you probably wantsomething more consistently for
your second quarterback.
So I'm a little more on theaverage side that you know
you're gonna get the points forand it does bring that a unique
element to it and adds more tothe strategy.
(24:33):
Part of the panels football.
Speaker 2 (24:36):
Yeah, exactly, exactly so.
So I'm reading the Rembrynerproposed doing three again.
So I so I thought, doug, Ithought he had said His first
was it was super flex and ditchthe kicker, and then is that
caviar's, okay, we don't get,there's just a next rule.
And if that rule doesn't gointo effect on, the next rule
would be Just add the super flex.
(24:57):
I thought that's what he, whathe wanted.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
Oh, you just want to.
I thought he wanted to.
Maybe if you don't want thesuper flex, just do it.
A third flex position.
Speaker 2 (25:05):
No, no, I think he, I think he would give up on the
kicker and I think he, I thinkhe wanted the super flex more
than he wanted the ditch akicker.
Okay, okay.
And I think to me it's juststill two rules where you just
say, hey, the first one is okay,yeah, do you want super flex
and ditch kicker?
Yes, no.
And then the second one wouldbe like okay, do you just want
super flex?
And this rule would be null ofthe whatever, the first one
(25:26):
already.
Speaker 1 (25:26):
Yeah, and proposal to the way I kind of I put it in
was Should we add a super flexposition, ditch a kicker?
And there's four options add asuper flex and ditch a kicker.
Don't ever stick the super flexbut ditch kicker as super flex
only.
Or don't add super flex andkeep kicker, then, like it was
last year, there could beanother wild variant which is
like could we?
Speaker 2 (25:46):
we add a super flex and an extra flex, but that
would be a bit same that we got.
Keep Keep the flex positionthat it is and just add the
super flex.
Yeah, yeah it's not clear.
Speaker 1 (25:57):
I can put that as the option, that for sure right,
because it does not necessarily.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
I don't think the idea is not necessarily added.
It's like this the flex becomesthe super flex.
I think it's Doug's idea of it.
I kind of like the idea,potentially, of just adding
super flexes, of extra flex.
Speaker 1 (26:13):
I mean I have that option there because, like I
interpreted it as like we'regonna ditch the kicker position
and put this super flex in.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
That could be it too.
Okay, I could see that, buteither way, I would probably
take that in that way too.
Speaker 1 (26:24):
actually, now that you said it that way, you know,
when it's me and it's motto, andI'll think it's really a big
difference.
And well, we'll clarify, we'llclarify.
Speaker 2 (26:34):
So I think we kind of talked about both two and three
, but Already just talking aboutthe super flex and the kickers.
Yeah, I like the idea of an addanother, another flex.
I kind of like the idea ofanother flex for some reason.
More players, potentially morefun, but then that might impact
another rule code that we'regonna talk about.
Talk about next.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
Yeah, I think I hate to say, but, like you know, as I
put the rules together, you'dread a little title top like
basically we're gonna re-voteall this if the last proposal is
Accepted, because we couldeither do that for 2023 or 2024.
Maybe we'll start there, maybewe'll go there just jump down
real quick, if you don't mind.
That proposal is to expand theleague to 12 teams, and Weekend
(27:19):
there was some talk about seemedlike we have the momentum to go
into it to 2024, 25 year.
But then some people are sayingwhy don't we just do it now?
And so there's a proposal outthere for expanding the 12 teams
this year, which wouldbasically mean we need to
re-vote on everything that wejust voted for because we change
(27:39):
everything, or go to 2024 andexpand the 12 teams.
Do you want to give the theproponent-ness of that argument
for 2023 or 2021?
Speaker 2 (27:55):
Yeah, I want to get two clarifications out there
first.
Okay, so the first one is theperson that said want to just do
it now is the same person whobitched in the text earlier
about doing it and screwing thembecause they have a good team.
So that was totally compatiblewith this year.
So the second thing is Iremember you, you have selective
amnesia, like I remember like,oh come on, we got to get 12
(28:17):
people, we got to get this otherperson in and Dave is, we'll do
all we got to get to?
Speaker 1 (28:20):
No, I remember.
Speaker 2 (28:21):
You were really with him, like, and you're like oh,
what are you talking about?
Like, you left me hanging, youleft me hanging.
Speaker 1 (28:26):
Well, it's one thing to say, hey, I got some friends
that will be interested in it,and then to go to like, hey, you
got to, or this guy in because,like I got to, you know, make
sure that that something that wereally want to do.
It was one thing when you'rehaving beers and saying, oh,
that'd be fun, and then actualanother thing having that
conversation with the personsaying, okay, we're opening it
up, do you want to do it?
(28:47):
And I haven't had thatconversation, so yeah.
Speaker 2 (28:51):
And I'm going to be.
I'm going to be reallytransparent.
I don't I actually don'tnecessarily care whether we go
10 or 12.
I mean that I'm if we went 12,that's great.
If we stayed at 10, I'm greattoo.
I just don't know.
You know where I'm at, but Ithink the idea is that we
expanded the 12.
I think the reason for waitingwas the year again was to kind
of reward those people who didgood last, last year, that built
(29:11):
these good rosters, and let'ssee them at least reap the
benefits of that one more yearAttribute.
It's a bit too harsh to say, oh, we're going to do it like
right now, rip off the bandaidand go for it.
I think the second thing thatand I think you brought this up
was that, hey, maybe we can havethem come.
You know, like we can invitethem to the draft this year and
(29:32):
they could come and check it out, see what it's all about, see
if it's something for them andsee if it's something that they
really want to do, and you getcold feet.
Then we just say, okay, well,the rosters are still.
Speaker 1 (29:41):
You know, we just go with a regular 10, the following
year Exactly, and I think thatmight be the best way to go in
this situation.
What are the roles that we have?
Come back to some of theseroles, maybe in 2024, and see if
we want to change them as wellas we possibly expanded to 2020
and 2024, which seems like wehave a moment to do it.
(30:03):
Dave's got a buddy, Dean.
I think it would be an amazing,and I got a couple buddies here
, one in particular I think itwould be amazing, but I just got
to make sure that he would bewilling and wanting to do it.
So that would be the big cruxof that.
Speaker 2 (30:18):
Yeah, yeah, exactly exactly.
You know, well, you are one forone.
As far as bringing people inthe league, chris, no, no one
for one.
Speaker 1 (30:28):
For one, aren't you one for one?
I found like three people inthe league, but well, I guess
two are still there.
Oh, that's right, you had that,matt guy.
Speaker 2 (30:35):
Matt.
Speaker 1 (30:36):
Yeah, matt, was there for a bit my two
brother-in-law's now so youcould.
Oh, I'll try.
You did the same for him, so Iguess I have two for three.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
Two for three.
Okay, I'm thinking one forthree, but that's okay, just two
for three.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
I mean look at these rule proposals that we got to
discuss because one of thepeople I brought in all about
the rules.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
So yeah, I think more people, more fun.
Like I said, I just want tothrow it out there.
Like I said, people may bereally interested, but we kind
of take the cool approach and Imean we could throw out there
for 2023, but I mean that wasnot my proposal.
Speaker 1 (31:13):
No, I, just, on a selfish point of view, I agree
with you.
I think 2023 would be a littlebit of a rush to completely redo
everything.
If we know, if we go, we knowgoing to 2024, that we're going
to reset everything, then youcan draft the coordinate.
So, instead of picking up aflyer on a third you know a
receiver that might be great,the year after next that you
(31:36):
might have a stash or an IR guythat you might want to stack,
you're not going to do that thisyear because everyone's going
to reset, so it's not going tomatter.
And so, but just so everyoneknows that, if we decided to
expand to 2024, I do believethere's momentum, although we
need to vote on it that we wouldjust reset the whole league and
redraft everybody.
Speaker 2 (31:57):
Tricky thing could be in this like, say, we do the
super flex and all of a suddenthere's a little more emphasis
on quarterback.
So you might change yourstrategy slightly a little bit,
you know.
But then that might change, youknow, if we decide to stay just
stick with 10 teams, so theremight be a little bit there.
That's kind of funky, but Idon't think that's the end of
the world.
Speaker 1 (32:13):
No, I don't think so either.
I don't think so either.
Speaker 2 (32:18):
Yeah, so we'll see so again.
For me, I just like it as likethe way I propose it.
So the way I you know, we voteto expand the 12 teams in 2020,
the 2024, and we invite thosepeople to the draft so they can
see what it's about.
Speaker 1 (32:35):
Yeah.
I think that's a great idea andthat way they can come together
, they can save the standstogether, they can get involved
in the sand.
Oh, who's that he wouldn't winthat on my enemy?
Yes, oh, that was so bad.
Speaker 2 (32:50):
It's actually called the J now stands and they
spelled the J and it just looksas bad as it.
In fact it's got a blue facade,I guess for the blue-haired
people that are in theirspecials.
Speaker 1 (33:00):
Which is so bad for a couple of our fantasy football.
Our bottom-of-the-runk and Ryanof our league were not on it a
couple of years ago and hadstayed at the Sands and I mean
what it is, what it is sometimes.
That just happened, but theygot the room that stung, that
the air conditioning wassupposed to be the best one and
didn't work.
(33:20):
It was just so bad.
I felt so bad from that yearFor guys, for guys.
Speaker 2 (33:30):
So then that brings us to the last rule of code
proposal, which is to reduce thesizes from so.
Right now we have 18 players.
I guess we'll leave the injuryreserve out of that.
We have 18 players.
The proposal is to go to 16players or keep it the same as
this past year.
Speaker 1 (33:45):
Yeah, and if we decide to go to 16 players,
we're at what?
Currently 20?
Speaker 2 (33:52):
18 in an IR position 18 IR.
Speaker 1 (33:58):
I see the merit and the thought that the proponent
idea from Doug Johnson wasmaking up another proposal was
to allow for the free agentmarket to be a little bit more
robust, and I like that idea.
It's getting some morecompetition within each week.
You're gonna have to reallybudget yourself a little bit
(34:19):
more, a little better, becauseyou're not gonna have much of a
stash in your lineup and yourreserves.
So you're gonna have the budgeta little bit better than you do
the free agent auction betweeneach week, because you're going
to need to get some players andthis way there will actually be
players worth even getting,because we wouldn't have each.
(34:40):
You take away two.
What are we?
Two roster spots for 10 teams.
You got 20 extra players outthere.
And Doug does make a good pointabout being like when you're
starting to look at for freeagencies and there's really
nothing out there, it can be alittle deflating and you got to
pick up somebody that's justkind of you know like maybe a
(35:00):
third string running back whodid as a third downback on the
committee and that's where yougot to play in that week.
It can be a little deflating,but that would be the opponent
aspect of it.
You want to cover the negativeaspect of expanding or reducing
our roster to 16.
Speaker 2 (35:17):
Yeah, I think you know reducing the roster size, I
mean, a lot of the great thingsabout our league is that, is
that stashing dash just as astashing, stashing players, and
that's part of the.
I think that's part of the funof the league.
Not necessarily for everybody,maybe it's for certain people
over others, but I think havingthat kind of stash approach kind
of it's kind of fun for a lotof people.
(35:38):
I also know, as you mentioned,now you get 20 players in.
But again, I was in a full teamleague for many years now and
like if there's still even withthat, even with like I think we
only have like 14, like so wehave a really, really small
bench.
And even with that it was likestill, you're still scraping,
scraping the barrel trying toget certain players.
So sure you had 20 more playersin, but I don't think it's
(36:00):
gonna add that much depth, Ithink, because a lot of what we
do on our teams, a lot of thosetwo players are probably guys,
were just kind of speculated onanyways like oh you know, let's
pick the third string, let'spick up Mason for whatever, for
a San Francisco 49ers.
Yeah, he's not even close to thestart of now, but maybe five
weeks from now those guys gethurt and we can put him in.
So I think even if you go downto the 16, you're and you put
(36:24):
the 20 more players back in,you're still gonna have.
It's still gonna look likescrubs out there.
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (36:30):
I might be and this is my honest opinion like I
might give me more of a opponentfor if we expand to 12 teams,
but, as apparently with 10 teams, I don't I see a need.
What do you have your friend to?
I don't disagree with them butat the same time, like I said,
stashing his players at the sametime is fun, cause that's where
you get those jams.
Like Justin Jefferson was astashed player, for him he was
(36:51):
literally probably the lastplayer, first person.
I would have cut back in theday before I knew he was gonna
be good, because the first fewweeks of his rookie year he did
not have many yards and I'm like, okay, I don't know if I'm
gonna be able to keep this guyon the roster.
He would have been gone and Iwouldn't have won my
championship last year withoutit.
Man does put some emphasis onlike really making sure you know
(37:11):
who's available in the draft.
It does make more of a focus ofhaving a good draft and a good
draft, not I don't know what theplan is really difficult to
even say.
I mean one of these podcasts wecan go.
What is a good draft plan?
Because I don't know if therereally is one because you can go
in, and was like I'm gonna gotwo quarterbacks at the
beginning, go high, especiallyin an auction draft.
Like in a snake draft you mightbe able to get away with it a
(37:32):
little bit more, but in anauction draft you just don't
know what's gonna happen.
Speaker 2 (37:37):
Yeah, you gotta go with the flow of it.
Speaker 1 (37:39):
You gotta go with the flow, but being able to stash
those players in the draft andknowing who's available, knowing
what you have left, createsmore difficulty within the draft
and more talent in a good way.
Speaker 2 (37:52):
Absolutely, absolutely.
So, yeah, so draft better, doug, be part of that group, like
Mikey and Kristen and Dale.
You know you gotta be.
You try to put yourself in thatcrowd.
Speaker 1 (38:09):
I love Mikey's comment about that.
Basically, mike said well, doug, just draft better, be like
Kristen and me and God, I loveyou, I love you, I love you, I
love you, I love you, I love you, I love you Good times, our
brother loves.
Speaker 2 (38:24):
I do agree with you, though, that we do go to the 12
teams, and I wouldwholeheartedly back to the
proposal, and I'm not actuallynot saying I actually made a
vote, yes, for this.
I haven't decided yet and I'llhonesty.
Speaker 1 (38:35):
Yeah, no, I haven't either, but I'm more leading.
That way, I'd probably be a yesin 2024.
If it's a ban, I'm probably ano this year.
Speaker 2 (38:43):
Absolutely.
So those are the.
Maybe the other thing we shouldconsider, maybe just another
rule code that I don't know ifanything will pop in your head,
but maybe we should have acontingency.
Okay, we should probably haveanother contingency game, maybe
we just have a contingency forthe playoffs, or we could like
do it for any game.
Whatever we want to do, maybeif we have the, the Mark, the
Mark Hamlin, that's what theMark Hamlin, mark Hamlin.
Yeah, you know, if we haveanother, the Mark.
(39:03):
Hamlin scenario.
Maybe we should come up withsome things, Whether it's just
to say, hey, this is it.
You know, if it happens,whoever the winner at the time,
they win it.
You know sort of thing.
That's a good proposal.
Say like, for example somethinglike that happened.
Speaker 1 (39:16):
you go to your bench if it's a bench deep end and you
don't have one, you don't getpoints Like, for example say it
happened for your quarterback.
You can go to your backupquarterback, but you can put
that together.
I think that's a good proposal.
Yeah, it's like a positionplayer.
You go, maybe you go to likethe next ranked player or
(39:36):
something like that.
Speaker 2 (39:37):
You know like you, you look a little bit at the
back of your head.
You know like you look a littlebit, say, fancy raking,
whatever the next ranked guy onthere?
Speaker 1 (39:44):
Right, so not just best ball, it's by fantasy
raking.
Yeah, yeah yeah, so likesomeone goes off deep on your
roster and I thought that's whatI want now.
Speaker 2 (39:53):
No, no, it doesn't work.
It doesn't work that way.
Speaker 1 (39:55):
But I mean, it's one of those things.
Speaker 2 (39:56):
It may never happen again.
You know it may never happenagain, but probably be good to
have something in there.
Speaker 1 (40:01):
And you know, the other proposal I'd like I was
kicking around is maybe having,instead of a defense, maybe a
defensive player.
Having an IDP individualdefensive player might make it a
little bit more challenging andmore individualized to be able
to who you grab, like Nick Bozaor whoever else you want to.
(40:24):
Matt Crosby, you know, gettinga defense might add a little
more strategy to it Because,again, just like kickers,
defense are hit or miss.
You know we're knowing somedefense are going to be better
than others, but it might add anextra element to it.
But that's just something I wastrying to tell.
Speaker 2 (40:37):
Yeah, I might get it.
It's like, let's be honest, wedon't know the defensive players
as well as we should Probably.
We know the heck out of everygoddamn up and down the roster,
wide receiver running backquarterback on a team, but you
know we don't know.
I mean, we know we know NickBoza's, a few other guys, but
you know it'd be great to dothat just to get to know
defensive players a little bitmore.
Yeah well, that's my thought.
(40:58):
Yeah, I like that.
I think that's a dang dang goodthought.
Speaker 1 (41:03):
All right, well, add it to the list, chico.
Add it to the list.
Okay, so we got two addedproposals.
We're going to add a strategythat you and I can massage a
little bit about what to do incase of a suspension game or,
you know, postponed or whateveryou want to call it, and then
maybe go to a defensive plan.
Speaker 2 (41:20):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (41:21):
I love it.
Speaker 2 (41:22):
I love it.
All righty, I will put ittogether and I just, you know,
thank people for throwing outsome of those proposals.
I think most of them came fromDougie, but they came from Doug
and me, I think, for the mostpart.
But yeah and yeah, when you got, when you vote on these things,
don't worry about it.
If you like it and want to doit, go for it.
(41:43):
If you're like, hey, I want tokeep it the same.
No hard feelings of that aswell too.
So let's be honest, the leagueis great right now.
The league is fun.
I have fun every single week.
We do this.
So even if we kept the thing tosing, it's fun.
But we're also trying to like.
We're also always trying toimprove things a little bit and
make it better.
Speaker 1 (41:59):
So Exactly exactly, and that's all we're trying to
do is have fun.
That's all we ever do have,whether we any of these rules
make it or not not going tochange the fun aspect of it.
We're going to have fun withguys and so a lot of fun either
way.
We're just going to make itkind of make it some more
challenging versus notchallenging, or more fun or more
strategy.
(42:19):
We'll forget these things out.
The one question I do have foryou all is when do you want to
set a deadline for yourproposals, like voting?
Speaker 2 (42:29):
essentially, let's maybe say by the 25th we'll have
the rule codes refined, like ifthere's anything else that
we're missing, let's have thatby, I say, next Tuesday.
And then maybe let's say voteby August 1st, which is about a
week after.
Speaker 1 (42:44):
That'll be good to me .
Then we can tell you the votes.
Have a podcast about the draftcoming up.
We'll go from there.
Sweet Awesome.
All right, my friend, I thinkthat's it for me.
How about you?
Speaker 2 (42:56):
I'm good and I think maybe just to kind of tease,
hopefully we can get into maybeone or two of these in podcasts
in between and for the season,Of course, likely we'll.
Maybe the next one we'll focuson the rosters and start talking
about possible keepers andwe'll also talk about pre-draft
shenanigans.
Sounds good to me.
Speaker 1 (43:13):
All right, my friend, we're signing off here Slinging
Sammy's Penetrate Footballpodcast.
I'm Chris and you are.
Speaker 2 (43:18):
Scott, I'm calling, I'm calling, I'm calling, I'm
calling, I'm calling, I'mcalling, I'm calling, I'm
calling, I'm calling, I'mcalling.
Speaker 1 (43:29):
Thanks out, love you guys.
Bye.
Popular Podcasts
Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes present: Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial
Introducing… Aubrey O’Day Diddy’s former protege, television personality, platinum selling music artist, Danity Kane alum Aubrey O’Day joins veteran journalists Amy Robach and TJ Holmes to provide a unique perspective on the trial that has captivated the attention of the nation. Join them throughout the trial as they discuss, debate, and dissect every detail, every aspect of the proceedings. Aubrey will offer her opinions and expertise, as only she is qualified to do given her first-hand knowledge. From her days on Making the Band, as she emerged as the breakout star, the truth of the situation would be the opposite of the glitz and glamour. Listen throughout every minute of the trial, for this exclusive coverage. Amy Robach and TJ Holmes present Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial, an iHeartRadio podcast.
Betrayal: Season 4
Karoline Borega married a man of honor – a respected Colorado Springs Police officer. She knew there would be sacrifices to accommodate her husband’s career. But she had no idea that he was using his badge to fool everyone. This season, we expose a man who swore two sacred oaths—one to his badge, one to his bride—and broke them both. We follow Karoline as she questions everything she thought she knew about her partner of over 20 years. And make sure to check out Seasons 1-3 of Betrayal, along with Betrayal Weekly Season 1.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.