What did you HATE the most about RFL this season?

Stan (Las Ranas De Mayan): number of teams, too many scrub losses
Clark (AC Milan): Too many teams
Drew (Raider Hater): That my team liked to give up points. In fact, I think I was the only team that gave up over 900 points. It's hard to win when you give up a career game to a no name player each week...like Moe Williams.
Mike (Samurai Sumos): Losing to one person on the other team (but it was okay when I won based on one performance :) )
Gary (Everyone Go Deep): Stupid emails between Vesh and Brad; 1 pt from the playoffs
JoePa (TheFreakinBlackHawks): I did not really HATE anything except my under performing players
Cals (Golden Years): sporadic trash talk, waning enthusiasm
Zach (Fat Bastards): Having to use dial-up and AOL to get access to my stats and roster from home blows!
Shivan (Ghetto Fab Bindys): Other than the fact that I was robbed of a playoff spot despite scoring the 3rd most points in the regular season, there is nothing i really hated about the RFL. One thing that I didn't like was that bench points meant nothing in the event of a tiebreaker.
Wang (Chinks in the Armor): I hated that my team wasn't able to get into the Playoffs. William Green was a bum for too much of the season. Keyshawn didn't blossom in the new TB O as much as I was expecting. I showed extremely poor judgment at TE (drafting E Johnson, dropping T Heap just before Week 4). J Elam was disappointing. Ahman was disappointing. And even M Vick was a little too inconsistent.
Brodz (Furious Gefilte Fish): I hated that you couldn't have your backup play if your first guy sat out. Therefore you have to sit by the tube all day and figure out if he's going to play or not.

What did you like the most about RFL this season?

Stan (LRDM): immediacy of the yahoo add/drop process
Clark (ACM): Priest Holmes and the addition of Yahoo
Drew (RH): It made the NFL games on the weekend that I normally care nothing about much more exciting.
Mike (SS): The draft was fun. I would have liked more shit talking during the week. Maybe a designated bulletin board. (besides the one on Yahoo that was exclusively used by Clark).
Gary (EGD): On any given Sunday... and the fact that your team (Chinks in the Armor) stunk.
JoePa (TFBH): I enjoyed finding Travis Henry and Todd Pinkston.
Cals (GY): yahoo roster management
Zach (FB): Being able to start 3 Raiders and ride them to the championship. Too bad the Bucs aren't AC Milan.
Shivan (GFB): The Yahoo system seems to be working pretty well and it helps us all out by making transactions, point tabulations, and changing lineups much easier.
Wang (CitA): I liked not having to deal with transactions everyday. I liked not having to check NFL.com's gamebooks to see if someone played or not - to see if a GM got to sub in the next person down in their depth chart.
Brodz (FGF): The fact that it's automated made it much easier for the commissioners (I'm sure). Although that didn't impact me much.

What is your impression of the 17- and 50-yard bonus pt levels? Should there be any further changes/adjustments?

Stan (LRDM): fine. no changes.
Clark (ACM): I think Yahoo did a fine job doing the book work for you.
Drew (RH): I wasn't in the league last year, but I like the idea of 17 yds=1 pt vs. 50 yds=3 pts.
Mike (SS): I think if you have more players, then the 17 yard pt level is good. It lets your lower draft picks contribute to the scoring. If you have only 7 or eight starters, the 50 point is better because then your stars need to have a decent game before scoring points.
Gary (EGD): It's good the way it is
JoePa (TFBH): It was a fundamental change because the league used to be all of nothing. Now the mediocre players get a few points incrementally. That accounts for the increase in scoring. I would prefer to go back to the old game and would be willing to work on the statistics if I am needed.
Cals (GY): should change to 25 yard increment
Zach (FB): It keeps the scores down which isn't a bad thing.
Shivan (GFB): I believe that this is a fair point system, since it rewards QBs just as much as RBs/WRs in an equal manner.
Wang (CitA): I thought it was fine. I'm not aware of any "perfect" way to handle this aspect of RFL. But having 102 yds equal to a TD seems fair. And rewarding players at equal increments along the way to 102 yds seems fair. The all or nothing ways of RFL's days of yore now seem a little too brutal.
Brodz (FGF): I like it, but I would have rathered RFL stayed consistent over time allowing us to compare squads from different generations (too late for that now).

What is your impression of the option to start a 3rd WR over a 2nd RB?

Stan (LRDM): inconsequential
Clark (ACM): I think if we drop to 10-12 GM's, we can drop that rule and use 2wr/2rb
Drew (RH): I think it is a good idea. With all the injuries and bye-weeks the more flexibility you have the better.
Mike (SS): Like it. Normally, you should start a RB anyway, but the option is nice.
Gary (EGD): I like it. Even though it rarely seems to be advantageous to start the 3rd WR, if your 2nd RB goes down, you're not completely screwed.
JoePa (TFBH): I felt this was a good thing. It is not the fact that a WR is anywhere the same as a RB, it is just that you have the option to try new strategy and you are not held hostage to the fact that we need 32 starting RB's and there are only 20 guys who 1) are not sharing the job and 2) are not coming off reconstructive surgery.
Cals (GY): seems to work ok. We can keep it.
Zach (FB): It is a great option for those who don't get a good draft position, or have injury/biweek difficulties. It doesn't offer any great advantage and adds a bit of depth to the amount of GM management.
Shivan (GFB): It's a good rule. There is such a shortage of quality RBs in the league that this rule allowed the quality of the starting lineups has become much better.
Wang (CitA): I liked the rule, but if we add depth charts back in... things could get messy.
Brodz (FGF): I liked it. gave more flexibility.

What is your impression of having to set a starting lineup WITHOUT a depth chart?

Stan (LRDM): a pain in the ass. it forced me over the edge into football nerd-dom...having to confirm starters at gametime.
Clark (ACM): In Yahoo, it is ok. The league can be tweaked for further adjustments.
Drew (RH): Fine by me...I've never had to do it any other way.
Mike (SS): fine with me, didn't really screw me too bad this year, if at all.
Gary (EGD): I like the depth chart better, but it is not that big a deal
JoePa (TFBH): This is bad. It did not come into play for me, but I'm sure some people were screwed by this limitation. That is why you have a bench. It makes the game more interesting with a depth chart.
Cals (GY): makes it tough for game-time decisions, but it also demands diligence from lazy GMs. I don't see any problem in continuing with yahoo's rule here.
Zach (FB): I didn't really have a problem managing my roster without it.
Shivan (GFB): I actually do not like this rule, since the bench has become unimportant. This was a big part of the game in previous years, where GMs had to have a good 12 players on his team at all times. Now, the depth of some teams was very weak even though their starters may have been some of the best.
Wang (CitA): Not having a depth chart to fall back upon sucked a little. But it seemed to favor those more clever and on top of things GMs. And I'm for anything that favors more clever and on top of things GMs.
Brodz (FGF): didn't like it, see above

What was your impression of yahoo's management of the League?

Stan (LRDM): fine except for depth chart issue
Clark (ACM): Good first start, but with feedback we can do better next season.
Drew (RH): It's pretty good, but I don't like the waiver priority. There were a couple occassions where I tried to pick up a player who was dropped by another team only to have someone with a higher waiver priority get the player. I think once the season starts it should be first come first serve.
Mike (SS): probably easier for everyone overall, but I didn't do the old way, so I don't know.
Gary (EGD): Let's stick with it
JoePa (TFBH): Yahoo put bad limitations on the league with the points and the lack of depth chart, but is was good with the free agents. It automatically prioritized the free agents and gave the owners a list of available players The Waivers it held was good as well. The Draft was handled well, I think. I do not remember any complaints. Overall, it is a mixed bag. I think having the points right and Depth charts are more important than the advantages, but the league has to decide where its priorities lie.
Cals (GY): Best feature: search for best available free agents. All the info you need is at your fingertips.
Zach (FB): There were some weird glitches when trying to pick up players, but it was pretty good overall.
Shivan (GFB): Yahoo did a good job overall. No complaints.
Wang (CitA): I think I liked everything except losing depth charts. But perhaps losing depth charts will benefit me in the long run.
Brodz (FGF): good job yahoo

What rule changes would you like to see next season?

Stan (LRDM): depth chart system
Clark (ACM): 10 GM's. 16 is way too many!!!!!
Drew (RH): I think you should get 4 pts for all field goals over 50 yards. This way drafting a good kicker has more value. Also change the rules for picking up players to first come, first serve.
Mike (SS): Kickers should get more points for 40+ (3 points for 40 +, 2 points for shorter FG, and one point for EP). I know this would be a pain in the ass if you didn't have yahoo stat tracking, but it should be easy to implement with yahoo.
Gary (EGD): Keep one low draft pick
JoePa (TFBH): I would, of course, roll back the 17/50 yard rule and bring back depth charts and drop Yahoo. If the league keeps Yahoo, then I would not make any changes.
Cals (GY): change the bonus point yardage levels!
Zach (FB): Maybe we should add defenses and factor in negatives like interceptions.
Shivan (GFB): Bench points being reinstated as the tiebreaker. I don't believe that the league should cut down on the number of teams, since it is going fine the way it is with the 16 GMs. Having less teams would make it too easy. Only the top players would get the starts, and it would take all the fun out of finding a sleeper or decent player who can put up big points in certain situations.
Wang (CitA): Defensive key rule, drafting a diamond in the rough rule (as Gary mentioned above), fewer GMs and more starters, and a definitive "NO" on the 4-pt FG proposal!
Brodz (FGF): [no comment]

What info/feature would you like to see added to the WIR next season?

Stan (LRDM): nothing except more participation from other GMs, so that I don't end up writing more than I should be allowed.
Clark (ACM): I think next year you should emphasize on coaching strategies for each GM. So we give up a few inside hints, but it's all in fun.
Drew (RH): don't know, but the more shit talking and the funnier it is, the better.
Mike (SS): More starters!
Gary (EGD): [no comment]
JoePa (TFBH): I would like to add the owners writing a short note for each week's match-up to be included in the WIR. Let's say your team was playing my team; each of us would write a short (couple of sentences) description of the match up. I could say ''The FBH are facing chinks in the armor in a week 3 tilt between inter divisional rivals. These owners, who once faced off for the Aglione, now are battling for Cellar Dweller rights. Henry is on a bye week, stick a fork in them; Chinks in the armor by 12''
OR
Each owner could write something for the Interview portion of the WIR. We would have our week and we could do a profile of our teams, an interview with a current or former player, or even a forum to rant about whatever rule change is keeping the league form being prefect. 16 owners and 17 WIR, the last being to talk about the Aglione Bowl.
Cals (GY): return of RFL interviews, regular guest editors, and feature guest columns on current events.
Zach (FB): It seemed just fine to me.
Shivan (GFB): An entire section dedicated to how the Giants are doing that week.
Wang (CitA): I'd like to see more people step up write a WIR! Stan's were great. The rookie GMs did well for their first time, but I'm expecting bigger and better from them in the future. And what happened to our Interviewers?!? Is a young'un so much to handle that you can't even write an interview or 2, Brodz and Joebob?!?
Brodz (FGF): [no comment]

Which player were you ecstatic to've drafted?

Stan (LRDM): PK feeley...in the last round (ha ha)
Clark (ACM): Of course, Priest, but tiki was money also.
Drew (RH): None....that's why I was in last place for much of the season.
Mike (SS): McNabb, then he got hurt :(
Gary (EGD): Marvin. okay, so it's kind of wimpy to go with my 1st round selection, but who else can I say- Brady?
JoePa (TFBH): Travis Henry and Todd Pinkston
Cals (GY): Nobody. I would say Marshall Faulk, but he was obviously disappointing.
Zach (FB): I had reservations about Charlie Garner on draft day, but those soon vanished in the early weeks. He really got the Bastards rollin.
Shivan (GFB): Rich Gannon. League MVP, my MVP.
Wang (CitA): Moulds came through for me. As I wrote before... Vick was a little too inconsistent.
Brodz (FGF): Owens

Which player would you never draft again?

Stan (LRDM): Terence Wilkins
Clark (ACM): Eddie George
Drew (RH): David Boston and probably Mr. Interception or Peyton Manning
Mike (SS): Randy Moss, Bettis, Freddie Jones.
Gary (EGD): Troy Brown
JoePa (TFBH): Vinny Testaverde, Johnnie Morton
Cals (GY): it pains me immensely to say it, but Tim Brown.
Zach (FB): David Carr. That guy spends more time on his back than Christina Aguilera.
Shivan (GFB): Shaun Alexander. Way too unreliable. Put up the most points in one game, and then doesn't score for weeks.
Wang (CitA): Have I said Keyshawn before?
Brodz (FGF): McCaffrey

Which player do you personally take pride in the "personal development" of?

Stan (LRDM): Donald Driver
Clark (ACM): I've had Tiki a few seasons and I had a feeling he would edge out Dayne for starter.
Drew (RH): Donte Stallworth
Mike (SS): None, my team was experienced in being shitty.
Gary (EGD): Lav Coles. Through the tutelage of the EGD coaches, he turned into a stud at the end of the year
JoePa (TFBH): Travis Henry. I knew he would exceed expectations. I was surprised by Pinkston's performance
Cals (GY): Doug Jolley. He is my development project.
Zach (FB): Keeping Eddie George healthy and productive all season was a challenge, but I think he showed some flashes of his Buckeye days this season.
Shivan (GFB): Jerry Porter. I picked him up during the season, and gave him some starts which really boosted his self-esteem. Scored TDs like a champ.
Wang (CitA): Vick sort of blossomed this year. Perhaps someone will be duped into taking him in the 1st round next year? I think I held onto William Green longer than anyone else would have. Travis Taylor kind of did some things. Stephen Alexander busted out in Week 17.
Brodz (FGF): either Marcel Shipp or Koren Robinson (rising stahs)

What is your final assessment of your team name?

Stan (Las Ranas De Mayan): more personal than entertaining
Clark (AC Milan): AC Milan rocks because it gives the league an international feel. I think we should all pick a theme to name our teams after so names aren't so random!!!!
Drew (Raider Hater): Not good....I named them Raider Hater and now the Raiders are in the Super Bowl....if I would've known better I would've named my team Niner Hater so they could be in the Super Bowl!!!!
Mike (Samurai Sumos): started bad (perm735, FatJapinSanJose), but ended okay. Samurai Sumos...
Gary (Everyone Go Deep): I like it so much, I used it twice.
JoePa (TheFreakinBlackHawks): The Freakin' Black Hawks was a disappointment. Too Generic. I will try for something more surreal next season, like Brooding Unicorn Blithe Elephant or the Uffdalators, something ridiculous like that. I will have to work on it.
Cals (Golden Years): Adequate to my team's character, performance, and my level of interaction with the league this year.
Zach (Fat Bastards): Fat Bastards was a Goldmember inspired and appropriate name considering the GM. I'll definitely be more creative given the opportunity next year.
Shivan (Ghetto Fab Bindys): Seeing how my team turned out, maybe the Ghetto Fab Bindys was not the way to go. Perhaps they were a little too ghetto, since they scored a lot of points, and then shot themselves in the foot by giving too many up.
Wang (Chinks in the Armor): Couldn't help but chuckle every once in a while when saying the name in my mind. That's got to be what it's all about. Brilliant!
Brodz (Furious Gefilte Fish): The furious Gefilte Fish represented what I was trying to achieve this year. If I were a fish who was mashed to pieces, squished into a ball, and thrown in a jar of gel, then I'd be pretty angry too.
In the category of other comments, I will have to ask that you work with me on the draft date for next year. I will be starting residency and will be very limited for time. I don't want to go by the wayside like other long-time faithfuls we won't mention....

©1999-2003 RFL Inc.
All rights reserved.

Revised: March 11, 2003