"With the first pick in the NFL reallocation draft..."

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You can't compare a college draft to a reallocation draft. You don't know what any college player can do in the NFL. Manning, though, is a known commodity.

I was just commenting on his strategy of drafting players in the latter part of their prime. You might say I dont agree. You will have to overpay for them players while their productions falls off over the next few years. Its classic Raiders philosophy.

[larrymcg421]

We should really have an FOFC draft for this, except make it snake format.

[bhlloy]

I think that would be an awesome idea, maybe 25 rounds long so you get a starter at each position + KR, P, K and no backups needed.

It would be touch to find 32 people who would be able to commit and keep interest high enough for that many rounds, but I think we can probably get through it.

[Doug5984]

I may be a homer...but I'd take Brees

If an FOFC draft we to take place I'd even say more than 25 rounds, you want at least 3 WRs, 2 RBs, and 3 CBs

[Passacaglia]

I'm up for a 32 person draft for sure. With that many people, the time commitment wouldn't be so large, so I bet we could do it.

[DaddyTorgo]

It'd take fucking forever though. Even a small-scale draft takes forever because of people waiting to make their picks. It'd easily take...months to get through.

I mean...the shit would be epic though. I'd be down for it.

[Travis]

Given no real time constraints outside of keeping people interested/active I think it'd be a lot of fun. I'm also guessing that if you did have some owners drop out part way through that there'd be enough interest from others to take over to be able to finish up.

What would be very interesting is how you'd judge it after. One category for performance in years 1-3 and another for projections beyond? I'm sure some owners would very much go for a win now while others would try to build for the future (always dicey with the injury turnover rate) but some would be able to hit on both and probably do a pretty good job.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Travis

Given no real time constraints outside of keeping people interested/active I think it'd be a lot of fun. I'm also guessing that if you did have some owners drop out part way through that there'd be enough interest from others to take over to be able to finish up.

What would be very interesting is how you'd judge it after. One category for performance in years 1-3 and another for projections beyond? I'm sure some owners would very much go for a win now while others would try to build for the future (always dicey with the injury turnover rate) but some would be able to hit on both and probably do a pretty good job.

And then someone should make a FOF/Madden game file to play said teams...

[Honolulu Blue]

Thanks for the picks and comments. Keep 'em coming.

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

While this discussion is fairly interesting, I think an even more interesting one is what direction do you go in from there? I'd imagine 90% of us would take a QB first, maybe even more. So what do you do next? Focus on the O-Line? Skill position players on offense? Straight defense? I know a lot of it depends upon who is available, but as a general strategy for the draft, where are you going after QB?

I'd personally focus on offense as long as I could get marquee players. I'd try not to ignore the defense, but since I'm drafting a QB first, I want to protect that investment by providing him with protection and skill position players so he can produce.

I think the specific picks beyond 1(1) would be very interesting, but also highly dependent on who else is picked, who's picking next, personal philosophy, the philosophy of the other staff (including head coach & coordinators), the strengths & weaknesses of the other picks, contracts, etc.

But generally, I'd get a QB I could live with, then work on the offensive line, then the receivers, then the defense, then a kicker, then the running backs, and then fill out the roster.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

And then someone should make a FOF/Madden game file to play said teams...

YES!!!!

And said rosters could be shared among the community here so everyone could play their own dynasties with it, or play online with it.

FUCKING EPIC.

[Travis]

That might get me to actually buy a Madden game again.

[ColtCrazy]

I am another that goes with Manning. Not just because of his talent, but his on field presence as well.

After that, I'd stock up on OL and DL. If I can win the battle in the trenches, I'll be fine.

After that, skill receivers and DBs. Still could get decent players and have the QB to make them look better and the DL to keep the DBs from being on an island.

I'd fill out the rest of the roster, making RBs the lowest priority. If they can block and catch passes, I'm happy. A good OL can pave the way for an average back.

[ColtCrazy]

Dola - just saw the second page. I'd sign back up for Xbox live just to do a 32 team thing. That would be insanely fun.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

While this discussion is fairly interesting, I think an even more interesting one is what direction do you go in from there? I'd imagine 90% of us would take a QB first, maybe even more. So what do you do next? Focus on the O-Line? Skill position players on offense? Straight defense? I know a lot of it depends upon who is available, but as a general strategy for the draft, where are you going after QB?

Dominant DT, Pass Rushing DE or a top blitzing LB.

What little I've seen of Ndamukong Suh makes me think he could be the real deal. I'd pass on Albert Haynesworth though.

Maybe I'd go with Mario Williams or Demarcus Ware.

I'd love the break that rule and go with Ray Lewis, but he's up there in age and I just don't think he has many years left. He's looking great this year, though, so who knows.

EDIT: But there aren't that many great QBs in the league, and I'd expect all of those players to be taken for the 1st pick of the second round.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

qb, pass protection, edge rushers, secondary, line interior/skill positions/bap

that's if all goes well. which it wouldn't.

[Sun Tzu]

The Madden thing would never fly, if for the benign reason that half of the people taking part in the draft (at most) would have a 360, Madden, and XBL.

[Travis]

Well, the Madden thing (whichever platform) would just be a fun perk afterwards, no actual impact on the draft itself. Just a roster set to pass around for those who'd want to play out a franchise with the rosters selected.

Unless I'm missing something?

Would it be bad form to dibs Seattle already if a draft like this does happen?

[Apathetic Lurker]

Manning? Brees? Heh...According to HB's rules your team drafts LAST in each round...Think Al Davis is running the draft for the 31 teams drafting ahead of you?

You'd be lucky to scrape up a Cassel if you were going for a qb with the 32nd.....

[Neuqua]

Who wants to point out the title of this thread to AP?

[Honolulu Blue]

Originally Posted by Apathetic Lurker

Manning? Brees? Heh...According to HB's rules your team drafts LAST in each round...Think Al Davis is running the draft for the 31 teams drafting ahead of you?

You'd be lucky to scrape up a Cassel if you were going for a qb with the 32nd.....

No, no, no... FIRST pick in the reallocation draft (i.e., the one with all the NFL players), LAST pick in the next amateur draft (i.e., the one with Locker & Co.).

Though a list of the QBs available in round 2 and beyond WOULD be interesting to speculate on...

[Danny]

You have to go QB. If you are picking first, that means you are also picking 64th with your next pick. You really would end up with a Matt Cassell type at best.

[CU Tiger]

Definitely Romo....

[CU Tiger]

thread kill ftw

[M GO BLUE!!!]

You know, Brett Favre is a quarterback. And a quarterback is probably the position you would want to take. Brett Favre is one of the greatest quarterbacks to ever play the game. And a quarterback handles the ball more than any other position on the football field. You want a quarterback like Brett Favre to handle the ball. Brett Favre is a great quarterback.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

You know, Brett Favre is a quarterback. And a quarterback is probably the position you would want to take. Brett Favre is one of the greatest quarterbacks to ever play the game. And a quarterback handles the ball more than any other position on the football field. You want a quarterback like Brett Favre to handle the ball. Brett Favre is a great quarterback.

Aaron Rodgers is good, but you don't know for sure how much longer he'll play. With Brett Favre, you know you have a guy for the next 10+ years.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

1996 Carolina Panthers 12-4

1997 Carolina Panthers 7-9

1998 Carolina Panthers 4-12

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean, but since you quoted me, I'm going to assume you actually just compared Kerry Collins to Peyton Manning.

[Apathetic Lurker]

Originally Posted by Neuqua

Who wants to point out the title of this thread to AP?

I refuse to read titles of threads

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Logan

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean, but since you quoted me, I'm going to assume you actually just compared Kerry Collins to Peyton Manning.

Its only speculation but Id imagine he was quoting you on this part

and a bunch of other guys in the latter parts of their prime while others focus too much on getting younger guys who can be relied on for a decade. It's crazy to look beyond 3-5 years.

I am sure he was just pointing out how "not" successful that was for Carolina in the 3 years he quoted. You basically leave yourself no room for error(like the 2010 Minnesota Vikings) and once it goes bad you have a lot of work to do to get out of that mess. Taking Manning 1st overall while having him learn a whole new system and getting to know a whole knew group of players coming into the downside of their career is quite the aggressive strategy that leaves you very little room for error.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by Honolulu Blue

Thanks for the picks and comments. Keep 'em coming.



I think the specific picks beyond 1(1) would be very interesting, but also highly dependent on who else is picked, who's picking next, personal philosophy, the philosophy of the other staff (including head coach & coordinators), the strengths & weaknesses of the other picks, contracts, etc.

But generally, I'd get a QB I could live with, then work on the offensive line, then the receivers, then the defense, then a kicker, then the running backs, and then fill out the roster.

What this reminds me of is the GEFL (Golden-Era Football League) allocation draft we did. GEFL Was a multiplayer FOF league that was made up of a lot of GM's from the IHOF. We started the league with a complete allocation draft using a 1980 historical player file. It was incredibly interesting to see the different strategies that came into play, and I got to physically live this thread's dream, as I lucked out and drew the #1 overall pick (which, obviously, was Joe Montana). I also managed to win the inaugural Super Bowl, then proceeded to get kicked in the nuts by Dutch's Tampa Bay Buccaneers repeatedly in successive seasons until I left the league because I was out of free time as my life had gotten fairly busy (and my nuts hurt from all the bad beats).

Generally speaking, my focus (after Montana) was WR, CB and OL. The fact that I lucked into a mid-40's ranked RB in the 35th round who was amazing (much love in my heart for John Humphries) didn't hurt at all. I think, however, that this team was more a product of FOF's engine at the time than a real team. My O-Line was decidedly mediocre (that's being kind, probably more like a C-/D+, and my D-Line was practically nonexistent. I think in the real world, a team built like this would struggle mightily.

In the real world, I think if I didn't pick in the first half of the first round (depending, of course, on how the top half of the round played out) that I would focus almost entirely on defense and use late picks on young, high upside players for my skill positions on offense.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Its only speculation but Id imagine he was quoting you on this part



I am sure he was just pointing out how "not" successful that was for Carolina in the 3 years he quoted. You basically leave yourself no room for error(like the 2010 Minnesota Vikings) and once it goes bad you have a lot of work to do to get out of that mess. Taking Manning 1st overall while having him learn a whole new system and getting to know a whole knew group of players coming into the downside of their career is quite the aggressive strategy that leaves you very little room for error.

So, again, a 34 year old Manning = a 40 year old, injured, not particpating in training camp Favre, in addition to Manning = Kerry Fucking Collins. Got it. And tell me again how filling your roster by way of an expansion draft is the same as the scenario spelled out here? Or how that equals "guys in the latter stage of their prime"? Take a look at the clowns Carolina took in the expansion draft and equate that to getting the best player in the NFL, the 33rd best player, the 65th best player, etc.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Logan

So, again, a 34 year old Manning = a 40 year old, injured, not particpating in training camp Favre, in addition to Manning = Kerry Fucking Collins. Got it. And tell me again how filling your roster by way of an expansion draft is the same as the scenario spelled out here? Or how that equals "guys in the latter stage of their prime"? Take a look at the clowns Carolina took in the expansion draft and equate that to getting the best player in the NFL, the 33rd best player, the 65th best player, etc.

As Im sure you probably know every single player reaches a stage in their life where their production falls off even Peyton Manning who will be 35 at the start of the 2011 season. If you pick a team with Manning(age 35) and players in the "latter stages" of their prime they are all going to fall off within a very short amount of time. You dont know when they will drastically fall off however if you build a team upon this strategy there is a very good chance that a few of them will within that first season.

You know this is the exact opposite thing as the Patriots tend to do and why they have been able to stay successful so long. They get rid of players on the "latter stages of their prime" instead of holding on to them too long where they arent getting good value on that player anymore.

My Vikings example was simple. By chasing Favre they left themselves a 2 year window to try and win a Super Bowl. Last year they ran into the magical Saints and now this year Rice and Harvin are hurt while playing a very difficult schedule. Their 2 year window didnt leave them any room for error and next year they will be a year older without a QB. The NFL is too unpredictable to not leave yourself any room for error.

I'm not saying your strategy wont work for a year or two but I am saying it is risky as hell.

Id rather pay 2 million a year for a guy like Shonn Green or Dez Bryant rather than 4-10 million a year for a guy like LT or Randy Moss.

In short drafting Manning first gives you a 2-3 year window while taking Rodgers/Rivers would give you a 7-10 year window.

[TroyF]

I'm not just basing this off of one game. Rodgers has taken 95 sacks in 36 career starts, including the 5 he took in the playoffs last year.

It doesn't mean I think he sucks. Doesn't mean I wouldn't like him on my team.

It does mean his style of holding onto the ball will get him hurt, probably sooner than later. It also means when he faces a team with a good pass rush in the playoffs, he will take too many sacks and will likely fumble the ball too much.

Sorry, I don't hate him, but I also think people give him too much of a pass on his pocket awareness. (which I think is fairly poor)

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by Logan

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean, but since you quoted me, I'm going to assume you actually just compared Kerry Collins to Peyton Manning.

no, that's crazy. i was comparing steve beurlein to peyton manning...

the knock on the expansion panthers was that they went the 'win now' route. they loaded up on guys on the backside of their careers (hanks, greene, mills etc.) and got one good year out of them before they all simultaneously got hurt/got old. within a couple years they had to completely rebuild the team with youth, which as the argument goes, is what they should have done in the first place.

there's nothing wrong with the 'win now' so long as you win. just be prepared to start over in a couple years.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

As Im sure you probably know every single player reaches a stage in their life where their production falls off even Peyton Manning who will be 35 at the start of the 2011 season. If you pick a team with Manning(age 35) and players in the "latter stages" of their prime they are all going to fall off within a very short amount of time. You dont know when they will drastically fall off however if you build a team upon this strategy there is a very good chance that a few of them will within that first season.

You know this is the exact opposite thing as the Patriots tend to do and why they have been able to stay successful so long. They get rid of players on the "latter stages of their prime" instead of holding on to them too long where they arent getting good value on that player anymore.

My Vikings example was simple. By chasing Favre they left themselves a 2 year window to try and win a Super Bowl. Last year they ran into the magical Saints and now this year Rice and Harvin are hurt while playing a very difficult schedule. Their 2 year window didnt leave them any room for error and next year they will be a year older without a QB. The NFL is too unpredictable to not leave yourself any room for error.

I'm not saying your strategy wont work for a year or two but I am saying it is risky as hell.

Id rather pay 2 million a year for a guy like Shonn Green or Dez Bryant rather than 4-10 million a year for a guy like LT or Randy Moss.

In short drafting Manning first gives you a 2-3 year window while taking Rodgers/Rivers would give you a 7-10 year window.

So the Vikings would have been better off with Jackson at QB?

[Honolulu Blue]

Sorry for the interruption, but this comment intrigued me on a couple of different levels:

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

trade the pick for the first pick in the ammy draft and take luck/mallet/locker.

Under the rules I outlined, I'd make that trade every day of the week and twice on Sunday. My hand would be on the DEAL button so fast that it would make Howie nervous. I'll tell you why in a bit.

I actually thought about the ammy draft and its effect on the reallocation draft. I wanted to ask about the 1(1) in the reallocation draft, and I figured that getting 1(32) in the ammy draft was adequate compensation. I never figured that someone would want the opposite combination. Are there others that feel this way? Just curious.

Anyway, back to the proposed trade at hand. Let's say that 1(1) in the reallocation draft is Peyton Manning and 1(1) in the following amateur draft is Jake Locker. Mr. Manning I figure is good for another 4-8 years of above average to Pro Bowl quality quarterbacking. Let's call it 6 years. And let's sign him for, oh, 6 years and $150 million. Mr. Locker's (realistic) upside is the first years of Mr. Manning's career. For that, the current market rate seems to be about 6 years, $60-80 million. I think it's a bad risk to give Mr. Locker the keys to the car when Mr. Manning is available to drive, but I'm always willing to look at all the other sides. I should note that with rookie salary limits, the trade might look better, depending of course on what the limits are.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by Honolulu Blue

Sorry for the interruption, but this comment intrigued me on a couple of different levels:

not really. it was an argument for argument's sake. irl, i'd go with the youngest most proven guy (probably ryan)

but if it turns out that luck/locker/mallet is the consensus second coming, i'd think hard about it. if i end up with ryan leaf then ah well. i'll stink bad enough to take brees and lt in a couple years.

just to clarify i'm not poo pooing manning #1 overall. i take issue with the '3-5 year window anything beyond that is ludicrous' talk.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So the Vikings would have been better off with Jackson at QB?

Where did that come from? They had a two year window with Favre. Jackson left them no window as hes not the QB of the present of the future.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Honolulu Blue

Sorry for the interruption, but this comment intrigued me on a couple of different levels:



Under the rules I outlined, I'd make that trade every day of the week and twice on Sunday. My hand would be on the DEAL button so fast that it would make Howie nervous. I'll tell you why in a bit.

I actually thought about the ammy draft and its effect on the reallocation draft. I wanted to ask about the 1(1) in the reallocation draft, and I figured that getting 1(32) in the ammy draft was adequate compensation. I never figured that someone would want the opposite combination. Are there others that feel this way? Just curious.

Anyway, back to the proposed trade at hand. Let's say that 1(1) in the reallocation draft is Peyton Manning and 1(1) in the following amateur draft is Jake Locker. Mr. Manning I figure is good for another 4-8 years of above average to Pro Bowl quality quarterbacking. Let's call it 6 years. And let's sign him for, oh, 6 years and $150 million. Mr. Locker's (realistic) upside is the first years of Mr. Manning's career. For that, the current market rate seems to be about 6 years, $60-80 million. I think it's a bad risk to give Mr. Locker the keys to the car when Mr. Manning is available to drive, but I'm always willing to look at all the other sides. I should note that with rookie salary limits, the trade might look better, depending of course on what the limits are.

Im confused HB.

You said you would trade the first pick in the allocation draft for the 1st pick in the ammy draft every day of the week twice on Sunday.

Then you go on later to talk about how its a bad risk to give Locker the keys to the car when Manning is available.

I am sure you will explain at some point but I am very confused right now

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Where did that come from? They had a two year window with Favre. Jackson left them no window as hes not the QB of the present of the future.

I don't think the Vikings situation is particularly relevant to a full reallocation draft. The Vikings didn't get Farve instead of a good young QB, they got Farve because he was the best player available to them. They didn't hurt their franchise by giving themselves a window of only a couple of years, they gave themselves a window when none currently existed.

The level of injuries in the NFL makes long term planning very risky. Give me a twenty percent chance of a Super Bowl next year over a ten percent chance of two Super Bowls in five years any day.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Im confused HB.

You said you would trade the first pick in the allocation draft for the 1st pick in the ammy draft every day of the week twice on Sunday.

Then you go on later to talk about how its a bad risk to give Locker the keys to the car when Manning is available.

I am sure you will explain at some point but I am very confused right now

I think HB was saying he'd take that trade if he held the #1 pick in the amateur draft.

[Honolulu Blue]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think HB was saying he'd take that trade if he held the #1 pick in the amateur draft.

That's correct. I apologize for any confusion.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Where did that come from? They had a two year window with Favre. Jackson left them no window as hes not the QB of the present of the future.

So what else would you have them do? Be a 7-9 or 8-8 team with Jackson in 2009 and end up with maybe a shot at Jimmy Clausen? I don't see what other options the Vikings had coming into 09 with a very good team that was obviously deficient at the most important spot.

I absolutely agree with your basic premise, which is that to have any sort of sustained success you need to find a young good-great QB who can come in and be your starter for 10+ years, and you really commit to him and make sure he's the first guy on your roster signed and you design an offense around him. Obviously that's what the Pats and Colts have done and the Saints are doing. But you have to realize that is not always an option, and in a league like the NFL where everything is set up to achieve parity, a 2 year window where you are a genuine Super Bowl contender isn't the worst thing in the world.

[larrymcg421]

I'm just amazed that people can make judgments about Tarvaris Jackson after he's had so little playing time and the most recent playing time he's received was the best 4 game stretch of his career. Now, I certainly doubt he would've been as good as Favre last year, but I just don't see how you can consider him mediocre based on the limited evidence we have. Maybe he is, but now we might not ever know for sure. Maybe 09 would've been his breakout year. The last 4 games he played in 08 seemed to suggest there was at least a chance of that happening.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm just amazed that people can make judgments about Tarvaris Jackson after he's had so little playing time and the most recent playing time he's received was the best 4 game stretch of his career. Now, I certainly doubt he would've been as good as Favre last year, but I just don't see how you can consider him mediocre based on the limited evidence we have. Maybe he is, but now we might not ever know for sure. Maybe 09 would've been his breakout year. The last 4 games he played in 08 seemed to suggest there was at least a chance of that happening.

Unless he has gotten much more accurate and much smarter while sitting on the bench I have seen enough of him to know hes nothing more than a career backup. He struggles reading defenses and would be the most inaccurate starting QB in the NFL(more inaccurate than Derek Anderson) if he were starting.

And yes I can compare the two as Anderson played in Cleveland who has had virtually no talent while Tavaris has played for Minny who has had talent and did terrible. He was benched for Gus Frerotte for COL.

[larrymcg421]

58.2% Career completion% isn't outstanding, but it's hardly indicative of someone with accuracy problems. His problems in 08 were INT's, but in 09 he had 9 TD's to 2 INT's and posted a 95.4 QB rating. How you can compare him to a guy with a 53% completion and whose single best year is lower than Jackson's career number is beyond me. What's the point of drafting a QB in the 2nd round if you only plan to give him 19 starts and then give up on him right after he showed signs of improvement?

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

58.2% Career completion% isn't outstanding, but it's hardly indicative of someone with accuracy problems. His problems in 08 were INT's, but in 09 he had 9 TD's to 2 INT's and posted a 95.4 QB rating. How you can compare him to a guy with a 53% completion and whose single best year is lower than Jackson's career number is beyond me. What's the point of drafting a QB in the 2nd round if you only plan to give him 19 starts and then give up on him right after he showed signs of improvement?

Its more than stats with him Larry. By watching him you can tell he has no clue what is going on. This year in preseason he was absolutely hopeless and I couldnt believe they traded Sage.

He had a great 3 game stretch but it doesnt make up for the other 30 games of sucking and showing no ability to adjust.

The only reason he is still on the team is because Childress made that pick and refuses to get rid of him.

Anderson played with the Browns while Jackson was a Viking. I wouldnt say they were in similiar situations. Point being they both are hopeless. Anderson completes 53 percent while he throws the ball down the field while Jackson completes 58 percent on check downs because he wont throw the ball down the field.

When you get benched for a 37 year old Gus Frerotte it should be a sign to everyone about how crappy he really is.

He showed so much improvement that in the playoffs after that 3 game stretch you keep bringing up he was 15-35 164 yards(4.7 YPA) in a home playoff game.

[Abe Sargent]

I would totally do it if we did a draft

[Honolulu Blue]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

not really. it was an argument for argument's sake. irl, i'd go with the youngest most proven guy (probably ryan)

but if it turns out that luck/locker/mallet is the consensus second coming, i'd think hard about it. if i end up with ryan leaf then ah well. i'll stink bad enough to take brees and lt in a couple years.

just to clarify i'm not poo pooing manning #1 overall. i take issue with the '3-5 year window anything beyond that is ludicrous' talk.

On your last point, fair enough.

The last QBs who were rated "second comings" were, ironically, Peyton & Ryan. There was much debate about who was better, but most everyone thought that both would have good pro careers. Well, they were half right. Since then, the can't-miss guys haven't played QB and weren't taken 1(1), and the QBs had major questions about them coming out of college, but were taken 1(1) because those teams needed a franchise QB more than anything.

As for taking Brees and LT, would you settle for Alex and Reggie?

[Young Drachma]

Hmm..dynasty idea ftw