Classless act or good strategy??

johnbriganti · Post by **johnbriganti** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 9:20 am

The team who blocked you from getting a QB was acting within the confines of the rules - BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT!
The fault does not lie with him - he had the money to go out and buy free agents and the league does not put a reasonable cap on the number of players at each position on the roster (only a cap on the number of players on the roster).

You got F&%#ed by (what I hope was) an oversight on the part of the rules committee. HOPEFULLY this can be addressed for next year.

As for this year - join me and the rest of the "also rans"

John Briganti

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 9:27 am

Originally posted by John:
You got F&%#ed by (what I hope was) an oversight on the part of the rules committee. HOPEFULLY this can be addressed for next year.
i thought this thread was done? anyways, he F&%#ed himself. sort of like an ameba or was that a paramecium. don't change any roster constraints Greg, except maybe adding another spot. Thanks.

[ November 18, 2004, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

mikeybok · Post by **mikeybok** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 10:18 am

Nag,

Hypothetically ...

It’s week 13 and your tied with John Doe for first place. You play John Doe and the winner will advance to the playoffs this week. John Doe has spent most of his FA wad on receivers and it has paid off big. You have crappy receivers … but 4 solid RB’s. John Doe has only one RB left who will play this week. Joe Average becomes available after week 12 due to an injury situation and should share time and put up some decent numbers. You know you will never play Joe Average since you have plenty of good RB’s … but you have plenty of FA money left. Are you saying you are expected to … and would pass on Joe Average (rather than buy him as a block) so John Doe can have him and kick you’re --- with all of those FA receivers. Of course you should and would buy him. It’s bad enough you let John Doe buy all of those receivers … now you are expected to just hand over a RB (for 3 bucks?). It would be stupid!

What that leaves you with … is shades of gray … how much blocking is politically acceptable and where does one cross the line from “good block” to “immoral act”. Obviously the correct answer is … since we don’t have “good block” police … all blocking must be OK.

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 10:28 am

Originally posted by JerseyPaul:

johnbriganti · Post by **johnbriganti** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 10:47 am

I apologize for proliferating this thread - I read it for the first time only today.
I just want to add that (and I am speaking only for me) that when it comes to free agency I have not (even once) looked at the needsa of my opponent or considered doing anything other than better MY team through FA.

After having read the posts I am beginning to see what/who I am playing with and I beginning to think this league might not be the best fit for me. Not because it's a bad league or it's poorly run (in fact quite the opposite) but I just don't want to play "Cut-Throat" Fantasy Football.

I am not taking anything away from you owners who were savy enough to come up with schemes to overcome your opponent (alot in the same way George Steinbrenner uses the financial advantages the Yankees have in MLB) - it's just NOT who I am, and maybe that's why I shouldn't be playing HIGH STAKES Fanatasy Football.

I'm in it to the end this year boys. I'll use every dollar of my FA money and I'll put the best lineup I can on the field. We'll have to wait and see about next year.

Of course if I somehow manage to get in the money and play free next year - I won't look a gift horse in the mouth.

I won't even begin to think about suggesting Greg do something about this. He knows more about this business than I do.

Good luck to all this week.

PS - I really mean that!

John Briganti

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:39 am

Looky there, we've had a break through. John has seen the belly of the beast

Greg has the option to administer any rule he wants and we have the option to play or not play.

Then it's our duty to try to win. The stakes are $100,000... if I were in last place in the contest I would try to win each and every week.

Not wanting to play in the future means to me that you are overwhelmed or unwilling to learn/adapt. I learned several things in roster management and draft strategy already this year. That's the exciting part about it. Truth be told, I'm not sure I've used any blocking techniques in maybe 1 out of every 3 or 4 leagues I've ever played... during an entire season. Sometimes I see a matchup that I don't need (for example, any team against the Bears the week they started a rookie QB) and even though I liked my current matchup I gave a token bid towards acquiring the extra defense just to make sure my opponent didn't get that team and/or they at least paid a fair price for it. Nag's case was an extreme - but it illustrates a point about one more layer to observe.

Dave

renman · Post by **renman** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 1:46 pm

john...

i am with you.. although i will play this next year because it is a 1st rate run event and i am impressed by how greg treated me before i joined and by how hands on both greg and tom are with the event... i am with you in feeling that fantasy football is about doing your best to FIELD THE BEST SCORING TEAM... it is not about finding loopholes or ways within the rules to stymie another team or block them from being able to field a full team... this is not about morality, because i have very few morals...lol this is about the spirit of the game... and i can understand how you can get "turned off" by seeing how SOME people here have behaved and how some feed into the "anything within the rules is ok with me" mentality... when in reality.. there are MANY instances where things that are within the rules are still not right...

Nag' · Post by **Nag'** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 1:50 pm

Originally posted by Dyv:
...Not wanting to play in the future means to me that you are overwhelmed or unwilling to learn/adapt...I actually had to re-read this sentence 3-4 times because I just couldn't believe how you just came out of nowhere and insulted John solely because his opinion happen to side with the minority on this issue. John was only expressing his own feeling on this issue and actually complemented those owners who play the "cut-throat" style but simply stated it was not for him as a person.

Dyv, my calling you a clown earlier is a complement. You are nothing less than a jackass.

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:17 pm

Originally posted by Nag':
quote:Originally posted by Dyv:
...Not wanting to play in the future means to me that you are overwhelmed or unwilling to learn/adapt...simply stated it was not for him as a person.
[/QUOTE]And by the way he expressed that feeling I felt it would fall clearly into the category of feeling overwhelmed. Which was my impression of what he said... which is what I said and you quoted.

Follow the circle and you'll find we're all saying the same thing just that you choose to consider it evil when it was never intended in that fashion. If John feels I was bashing him I will gladly apologize - but notice I said John has to feel that way, not YOU feeling that way on his behalf.

I'm not surprised that you don't like me, Naggy -I'm not willing to agree with you on some issues and you are clearly an intolerant person. Fortunately for me I haven't listed you liking me as anything important in my life

Somehow I'll suffer your disapproval and manage to keep going... although it will be difficult...

Dyv