Originally posted by renman:
the fact someone describes what happened as "hey, dude, you got PLAYED" is all one needs see to see that this is not "sporting", but being "played"... you can be "competitive" without needing to "play" someone to win... there is no rule saying that to be considered an owner who is playing hard and playing to win you have to pull something like this. like many things in life.. and our sporting world.. i guess the fantasy sports world mirrors where our culture is and society is headed...lol
kjduke...
i have enjoyed your post in the past... and i was wondering who would be the first smart person to bring up how baseball has "blocking" with their waiver wire process... the difference is that in baseball this does not preclude you from getting another player... in fantasy football, a much more controlled environment, this "blocking move" was designed to stymie another team so they have no chance to play any player period... i find that to be outside the "spirit" of a game that is supposed to be about fielding the best team and not "playing" other teams through loopholes in rules...
fatperez...
i never said that nag did not make a mistake managing his roster.. i do not think he is saying that either and i do not see how my having this position makes you think i am "easy pickins" in future events... what i am saying is that picking up all the available QB's, even if you do not need them, just to force a team you are playing to have NO QB is outside the spirit of the game in my book... maybe i live in a world where i wish we could have more sportsmanship and class in our competitive endeavors... maybe i am a little oldschool and like a little honor in my game... maybe i get sick of taunting in sports and endzone dances and the way we feel the need to "diss" others on the field and on a message board... Renman, there's no taunting here, there's no endzone dance or interview with the media. Fact is, we wouldn't have known about this particular event unless someone had posted that they got out-coached and thought it was unfair that someone should try to beat them by keeping them from having good players.
Riddle me this one, Renman: Who's fault is it that he didn't put a backup QB on his roster 2 weeks ago? He knew of the bye week and McNair's fragile health, right? So, who's fault is it that a decision was made NOT to spend $1 a week early to backup the position? 6 other players were deemed more important for his bench than a QB - and HE made that decision.
I think once you answer that honestly you'll realize this was a strategic out-managing and no quarter was deserved.
Dyv
Classless act or good strategy??
Classless act or good strategy??
The Wonderful thing about Dyv's is I'm the only one!
-
dgamblnman
- Posts: 307
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 6:00 pm
Classless act or good strategy??
Dyv, you don't expect people on these boards to admit they were outcoached, or out drafted and have any fallable characterstics?
Everyone feels they need to change rules, conduct or anything else that gives them an excuse other than they were outplayed.
Everyone feels they need to change rules, conduct or anything else that gives them an excuse other than they were outplayed.
Classless act or good strategy??
Turn the example around.
Blocking is BLOCKING. Either it is Ok or Not. We surely aren’t going to get into a discussion of how many players you are allowed to buy to perform an “ethical” block. (i.e. buying 2 players to block is ok … three is unethical)
In the same situation “Black Sabbath” needs a QB … there is only one QB available. He is 7-2 (vying for first) and you are 5-4 (with an outside chance of still getting into the money). Would'nt you hurt the other 7-2 team (tied with Black Sabbath) by letting "Black Sabbath" have the player. Why would it be wrong to BLOCK “Black Sabbath” by picking up the only available QB so you can win and maybe make it back into the playoffs.
Does “Black Sabbath” have a claim to the player in question because he is without a QB. Does it make a difference if there are two available QB’s? 3? 4?
What if “Black Sabbath” is your buddy and you don’t bid on the player because you want “Black Sabbath” to get the player. I would call that collusion … I guess you would call that fair play?
I would hate what happened to you to happen to me. I would not like it one bit … but “Black Sabbath” is not eliminated from the contest and is trying to win. Unless you question his motives … you should not question his ethics.
Collusion is unethical … so is crashing the NFFC STAT’s server on Sunday so your opponents can’t make game changes. Not “BLOCKING” … if you think “blocking” is unethical … I assume you make sure the other 13 teams all have two starting running backs each week before you bid on a fourth RB to sit on your bench. This is a game … and blocking (with the intent to win) is part of the game (I agree 4 players is a little extreme … but most of us agree he didn’t hurt his team to do it).
My two cents
Blocking is BLOCKING. Either it is Ok or Not. We surely aren’t going to get into a discussion of how many players you are allowed to buy to perform an “ethical” block. (i.e. buying 2 players to block is ok … three is unethical)
In the same situation “Black Sabbath” needs a QB … there is only one QB available. He is 7-2 (vying for first) and you are 5-4 (with an outside chance of still getting into the money). Would'nt you hurt the other 7-2 team (tied with Black Sabbath) by letting "Black Sabbath" have the player. Why would it be wrong to BLOCK “Black Sabbath” by picking up the only available QB so you can win and maybe make it back into the playoffs.
Does “Black Sabbath” have a claim to the player in question because he is without a QB. Does it make a difference if there are two available QB’s? 3? 4?
What if “Black Sabbath” is your buddy and you don’t bid on the player because you want “Black Sabbath” to get the player. I would call that collusion … I guess you would call that fair play?
I would hate what happened to you to happen to me. I would not like it one bit … but “Black Sabbath” is not eliminated from the contest and is trying to win. Unless you question his motives … you should not question his ethics.
Collusion is unethical … so is crashing the NFFC STAT’s server on Sunday so your opponents can’t make game changes. Not “BLOCKING” … if you think “blocking” is unethical … I assume you make sure the other 13 teams all have two starting running backs each week before you bid on a fourth RB to sit on your bench. This is a game … and blocking (with the intent to win) is part of the game (I agree 4 players is a little extreme … but most of us agree he didn’t hurt his team to do it).
My two cents
Hakuna Matata!
Classless act or good strategy??
Originally posted by renman:
the fact someone describes what happened as "hey, dude, you got PLAYED" is all one needs see to see that this is not "sporting", but being "played"... you can be "competitive" without needing to "play" someone to win... there is no rule saying that to be considered an owner who is playing hard and playing to win you have to pull something like this. like many things in life.. and our sporting world.. i guess the fantasy sports world mirrors where our culture is and society is headed...lol
kjduke...
i have enjoyed your post in the past... and i was wondering who would be the first smart person to bring up how baseball has "blocking" with their waiver wire process... the difference is that in baseball this does not preclude you from getting another player... in fantasy football, a much more controlled environment, this "blocking move" was designed to stymie another team so they have no chance to play any player period... i find that to be outside the "spirit" of a game that is supposed to be about fielding the best team and not "playing" other teams through loopholes in rules...
fatperez...
i never said that nag did not make a mistake managing his roster.. i do not think he is saying that either and i do not see how my having this position makes you think i am "easy pickins" in future events... what i am saying is that picking up all the available QB's, even if you do not need them, just to force a team you are playing to have NO QB is outside the spirit of the game in my book... maybe i live in a world where i wish we could have more sportsmanship and class in our competitive endeavors... maybe i am a little oldschool and like a little honor in my game... maybe i get sick of taunting in sports and endzone dances and the way we feel the need to "diss" others on the field and on a message board... renman, I'm with you on old-school play in sports - celebrate when you win the game, not every time you make a tackle. But I don't see that applying here.
I guess for someone that didn't anticipate it and got burned, it may seem like a loophole or under-handed. But its more like a flea-flicker ... catch an unsuspecting team off guard and burn them for not being prepared. Smart call and fun to watch.
the fact someone describes what happened as "hey, dude, you got PLAYED" is all one needs see to see that this is not "sporting", but being "played"... you can be "competitive" without needing to "play" someone to win... there is no rule saying that to be considered an owner who is playing hard and playing to win you have to pull something like this. like many things in life.. and our sporting world.. i guess the fantasy sports world mirrors where our culture is and society is headed...lol
kjduke...
i have enjoyed your post in the past... and i was wondering who would be the first smart person to bring up how baseball has "blocking" with their waiver wire process... the difference is that in baseball this does not preclude you from getting another player... in fantasy football, a much more controlled environment, this "blocking move" was designed to stymie another team so they have no chance to play any player period... i find that to be outside the "spirit" of a game that is supposed to be about fielding the best team and not "playing" other teams through loopholes in rules...
fatperez...
i never said that nag did not make a mistake managing his roster.. i do not think he is saying that either and i do not see how my having this position makes you think i am "easy pickins" in future events... what i am saying is that picking up all the available QB's, even if you do not need them, just to force a team you are playing to have NO QB is outside the spirit of the game in my book... maybe i live in a world where i wish we could have more sportsmanship and class in our competitive endeavors... maybe i am a little oldschool and like a little honor in my game... maybe i get sick of taunting in sports and endzone dances and the way we feel the need to "diss" others on the field and on a message board... renman, I'm with you on old-school play in sports - celebrate when you win the game, not every time you make a tackle. But I don't see that applying here.
I guess for someone that didn't anticipate it and got burned, it may seem like a loophole or under-handed. But its more like a flea-flicker ... catch an unsuspecting team off guard and burn them for not being prepared. Smart call and fun to watch.
-
TradeStar28
- Posts: 2169
- Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 6:00 pm
Classless act or good strategy??
Originally posted by JerseyPaul:
quote:Originally posted by Liquid Empire:
quote:Originally posted by BillyWaz:
quote:Originally posted by Liquid Empire:
Jersey Paul -
I have brilliantly given you Brad Hoover for $3 to help aid your team to defeat Pocket Aces for the Week #10 showdown.
Your welcome! Hmmmm.... do I smell collusion??
[/QUOTE]No,,,,you smell what Jersey Paul is cookin' today as his team will take you down to the mat and rock you like a hurricane! (Scorps reference)
JP...turn up the heat...it's time to make the doughnuts.
Can you feel me, sucka ?
[/QUOTE]What you smell is Liquid quietly burning while he plays Richie Anderson and trying to come up with a clever reason why he didn't outbid me for Hoover when I was almost broke. [/QUOTE]As a Diehard Cowboy fan, it is my honor to play Richie Anderson until week #16. Now use that Hoover I gave u to vaccuum up the mess.
quote:Originally posted by Liquid Empire:
quote:Originally posted by BillyWaz:
quote:Originally posted by Liquid Empire:
Jersey Paul -
I have brilliantly given you Brad Hoover for $3 to help aid your team to defeat Pocket Aces for the Week #10 showdown.
Your welcome! Hmmmm.... do I smell collusion??
[/QUOTE]No,,,,you smell what Jersey Paul is cookin' today as his team will take you down to the mat and rock you like a hurricane! (Scorps reference)JP...turn up the heat...it's time to make the doughnuts.
Can you feel me, sucka ?
[/QUOTE]What you smell is Liquid quietly burning while he plays Richie Anderson and trying to come up with a clever reason why he didn't outbid me for Hoover when I was almost broke. [/QUOTE]As a Diehard Cowboy fan, it is my honor to play Richie Anderson until week #16. Now use that Hoover I gave u to vaccuum up the mess.2012 - FI$HER - Flying High Again
Classless act or good strategy??
Originally posted by Vega$ Gambler$:
Dyv, you don't expect people on these boards to admit they were outcoached, or out drafted and have any fallable characterstics?
Everyone feels they need to change rules, conduct or anything else that gives them an excuse other than they were outplayed. I keep thinking back to round 2 when I said 'Duce Staley' instead of 'Tiki Barber'... lol, oh how things could be different for one mispronunciation of a name
Can certainly see the motivation behind the passion, even if it lacks logic... lol
Dave
Dyv, you don't expect people on these boards to admit they were outcoached, or out drafted and have any fallable characterstics?
Everyone feels they need to change rules, conduct or anything else that gives them an excuse other than they were outplayed. I keep thinking back to round 2 when I said 'Duce Staley' instead of 'Tiki Barber'... lol, oh how things could be different for one mispronunciation of a name
Can certainly see the motivation behind the passion, even if it lacks logic... lol
Dave
The Wonderful thing about Dyv's is I'm the only one!
Classless act or good strategy??
Originally posted by Ugly Yellow Tomatoes:
Turn the example around.
Blocking is BLOCKING. Either it is Ok or Not. We surely aren’t going to get into a discussion of how many players you are allowed to buy to perform an “ethical” block. (i.e. buying 2 players to block is ok … three is unethical)
In the same situation “Black Sabbath” needs a QB … there is only one QB available. He is 7-2 (vying for first) and you are 5-4 (with an outside chance of still getting into the money). Would'nt you hurt the other 7-2 team (tied with Black Sabbath) by letting "Black Sabbath" have the player. Why would it be wrong to BLOCK “Black Sabbath” by picking up the only available QB so you can win and maybe make it back into the playoffs.
Does “Black Sabbath” have a claim to the player in question because he is without a QB. Does it make a difference if there are two available QB’s? 3? 4?
What if “Black Sabbath” is your buddy and you don’t bid on the player because you want “Black Sabbath” to get the player. I would call that collusion … I guess you would call that fair play?
I would hate what happened to you to happen to me. I would not like it one bit … but “Black Sabbath” is not eliminated from the contest and is trying to win. Unless you question his motives … you should not question his ethics.
Collusion is unethical … so is crashing the NFFC STAT’s server on Sunday so your opponents can’t make game changes. Not “BLOCKING” … if you think “blocking” is unethical … I assume you make sure the other 13 teams all have two starting running backs each week before you bid on a fourth RB to sit on your bench. This is a game … and blocking (with the intent to win) is part of the game (I agree 4 players is a little extreme … but most of us agree he didn’t hurt his team to do it).
My two cents Correct, blocking is okay. If I had nothing to lose and I had to pick up 6 kickers to have a shot, I would do so without hesitation. Why wouldn't I avail myself of every legal outlet to attempt to win? I take no pride in finishing in 4th or 6th in my league instead of 5th or 7th.
Any change in bidding strategy to benefit a 'buddy' is clearly collusion.
The only classless activity has been whining about being outcoached on the message board, asking for an opinion and then attacking everyone for posting their opinion if it doesn't match what he wanted to hear.
'Nag - sack up, admit you got outcoached and mismanaged your roster and good luck today.
Dyv
Turn the example around.
Blocking is BLOCKING. Either it is Ok or Not. We surely aren’t going to get into a discussion of how many players you are allowed to buy to perform an “ethical” block. (i.e. buying 2 players to block is ok … three is unethical)
In the same situation “Black Sabbath” needs a QB … there is only one QB available. He is 7-2 (vying for first) and you are 5-4 (with an outside chance of still getting into the money). Would'nt you hurt the other 7-2 team (tied with Black Sabbath) by letting "Black Sabbath" have the player. Why would it be wrong to BLOCK “Black Sabbath” by picking up the only available QB so you can win and maybe make it back into the playoffs.
Does “Black Sabbath” have a claim to the player in question because he is without a QB. Does it make a difference if there are two available QB’s? 3? 4?
What if “Black Sabbath” is your buddy and you don’t bid on the player because you want “Black Sabbath” to get the player. I would call that collusion … I guess you would call that fair play?
I would hate what happened to you to happen to me. I would not like it one bit … but “Black Sabbath” is not eliminated from the contest and is trying to win. Unless you question his motives … you should not question his ethics.
Collusion is unethical … so is crashing the NFFC STAT’s server on Sunday so your opponents can’t make game changes. Not “BLOCKING” … if you think “blocking” is unethical … I assume you make sure the other 13 teams all have two starting running backs each week before you bid on a fourth RB to sit on your bench. This is a game … and blocking (with the intent to win) is part of the game (I agree 4 players is a little extreme … but most of us agree he didn’t hurt his team to do it).
My two cents Correct, blocking is okay. If I had nothing to lose and I had to pick up 6 kickers to have a shot, I would do so without hesitation. Why wouldn't I avail myself of every legal outlet to attempt to win? I take no pride in finishing in 4th or 6th in my league instead of 5th or 7th.
Any change in bidding strategy to benefit a 'buddy' is clearly collusion.
The only classless activity has been whining about being outcoached on the message board, asking for an opinion and then attacking everyone for posting their opinion if it doesn't match what he wanted to hear.
'Nag - sack up, admit you got outcoached and mismanaged your roster and good luck today.
Dyv
The Wonderful thing about Dyv's is I'm the only one!
-
richieprimo
- Posts: 818
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 6:00 pm
Classless act or good strategy??
Thankfully AND hopefully...END OF THREAD!!!
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Paying Top Dollar For All 12 and 10 cent Superhero Comics. Send PM...You may have money packed in your garage or attic.
Classless act or good strategy??
it is amazing to me how many intelligent people ACT Like they are not intelligent and just make up points other people are not even making to give themselves something to argue...lol
no one said drafting 4 RB's is not logical, everyone did it. but picking up 3/4 lowest tier QB's just to block someone from having a player to start is not within the spirit of the game. it is finding a loophole that is outside the concept of the game, but still within the rules. we all want our "fantasy" game to be as close to reality based football management as possible. but that is a classic example of someone getting away from the point of the game. do i care? no... it has no impact on my team and my team is playing fine now... but someone asked to start this thread if it was a low class move, or good strategy... i call it a low class move... sorry that position is so threatening to so many.. what can i say...lol
dyv...
show me where i said it was NOT THAT OWNERS FAULT that he left himself in this situation? you will be spending a long time trying to find where i said that.. because i did not.. nor did anyone else that i saw. what was asked is if this blocking move was good strategy or poor sportsmanship.. i see it as the latter... sorry. he could have and SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO pick up any number of the lowest quality QB's left over... but, someone saw a silly loophole in the rules to block him... is it legal, yes.. is it silly and outside the spirit of the game as i see it? yes...
kjduke...
i guess you feel that a chop block, away from the play, that ends someone's career or season is ok, because it is legal? again, people keep MAKING UP that i am saying someone broke a rule here... i never did say that, nor did i say the owner who got burned here put himself into that situation somewhat... but buying up all the free agent QB's left on the free agent list is outside the spirit of the game and unsportsmanlike... sorry.
no one said drafting 4 RB's is not logical, everyone did it. but picking up 3/4 lowest tier QB's just to block someone from having a player to start is not within the spirit of the game. it is finding a loophole that is outside the concept of the game, but still within the rules. we all want our "fantasy" game to be as close to reality based football management as possible. but that is a classic example of someone getting away from the point of the game. do i care? no... it has no impact on my team and my team is playing fine now... but someone asked to start this thread if it was a low class move, or good strategy... i call it a low class move... sorry that position is so threatening to so many.. what can i say...lol
dyv...
show me where i said it was NOT THAT OWNERS FAULT that he left himself in this situation? you will be spending a long time trying to find where i said that.. because i did not.. nor did anyone else that i saw. what was asked is if this blocking move was good strategy or poor sportsmanship.. i see it as the latter... sorry. he could have and SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO pick up any number of the lowest quality QB's left over... but, someone saw a silly loophole in the rules to block him... is it legal, yes.. is it silly and outside the spirit of the game as i see it? yes...
kjduke...
i guess you feel that a chop block, away from the play, that ends someone's career or season is ok, because it is legal? again, people keep MAKING UP that i am saying someone broke a rule here... i never did say that, nor did i say the owner who got burned here put himself into that situation somewhat... but buying up all the free agent QB's left on the free agent list is outside the spirit of the game and unsportsmanlike... sorry.
-
Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 7222
- Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:00 pm
Classless act or good strategy??
Originally posted by renman:
it is amazing to me how many intelligent people ACT Like they are not intelligent and just make up points
it is finding a loophole that is outside the concept of the game Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary "loophole": an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded.
are you saying the intent of the NFFC is to not allow owners to pick up as many QB's as they want (with roster size limit)? did the NFFC miss something in the rules? if so, what verbiage should be added? thanks.
it is amazing to me how many intelligent people ACT Like they are not intelligent and just make up points
it is finding a loophole that is outside the concept of the game Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary "loophole": an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded.
are you saying the intent of the NFFC is to not allow owners to pick up as many QB's as they want (with roster size limit)? did the NFFC miss something in the rules? if so, what verbiage should be added? thanks.
Is my "weekend warrior" prep better than your prep?