Classless act or good strategy??

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:36 pm

John, I respect your opinion about this high-stakes contest and we don't always have to agree on everything (if I'm correct, you're a Vikings fan and I'm a Packers fan, so we're on opposite sides to begin with!!). But let's understand one thing about this now 10-page thread: This was a very isolated case where one opponent had $3 left and really no starting quarterback for the 10th game of the season. His opponent was 5-4 and not only fighting for third place money but a playoff spot and the chance for $100,000. I know Nag's opponent and he's intense and very competitive, but he's EXTREMELY fair. His FAAB bidding was perfectly legal and within the rules. Rules, I might add, that I created.

Now I hardly doubt that Nag's opponent blocks free agent bids every week. In fact, I bet he never did it before and I doubt anyone else has picked up three QBs in any given week to block an opponent. But like I said earlier, this was a unique situation where Nag left himself open during the week that he HAD to have a starting QB. You can't take FAAB money home with you so I can understand the win at all costs when bidding for free agents, but maybe we all learned a lesson from this: that some FAAB late in the season is important. Remember, Nag said he knows he still has to fill a TE and a Defense in bye weeks yet, so he's still leaving himself open to further blocks.

To not come back to the NFFC in 2005 because of the intensity of one owner would be foolish, John, especially if you like the competition and the management of this game so far. If other reasons or situations come up, then that's fine and I wish you the best of luck in all of your leagues next year. But I think we all realize that we assembled a great bunch of guys and gals this year and the event is only going to get bigger and better each year. We'd love to have you as part of that growth and we'll be adding Lifetime Standings next year to reward those owners who have competed from the start.

This thread has gone on long enough and some of the participants have taken the comments too seriously. I actually think the thread has been very good and a healthy debate. Nag asked a simple question and basically left it open for me to close a loophole when it comes to position maximums in 2005. It's the same as someone else complaining that an owner in his league has 8 RBs on his 18-man roster and it's not fair to everyone else who needs a starting RB right now. I would feel that owner's pain, look the rules over again and realize I created a good game where many different strategies can win the grand prize.

I do not plan on changing the position requirements in 2005 or create a special rule that prevents an owner from picking up too many players at one position in any given FAAB period. I've said it all along that in-season personnel management with these rather smallish 18-man rosters was as important as drafting ability and I believe that now more than ever. I wish Nag could have gotten a good starting QB that week, but I also wish I had two good starting RBs in all 10 of my leagues this year and that ain't happening either!!!

John, we'd love to have you back in 2005. As tough as some of these guys sound on the Message Boards, in reality they're all loveable creatures. They're all ugly, green loveable Shreks who play to win in fantasy football. I see nothing wrong with that.

Walla Walla · Post by **Walla Walla** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:06 pm

I agree with John.

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:49 pm

ENOUGH

dgamblnman · Post by **dgamblnman** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:24 am

renman and Nag, could you just give some answers... Yes or No, that is all I need.....

Do you wnt Greg to put limits on FA picks?
Do you want Greg to limit numbers of players per position?
Do you want Greg to add a "Be a good guy and make sure your opponents can field the best team possible?
Do you want Greg to notify all owners of available FAs to each owner that would help thier team?

Nag' · Post by **Nag'** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:21 am

I'll answer your questions, VG, but let me just say that contrary what is being suggested in this thread, I did not have any intention or have an agenda to change the rules or somehow be "helped" in my personal case. Greg said he does not disapprove with the "block", and would employ the same strategy if given the opportunity, and I can respect that. Both Greg & Tom are very intune with what's going on in this league and when/if they see a problem, I'm sure they will act accordingly. My only concern is that this can OPEN THE DOOR to other instances in which the MOTIVES may not be as clear as it was in this case, and then sh!t will really hit the fan.

So here are my answers to your questions:

1- Absolutely not.
2- Yes, but not too constrictive. Something like 5QB, 10RB, 10WR, 5TE, 4K, 4D will likely not effect anyone's roster managment strategy and will ONLY prevent "blocks" that are of the extreme nature.
3- Of course not.
4- Of course not.

[ November 19, 2004, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: Nag' ]

renman · Post by **renman** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:26 pm

vegas...

i will answer...

-no, i do not care about limiting player moves as this type of situation will happen about ONCE every 3 years in a football season like this... but that was not the initial question asked.. the question asked was "is this a classless move" and i think it was. it has NOTHING to do with whether it was within the rules or not.. everyone knows it was within the rules.. yet many of you kept rambling how "hey, this was within the rules and anything within the rules is fair game because we play to win blah blah blah blah"... when that was never the point of the conversation at all...lol

-i do not want limits to the number of players per position... let owners manage how they please.

- no
- no

i do not want greg to do anything other then what he has already done... i think these leagues are a constant work in progress... there will always be ways to "tweak" the system to make it better.. i think it is currently a great system.. though i would consider fattening up league prizes to lure more players to play based on the fact they can break even (or get their money back pluys profit) easier while playing in the league with which they drafted in.. all while still having a shot at the magical big prize...

actually, now having read nag's post.. i think slight position limits would be a good thing.. just to help prevent silly blocking that has ZERO to do with owners fielding the best statistical football teams.. (this happens to be what fantasy football is supposed to be about) and everything to do with player hoarding.

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 4:33 pm

TamuScarecrow · Post by **TamuScarecrow** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 12:16 am

Reading Greg and Tom's posts - $1250
Reading the rest of the MB's - $20 (for Tylenol)
Dyv, Gekko, & JP's graemlins - priceless

TamuScarecrow · Post by **TamuScarecrow** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 12:29 am

Gentlemen, I forgot to write down the graemlin website. Can anyone help me?

And Nag, good choice of names. Eleven pages of worthless thread. I just read it to look at the graemlins. My daughter thinks they're cute, especially the wave, JP.