Having a "drops" committee

DIESEL02 · Post by **DIESEL02** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:29 am

I think Jersey Paul has got it right with the frozen pickup strategy but what I would like to add to it is to have two rankings such as an ADP ranking according to all main event NFFC teams drafts and have a scoring ranking as the season progresses.

That would alleviate the issue of an injury to a star player who is not permanetly on the IR and wouldn't qualify such as (ex Bulger LJ,SS Heap etc etc)and would include players who are having breakout years in scoring to due their play or injury to a starter such as (ex.Anderson,McDonald, Graham,Watson). If a player makes either list they are considered frozen pickups.

But you know that 15th ranked qb or 29th ranked back or wideout is still gonna have people complain.

I don't envy Greg or Tom they are trying to do the fair thing as commissioners but fair isn't always right.I think everyone would agree that however stringent a list may be it's clear and not open to interpretation whether you like it or not.

ultimatefs · Post by **ultimatefs** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:34 am

Originally posted by Baggler:
I think Jersey Paul has got it right with the frozen pickup strategy but what I would like to add to it is to have two rankings such as an ADP ranking according to all main event NFFC teams drafts and have a scoring ranking as the season progresses.

That would alleviate the issue of an injury to a star player who is not permanetly on the IR and wouldn't qualify such as (ex Bulger LJ,SS Heap etc etc)and would include players who are having breakout years in scoring to due their play or injury to a starter such as (ex.Anderson,McDonald, Graham,Watson). If a player makes either list they are considered frozen pickups.

But you know that 15th ranked qb or 29th ranked back or wideout is still gonna have people complain.

I don't envy Greg or Tom they are trying to do the fair thing as commissioners but fair isn't always right.I think everyone would agree that however stringent a list may be it's clear and not open to interpretation whether you like it or not. Or you could have the collective 40 years knowledge of Greg and Tom decide these things..

Leave the lists for yahoos

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:41 am

Originally posted by Ted's Cracked Head:
If the mob had addressed this issue prior to the ruling, then maybe McNabb might have been pulled.

Absent any comments from the peanut gallery, they made their decision.
so nffc players not on the MB are at a disadvantage because they can't "plead their case"???

WOW!

Ted's Cracked Head · Post by **Ted's Cracked Head** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:19 am

GG, by cutting a small portion of my post and using it in your example, you have taken it out of context but I would expect no less from you.

I was merely trying to illustrate that we currently do have an ad-hoc panel of involved and knowledgeable players who regularly share their opinions on matters. This MB sort of serves in that manner right now. Those who take the time to share their thoughts and ideas on issues and the game itself have demonstrated that they want to participate in the process.

Those who choose not to engage in these discussions do so for a few different reasons. 1) they do not have time 2) they do not care, they just want to play 3) they continue to see the bickering and badgering of those who do participate from a few of the regulars, making them NOT want to participate and that is a shame.

Thus, Billys proposal to have a committee to dicsuss these issues is kind of in place right now.

Do I think the MB is the preferred way to engage the customer base? No.

Should every player have an opportunity to have a say in the future of the game? I think so. Krause, Greg and Tom own/run the game but if it does not meet our expectations, then they will be out of business.

[ November 18, 2007, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: Ted's Cracked Head ]

BillyWaz · Post by **BillyWaz** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:50 am

Maybe Greg and Tom knew something we didn't????

Donovan McNabb-QB-Eagles Nov. 18 - 2:04 pm et

Donovan McNabb injured his ankle Sunday. X-rays in the locker room came back negative, but McNabb is not expected to return to the game.

McNabb appeared to be trying to walk it off on the sideline before ultimately heading to the locker room in the second quarter. It's a good sign that he was able to move around on the leg and he didn't appear to be in pain, but A.J. Feeley looks to be the Birds' quarterback for the rest of the game.

dcc1973 · Post by **dcc1973** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:54 am

I don't think that any participant should have any offical vote to determine these matters. Too many potential conflict of interest problems, as it's impossible to expect any participant to be 100% unbiased with 100K on the line.

Any type of a list that spells out exactly which players aren't in the pool I believe is a bad idea as well. It allows for an additional strategy point to be used that has nothing to do with the contest. Here's an example: Suppose you draft Brady and Favre as your QBs. Early in the year, Derek Anderson is available on the FA pool, so you pick him up as a defensive move against the teams who are desperate for a QB. Brady and Favre are on the "no pickup list" list to start the year. Anderson gets added to the list after week 5. I don't want to have 3 QBs on my team, but I don't want to allow one of my competitors to have access to them, so I'll keep all three on my team. If you have a no cut list, with all three of these guys being listed, I will now cut who I feel is the worst of the three QBs without having any fear of them being picked up by a competitor. It's exactly for this reason that you should not have a "no pickup list", as the threat of a competitor being able to pick up a solid player that you drop is more of a leveling force than any "no pickup list".

[ November 18, 2007, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: David Comings ]

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:00 am

Originally posted by Ted's Cracked Head:
FYI 1 - Why did you block me from sending you pm's? Can't handle the truth?
truth be told, i don't want to read your PM's.

they are idiotic and/or they read like they come from an uniformed person that has too much time on his hands.

thanks and carry on.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:01 am

Originally posted by Ted's Cracked Head:
FYI 2 - Am I your new whipping post? If so, bring it on! please, i don't need another stalker. :rolleyes:

thanks.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:23 am

Originally posted by Ted's Cracked Head:
quote: they are idiotic and/or they read like they come from an uniformed person that has too much time on his hands.
After you told me to "Go away", this is what I sent you:

FYI - I am not going anywhere.

I am amazed that you cannot see how this type of **** fucks up the MB. Time and time again you engage in bullshit that negatively affects the MB.
How is that idiotic?

Me stalking you? After I sent you that PM you then chopped my post and went after it. It seems to me that you were doing the stalking. I was just letting you know that I am not going to take your crap anymore. [/QUOTE]add vulgar language to your list. can you please refrain from doing so on the message boards? i know children are partners on some of the nffc teams. maybe you don't care, but i'd hate for them to read this kind of crap. thanks.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:47 am

Originally posted by Ted's Cracked Head:
GG,

Try as you may, you are fooling no one. You are one of the main reasons this MB hasn't taken the next step and EVERYONE knows it. Your act is old and tired. Much to your pleasure, this is the last time I will waste my time with you. like i said b4, go away. stick to crunching numbers. thanks.