Week 6 Drops

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:09 am

Originally posted by Raiders:
Greg, Why are you not taking Eli off the roster in question?
Go by the rest of the bids. Means NOTHING that He got Eli and now you remove Eli.
Leroy's Aces had no idea that He would get Eli.
So remove Eli and go by the rest of the bids.

Pretty easy if you ask me.

Did you read his post? Leroy's Aces haven't won the NFFC championship by picking up Manning. He was a nice pickup. Every team in his league had a shot at picking him up. When Manning was dropped, he was 9th ranked quarterback.

Brady 35.2 points per game
Romo 30.8
Palmer 27.7
Anderson 27.4
P. Manning 25.8
Kitna 22.1
Farve 22
Roethlisberber 21.1
E. Manning 21
Hasselbeck 20.9
Garrard 20.3
McNabb 19.3
Campbell 19.1
River 17.3

These are the top 14 quarterback with average points per game. With this list, Manning has a 1.9 point edge on the 13th best starter. Over the next 7 weeks, this is a total of 13.3 points.

There are other quarterback who are viewed as being better than some on this list as in Bulger. So the edge over the 14 ranked QB could be even smaller.

Manning is a nice grab at quarterback, but he is isn't a event changing drop. The free agent system is designed to give every owner a shot at key pickups. He was bid on fairly. He was awarded fairly.

I don't think the 9th best quarterback should be removed because of the point gab at the position. I also I agree Bulger shouldn't have been removed. Once he was hurt, he lost any pre draft value.

[ October 20, 2007, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: CC's Desperados ]

kjduke · Post by **kjduke** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:14 am

Originally posted by CC's Desperados:
He was a nice pickup. Every team in his league had a shot at picking him up. When Manning was dropped, he was 9th ranked quarterback.

Brady 35.2 points per game
Romo 30.8
Palmer 27.7
Anderson 27.4
P. Manning 25.8
Kitna 22.1
Farve 22
Roethlisberber 21.1
E. Manning 21
Hasselbeck 20.9
Garrard 20.3
McNabb 19.3
Campbell 19.1
River 17.3

These are the top 14 quarterback with average points per game. With this list, Manning has a 1.9 point edge on the 13th best starter. Over the next 7 weeks, this is a total of 13.3 points over 7 weeks.

There are other quarterback who are viewed as being better than some on this list as in Bulger. So the edge over the 14 ranked QB could be even smaller.

Manning is a nice grab at quarterback, but he is isn't a event changing drop. The free system is designed to give every owner a shot at key pickups. He was bid on fairly. He was awarded fairly.

I don't think the 9th best quarterback should be removed because of the point gab at the position. I also I agree Bulger shouldn't have been removed. Once he was hurt, he lost any pre draft value. Good work Shawn, this says it all.

I also did not think an injured Bulger with a make-shift OL was worthy of being pulled either. I doubt that Bulger makes it into the QB1 range by season-end.

DIESEL02 · Post by **DIESEL02** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:33 am

Renman put it very well , it is a gray area on the value of a player. And Greg and Tom have a tough job. In my opinion a player cannot just be judged on name or prior performance. The current season has to come into the equation also.

Eli collapsed at the end of 2006 and what's to say he won't again.And than again he could make a strong case for himself the rest of the 2007 season with a strong finish. I think he's a middle of the road qb. Should he be kept in the pool is hard question as it effects the total competition.

Most eveyone had Bulger as one of the Fab 5 qb's and that's where his value lies. Although injured if he and S-Jax were to return he could put up the numbers expected by him. And that's where I believe greg and tom made that judgment to pull him.

However with Eli he was projected no earlier than 8th Round.And has potential to put up real good numbes but again he could put up some real bad numbers too. I think he's a marginal player at best.

I think the only way to make it black and white is too use the adp of the NFFC draft from the season from all three cities, say the top 84 (6 rds) or top 98 (7rds). And having those players automatically pooled as so called non-waiver wire pickups if dropped.

Again the loop hole would be a rookie or player drafted in Round 8 or higher and players claimed on waivers exceeding expectations and having a dramatic effect on the current season(ex. Colston ,Moss etc). In my opinion that's the rounds where fantasy seasons are won and lost. I believe those drops would still have to handled by Greg and Tom.It's not easy being them.

What I would like to say is that what keeps me coming back to the NFFC and the NFBC is both of them.I no doubt feel that have the owners interests at heart and not here to rip us off and make money, they do it for the love of the game and the industry.

And that's why we ( the owners ) love it here on the MB too it's like we are a dysfunctional family. No matter what we say or do we always make up at the end. So many great minds but with great minds come type A personalities. I think with this topic everyone is right there is no right or wrong , just good opinions. Good luck to everyone.

Shrink Attack · Post by **Shrink Attack** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:39 am

Originally posted by Ted's Cracked Head:
I do not think Bulger or Manning should be pulled this year but this is a very complex issue.

Where do you draw the line is the question?

Maybe there should be a "master list" posted every week for the players to see. You would then go into the process knowing who would or would not be available. This would also make administering this process easier because the list would rule. If a player "slipped" through Greg could refer back to the list and make the appropriate adjustment to the wire using the list as his guide.

Why?

1) Teams who would like to make a move like this but are afraid that player could come back to haunt them might be able to pull the trigger if they know the dropped player will be pulled from the pool. In the example that has driven four pages so far, the first place team had a very tough decision to make. Drop Eli or the hot Anderson? They did so knowing that this player would likely be picked up by someone who could play them against them.

Flip side of #1) What if they did so knowing that this would likely spur a bidding frenzy that could help them in the long run? Dropping a player with solid value would likely spur a bidding frenzy resulting in one team expending a large amount of their FA dollars. This could actually be a good strategy if the team doing the dropping has some extra monies themselves. By exhausting one of their leaguemates dollars, they could be sitting pretty if a player surfaced with stud potential and there was one less team to bid vs.

I still think there should be a date in the season whereby every player dropped becomes ineligible to be picked up. After week 9 or 10 would work for me. I know this has been discussed in the past because I keep bringing it up but I guess I cannot help myself.

Note: Pauls 2 cents were very well put though I do not agree that Eli should be pulled. That difference of opinion is what makes this game great. The fact that we all have differing opinions on the true value of any given player at any given time in the season makes these discussions engaging. Statistically, neither Eli or Bulger are elite players at their position this year and that is why I believe they should remain in the pool but I have no problem seeing them pulled.

Note 2: Dave should not have to answer for this move nor should he be required to answer to scenarios that may happen in the future.

A posted "list" would eliminate some of this grief moving forward. My 1 cent. I think Rob's idea of a Master List is the best solution so far. That way NO LEAGUE can have an advantage over another, and there's no question who is or is not available for pickup.

Also, no pickups of dropped players after a certain week also makes perfect sense. That's a great way to prevent late-season collusion with a team that has no chance of finishing in the money.

FIGHTINGNOLES · Post by **FIGHTINGNOLES** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:55 am

I also think a list of "if dropped then pulled" players is a good idea based on THIS years performance. I totally agree with Leroy that he did NOTHING wrong and that there really is no difference RIGHT NOW between Garrard (available in my league this week) & Eli except "potential" (which is a VERY subjective thing & IMHO almost impossible for even a FAIR commish like Greg to decide on - this sport/hobby is very difficult to figure out at times)...Being a first time entrant (but long time player) I really enjoyed the Tampa draft, 14 team challenge, and even 3RR/KDS (gave me a "sense" of control). I think this is a VERY well run contest by Greg & Tom. I do think, however, that the "attacks" on these boards at times are way too personal and really have NO PLACE in a contest like this. Last week a number of people (myself included) raised the issue of 19/20 man rosters to help alleviate these type of problems/injuries etc... Instead of a "discussion" on the issue, some members just basically said "that's how it's done - deal with it". I'm not sure this helps the contest grow (the responses - NOT the decision to stay @ 18 if that is what GREG/TOM decide). I appreciate Greg stepping in and handling this matter quickly and fairly and I hope (& know) he continues to keep an open mind on the many issues that come up in a complex contest such as this one...

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:05 am

I also thought pulling bulger wasn't needed. I someone who likes to operate using rules or past precedent.

In this case, greg admitted he outright missed the cut. Hard to believe "manning" was missed, it's not like his name is "jones" or "smith", but whatever this mistake happened and moving forward hopefully the commish's office does better in this regard.

As for the owner who was able to secure a player who was only available by a mistake, good job. And yes in my opinion, your team will have an * by it the rest of the season. Hopefully manning doesn't cause you to take money away from another owner, again IMO.

As for what I've brought to the nffc and nfbc, I like to think that I've brought a lot of new ideas (which btw have been implemented) that foster a better contest.

Thanks.

Leroy's Aces · Post by **Leroy's Aces** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:31 am

So, you think that Bulger should not have been pulled in the first place, but since he was, it set a precedent. And that subjective precedent that you disagreed with in the first place was not followed, the commissioner did not remove Eli Manning, a player statistically comparable to David Garrard, who is still available in some NFFC leagues right now. And due to my leagumates and I following the waiver rules correctly and bidding on available players, I legally acquired Eli Manning using almost all of my remaining bidding dollars while forfeiting my chance at numerous other players and a better defense. Due to these occurrences, over which I, as a fantasy player had no control, and because I made a potentially beneficial acquisition, you, Gordon Gekko will opt to lump me and my team in with Barry Bonds and other "cheaters" that people have argued should have asterisks.

I resent Gekko's implication here and your categorization of my team going forward. I would like Greg to address these comments by Gekko, as again, I should not be penalized, nor continuously harrassed, nor have my team be given a negative stigma for the rest of the season just because I made a waiver move well within the rules.

I appreciate the numerous private messages I have received in support of what happened, and that it was simply a good waiver pickup, nothing more or less, as well as the intelligent and coherent points brought about on this forum by its many members. I do appreciate the passion that is shown by most to make this a better event.

Dave
Leroy's Aces

[ October 20, 2007, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: Leroy's Aces ]

Raiders · Post by **Raiders** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:34 am

Originally posted by FIGHTINGNOLES:
I also think a list of "if dropped then pulled" players is a good idea based on THIS years performance. I totally agree with Leroy that he did NOTHING wrong and that there really is no difference RIGHT NOW between Garrard (available in my league this week) & Eli except "potential" (which is a VERY subjective thing & IMHO almost impossible for even a FAIR commish like Greg to decide on - this sport/hobby is very difficult to figure out at times)...Being a first time entrant (but long time player) I really enjoyed the Tampa draft, 14 team challenge, and even 3RR/KDS (gave me a "sense" of control). I think this is a VERY well run contest by Greg & Tom. I do think, however, that the "attacks" on these boards at times are way too personal and really have NO PLACE in a contest like this. Last week a number of people (myself included) raised the issue of 19/20 man rosters to help alleviate these type of problems/injuries etc... Instead of a "discussion" on the issue, some members just basically said "that's how it's done - deal with it". I'm not sure this helps the contest grow (the responses - NOT the decision to stay @ 18 if that is what GREG/TOM decide). I appreciate Greg stepping in and handling this matter quickly and fairly and I hope (& know) he continues to keep an open mind on the many issues that come up in a complex contest such as this one... Good points Big John. Nice to hear from someone thats not bitter.

Keep that team on its roll and good luck the rest of the way!

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:44 am

I do not like the "If dropped will be pulled" list.

It is extremely difficult to create, and varies week to week.

It is also something that can be abused via collusion.

Example...drop the best player NOT listed, so the team with the most money can grab him...repeat the following week with the new list.

If you create a list like this...it's either too biased on past names or present performances, or it's a STUD list (which Eli would not have made) and is logically not needed, or it's a giant list with all players listed toward the bottom of each position being debatable.

JMO.

~Lance

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:45 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
As for the owner who was able to secure a player who was only available by a mistake, good job. And yes in my opinion, your team will have an * by it the rest of the season. Hopefully manning doesn't cause you to take money away from another owner, again IMO. It may be your opinion, but it's foolish to say that on a public message board. Again, last year the same thing was held over my head for not pulling DeAngelo Williams. But players like Eli have been allowed to be picked up in the past and as I've said they will be allowed to be picked up going forward. So this team has nothing over anyone else in the competition. The only thing it has is a QB of similar value to the one I pulled in LV8. And maybe if it makes sense, I'll put Bulger back into LV8. But I want to see Bulger first.

Enough is enough now. Opinions have been made. As folks already know, I don't like pre-existing "no drop" lists as player values change all the time. And I haven't added a "no pickup list after Week 10 or 11" because free agency is so valuable right up to the last week of the regular season. I can address those points a little more next week.

All opinions are appreciated on this matter. It's my job, though, to separate those opinions and make the right calls going forward.