WHAT DOES ANYONE THINK OF THIS???

RI WORKHORSE · Post by **RI WORKHORSE** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:49 am

I Think that if someone was playing a guy in there active lineup that is 100% not playing for the week and are going to get a zero,I think someone should say something and someone should be watching everything or that would be unfair and change the game.And if someone is lacking in a certin spot and needs guys,I don't think asking for a certin amount from everyone is ok but I think telling everyone is part of the game.

RI WORKHORSE

renman · Post by **renman** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:15 am

why don't we make a rule where you can not have more then 3 QB's on your roster at any point during the season?

i do not think the "take all the players left at a position to block my opponent from having a player" move is what the spirit of fantasy football is all about... i am not one who subscribes to the "hey, if it aint written in the rules it's ok with me" logic...

what would be the drawback to capping QB's on a roster at 3?

Eddiejag · Post by **Eddiejag** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:50 am

Thats actually a good idea, in the ultimate i have 4 and two other teams have five.We getting ready for the playoffs and the guy in 2nd has dorsey , boeller , and harrington , who is now out a job. He is low on money and might not be able to do better because of the blockers , and im one of them.When your playing for 27.000.00 and you can block a guy from a good qb you will.
Now if you had this rule of three it would help the guys who need help. This guy had MCNABB and didnt have a good backup, and now will have to go to the playoffs with this promblem.This is no disrespect to his team.

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:02 pm

The rules aren't broken - they don't need fixing

If you want to stash five or six QBs, fine, you will have less flexibility at other positions.

BillyWaz · Post by **BillyWaz** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:14 pm

Originally posted by Captain Hook:
The rules aren't broken - they don't need fixing

If you want to stash five or six QBs, fine, you will have less flexibility at other positions. I agree 100% Captain Hook!

Just like when they stole the megaphones last week on "The Apprentice".

It is smart business!

:rolleyes:

BLACKHAND · Post by **BLACKHAND** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:01 pm

if one owner wants to be a fool , that is his choice as long as he fields a full lineup that is heathy and playing. he does not have the right to stir up other owners to follow his choice. i hope you get you QB snake.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 3:35 pm

Originally posted by renman:
why don't we make a rule where you can not have more then 3 QB's on your roster at any point during the season?

i do not think the "take all the players left at a position to block my opponent from having a player" move is what the spirit of fantasy football is all about... i am not one who subscribes to the "hey, if it aint written in the rules it's ok with me" logic...

what would be the drawback to capping QB's on a roster at 3? maybe everyone can pinky-promise not to take more than 3 QB's? NOT. what a bad idea. just like KD. keep up the good work rainman.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 3:43 pm

Originally posted by Diesel:
From here on in, noone should write what someone else needs from the free agent pool, and that will be that. I'm almost positive that Gekko posted what Nag needed awhile back when Nag and Gekko had one of their "deathmatch" messageboard fights...i'm away from the MB and i come back to find out i was in a deathmatch.

as for my posts. i stand by any post or e-mail i've made that simply offers public information (without directing or asking another owner to do something), and i will continue to do so for as long as i play fantasy sports. i play to win and if i can make the playoffs cause some owner left himself short on FAAB, i'll act in my best interest everytime. it might not be ethical, but it will be fair.

Diesel · Post by **Diesel** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 3:51 pm

No poke directly at you GG. Just a note that Sack wasn't the lone gunmen posting this kind of info.