|
Post by Chargers on Oct 25, 2008 13:27:06 GMT -5
Sorry Tampa, but I had to drop Torry Holt from your roster due to the following rule:
Any non-keeper (a player drafted in the first three rounds) that is dropped after week six (6), also the trade deadline, will be considered "dead" for the remainder of the season. He may not be picked up on waivers by any team. This is to prevent collusion among owners.
Since Holt was drafted at 1.17 and was dropped after week 6, he is considered "dead" to the league this year. So nobody else try to pick him up, okay?
|
|
|
Post by Ravens on Oct 25, 2008 18:39:53 GMT -5
Let's re-visit this rule after the season. It's a stretch to think an owner would drop a player in hopes that a follow owner (and collaborator) would be there to snatch him up. Just a suggestion - no need to get any flame wars going.
Ravens 23-game winning streak record still intact!
|
|
|
Post by jbeaver on Oct 26, 2008 8:05:35 GMT -5
I disagree with this rule also. The reality of this situation is the Holt is still playing. He has underperformed all season and if someone chooses to find a better option and ends up dropping him, he should be available to other teams willing to take the risk. It isn't as if he is out due to injury.... How would collusion happen anyway with the commishioners watching? We should definitely look at this for next year....
|
|
|
Post by Rams on Oct 26, 2008 8:53:17 GMT -5
I think this rule is an absolute necessity as teams out of the playoff race will drop non-keepers to pick up potential, this will leave playoff teams to pick up studs to help in their playoff run giving that team an unfair advantage going into the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by Packers on Oct 26, 2008 9:24:14 GMT -5
Ravens 23-game winning streak record still intact! What have you done lately? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ravens on Oct 26, 2008 12:03:18 GMT -5
Ravens 23-game winning streak record still intact! What have you done lately? ;D Careful Packers - I'm leading you in our head-to-head points competition - new Packer banner coming ;D
|
|
|
Post by The Cowboys on Oct 26, 2008 13:54:22 GMT -5
I think this rule is an absolute necessity as teams out of the playoff race will drop non-keepers to pick up potential, this will leave playoff teams to pick up studs to help in their playoff run giving that team an unfair advantage going into the playoffs. What he said.
|
|
|
Post by ejones on Oct 26, 2008 15:12:44 GMT -5
So we can make/keep rules to promote owners from dropping non-keepers and picking up future potential; once they feel they are out of contention. However; why can't we come up with something to keep owner's from throwing games well before the season is half over? Call this whining or whatever, but this is CRAZYYYYY. Now the Cardinal's are hurting the entire rest of the NFC sitting his studs and giving a easy W to a div/league leader (maybe). I really feel strongly that something needs to be addressed in the off-season to prevent this in the future.
|
|
|
Post by oakland on Oct 27, 2008 12:27:20 GMT -5
So we can make/keep rules to promote owners from dropping non-keepers and picking up future potential; once they feel they are out of contention. However; why can't we come up with something to keep owner's from throwing games well before the season is half over? Call this whining or whatever, but this is CRAZYYYYY. Now the Cardinal's are hurting the entire rest of the NFC sitting his studs and giving a easy W to a div/league leader (maybe). I really feel strongly that something needs to be addressed in the off-season to prevent this in the future. WOW...i might be the first person in the league to agree with the Redskins EVER, no pun intended lol. Teams should not beable to blatently tank games...while like trades its a fine line but also like trades the comish's should beable to discuss and intervene if necessary. Lets say your going into the last week with a shot at the playoffs and you need a said team to lose but their opponent tanks and couldnt have won...well I would be hopp'n mad and this doesnt even mention the effect it has on draft order. I still think it would have to be just bigtime obvious tanking....
|
|
|
Post by oakland on Oct 27, 2008 12:33:01 GMT -5
I think this rule is an absolute necessity as teams out of the playoff race will drop non-keepers to pick up potential, this will leave playoff teams to pick up studs to help in their playoff run giving that team an unfair advantage going into the playoffs. Well the waivers are set up so that the worst teams pick first so not sure that it would give the so called better teams a realistic opportunity for them. Also usually such players are dropped due to injury so typicaly wouldnt help anywho. Like my argument for pushing trading back farther is that for 1/3 of the league the season shuts down in week 6, if not more...
|
|
|
Post by Eagles on Oct 27, 2008 19:58:28 GMT -5
I kind of agree with this rule. I think it upholds the integrity of the league. But I do see the other side of it as well. Its a tough call.
I think a good way to handle the tanking of games is to have a reversed draft order for the last 10 place teams. 22nd place gets 1st, 23rd gets 2nd, and so on. This gives teams out of contention something to keep playing for and also will not reward teams for tanking games.
Its too late for this season but something we could look to next year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2008 17:40:27 GMT -5
OK My bad :seasoncirclingthedrain:
|
|
|
Post by Seahawks on Oct 28, 2008 22:32:47 GMT -5
I'm not sure where the Redskins are coming from, to say the Cardinals are "throwing games". According to the Power Rank Standings under the heading of "Coulda Won" the Cardinal's would have won one more game if they had set a different lineup. Whereas the Redskins "Coulda Won" two more games. So does that mean the Skins are "throwing" even more games? Heck Arizona even had a higher efficiency ranking than the Skins. The facts speak for themselves
|
|
|
Post by ejones on Oct 29, 2008 5:20:07 GMT -5
This is because I play my player's that are suppose to be studs; and wasn't scoring early. Then a player like fasano will have a good game, I finally bench a star player (ala rw) and he scores a td; this has been happening to everyone all year. What I am saying is BLATANTLY sitting your stars (ala Cotchery) against one of the worst Def in the league, and when he scored a lot for his bye week. This is the bs I dont think should be happening
|
|
|
Post by Rams on Oct 29, 2008 15:58:44 GMT -5
I think this rule is an absolute necessity as teams out of the playoff race will drop non-keepers to pick up potential, this will leave playoff teams to pick up studs to help in their playoff run giving that team an unfair advantage going into the playoffs. Well the waivers are set up so that the worst teams pick first so not sure that it would give the so called better teams a realistic opportunity for them. Also usually such players are dropped due to injury so typicaly wouldnt help anywho. Like my argument for pushing trading back farther is that for 1/3 of the league the season shuts down in week 6, if not more... Yes waivers are set up worst to first, but other teams out of the hunt arent going to pick up a non-keeper, it does them no good. The teams just on the playoff bubble are going to get these players and they will have an advantage.
|
|