Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

One Week Defensive Swap...


ced1001
 Share

Recommended Posts

So... a guy in my league has Hasselbeck, D Jax and Seattle K and he's facing his own Defense (The Bears). I have LT and Kaeding and am going against my Defense (The Ravens). I have no Seahawk and he has no Chargers.

 

Have you ever heard of two teams doing a one week swap like this? Is it legit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Why? I'm just curious. I think it's fair. It helps both players. It's definitely shrewd but then again i'd rather my TDs count for 6pts (and not 4 b/c of netting).

 

 

How does swapping help both players?

 

Obviously if both defenses do good then why wouldnt the original owner want to keep the defense.

 

This doesn't fly by me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you serious that you think there is nothing wrong with this? This is classic collusion - you're essentially pooling your 2 teams and selecting the Ds that benefit each team the most. Then once the week is over you plan to revert to your original teams.

 

Don't do it. It's wrong, it's unethical, and it's inappropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously if both defenses do good then why wouldnt the original owner want to keep the defense.

 

Because when my offensive player gains points, my defensive team losses point. He's in the same predicament.

 

But I get it kids... you'd all be pissed...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My knee-jerk reaction was the same as everyone else - swapping is a form of collusion and is therefore not legit. However, this particular situation is kind of an interesting one - both players arguably benefit from the swap and, more importantly, I'm not sure I can see how anyone is hurt unfairly by it.

 

I wouldn't allow it if for no other reason than that it sets a bad precedent, but it is a pretty interesting situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because when my offensive player gains points, my defensive team losses point. He's in the same predicament.

 

But I get it kids... you'd all be pissed...

 

 

It's cheating.

 

How would you feel if your opponent this week switched out one of his players with another owner ... say traded Grossman to get Favre. Grossman scores 10 and Favre scores 20. You end up losing your game by 2 points. Then after the week is over your opponent trades Favre back to the original owner for Grossman.

 

So this trade would have directly caused you to lose your game.

 

How do you feel about it? Do you feel cheated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's cheating.

 

How would you feel if your opponent this week switched out one of his players with another owner ... say traded Grossman to get Favre. Grossman scores 10 and Favre scores 20. You end up losing your game by 2 points. Then after the week is over your opponent trades Favre back to the original owner for Grossman.

 

So this trade would have directly caused you to lose your game.

 

How do you feel about it? Do you feel cheated?

 

I get the picture... people might consider this collusion. However, just for the sake of discussion, I think people are very quick to jump to a conclusion. In this particular situation, we are trading, IMO, comparable players with comparable matchups. The two best defenses, both at home. I don't believe there is a a lot of expected varience in either teams performance. We're not talking about two single players who can get injured. And I'm not talking about a "you take my WR and I take your RB to help with bye weeks" situation.

 

Would I feel cheated? Not any more or less cheated than if I go out and pick up a defense and it goes off for my team.

 

And lets not forget, either team could perform poorly and either one of us the game just as easily.

Edited by ced1001
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the picture... people might consider this collusion. However, just for the sake of discussion, I think people are very quick to jump to a conclusion. In this particular situation, we are trading, IMO, comparable players with comparable matchups. The two best defenses, both at home. I don't believe there is a a lot of expected varience in either teams performance. We're not talking about two single players who can get injured. And I'm not talking about a "you take my WR and I take your RB to help with bye weeks" situation.

 

 

 

You're making a great argument for not making the trade in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's cheating.

 

How would you feel if your opponent this week switched out one of his players with another owner ... say traded Grossman to get Favre. Grossman scores 10 and Favre scores 20. You end up losing your game by 2 points. Then after the week is over your opponent trades Favre back to the original owner for Grossman.

 

So this trade would have directly caused you to lose your game.

 

How do you feel about it? Do you feel cheated?

 

 

What if the team that traded for Grossman loses by 2 points? The owner of the winning team in that matchup has won, which was directly caused by this swap. How does he feel about it? He feels like a roster move was made and the team that he was playing lost out in the deal. You're focussing on one side of this. The only way that it wouldn't be fair is if one team gave up a nonstarter for the week, or if it was RB for WR swapping. This is starting DEF for starting DEF.

 

If Team A feels that Team B's defence will perform better this week, and Team B feels the same of Team A's defence, but for the remainder of the season each feels that their defence will be the better team, then I need some clarification on why the intention of trading them back turns this into collusion. In the end, one of these defenses will perform better. One of the teams will have gained a few points, one team will have lost a few points. The reason that it's being made at all is purely to ease the watching of these games for the owners. I don't have a problem with it. If i lost by 2 points because this swap was made, i would not complain. As stated before, if it was starter for nonstarter, i would be screaming bloody murder. But this is not something to get your panties in a knot about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's cheating.

 

How would you feel if your opponent this week switched out one of his players with another owner ... say traded Grossman to get Favre. Grossman scores 10 and Favre scores 20. You end up losing your game by 2 points. Then after the week is over your opponent trades Favre back to the original owner for Grossman.

 

So this trade would have directly caused you to lose your game.

 

How do you feel about it? Do you feel cheated?

 

 

I'd feel like those guys deserved what they got and that you should always start your players that score the most points.

Edited by Gros Membres!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it be right for teams to swap offensive players just because they are going against their DEF's for the week? Hells No... That's basically what you are saying by swapping DEF's. Every week you play your team, both O and D, and you gather the points that those players score, regardless of who they play on Sunday - that's the point of FFL. So the scores will be a little lower this week in your game because the O will neutalize the D or vice versa. That's the way it goes...

Edited by Cosmo-J
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're making a great argument for not making the trade in the first place.

 

 

That's not true. I'm arguing that this is not a cheap bye-week solution in which you'd trade me a WR and I trade you a RB to start. Point is that each player taking part of such a deal is handicapped for the week. I believe my team will score more point with Chicago a my defense, instead of Baltimore. The other owner feels the same way. I also believe that the Ravens will score better for the remainder of the season. He like the Bears better.

 

Yes, they are very even entities, but built into the value of these entities is the fact that there production is inherently reduced simply b/c they are playing against my own team. Both owners believe our teams will score more points if we don't have to shoot ourselves in the foot every play.

 

Would it be more fair to me to be forced to drop my defense, pick up a worse one, and let someone else take the best defense in FFL?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information