Hat Trick Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 I find it incomprehensible that anyone in a league with Sarge would have any league issues, or that it could possibly spill into this forum. Exactly what I was thinking/going to say Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 (edited) It is defintately complicated but I have one question for Keggers... what possible reason would there be to not promote Reggie Bush/AJ Hawk other than you might not get the first pick next year? I don't think ANYONE has a problem with selling off guys at the end of their contracts for draft picks... Edited October 24, 2006 by alexgaddis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 I'm team Bourbon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Ryan Posted October 24, 2006 Author Share Posted October 24, 2006 yep, Many have sold off players in Dynasty leagues at, or near the trade deadline, or after they feel they are mathematically eliminated from the post season. But to start a season in such a way. That was the question really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 25 trades? Is this a usual number of trades for 1 team in 1 season in this league? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 The 49'ers did the same thing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 25 trades? Is this a usual number of trades for 1 team in 1 season in this league? have ya been in a League with Keg? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Ryan Posted October 24, 2006 Author Share Posted October 24, 2006 25 trades? Is this a usual number of trades for 1 team in 1 season in this league? Id say 3 trades per team on average is about par for the course. Some do as many as 5, some do as little as none. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Gigantes Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 the reasons not to promote guys from the dts (other than wanting to lose) 1: after the draft and restricted free agency next year, Keg will have a ton of guys to assign contracts to. How long a contract bush and Hawk et al. get depends on who else he has on his team at that point. If he promotes them now and assigns very long contracts, he might not have enough contract years left for other players next year. 2: Trading flexibility. Many teams are at or near the contract cap. As the season wears on, they may decide they need a stud lb, or want to invest in the future and acquire bush. A player on the dts is a much more tradable commodity than a player with an 8 year contract, in season, or during the offseason. I can understand what keg is doing, and I think he might even have done it the same way if he didn't have draft picks affected by his losing. I still think it feels a bit off though, but its his team, and his to run as he sees fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junebugz Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 I didnt mention Kegs name for a reason. I wanted unbiased opinions. He came in here to defend himself, because he obviously felt he had to. This is a league issue, and Im not trying to get this forum to vote on any action. I simply wanted opinions of this behavior from other huddlers. Thats it. Thanks for those who have given your opinion. Seems to me there are two sides to every story, so why would the accused party not want to give his side too? If you ask for someone's opinion on an issue and only give them one side of the story, wouldn't the opinions you receive be biased to the side of the story they received???? just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Seems to me there are two sides to every story, so why would the accused party not want to give his side too? If you ask for someone's opinion on an issue and only give them one side of the story, wouldn't the opinions you receive be biased to the side of the story they received???? just a thought. In most cases yes, unless you were truly interested in hearing unbias opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 (edited) Seems to me there are two sides to every story, so why would the accused party not want to give his side too? If you ask for someone's opinion on an issue and only give them one side of the story, wouldn't the opinions you receive be biased to the side of the story they received???? just a thought. I think the accused party feels this is a league issue and considers this thread the airing of dirty laundry. Although no names were mentioned every time ive seen a BOTH issue brought to the main forum the people and league involved eventually are mentioned. Edited October 24, 2006 by whomper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Def. Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 OK so here is a look into my strategy/thought process IT IS VERY LONG.... I think my head exploded..... Interesting read though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbmcdonald Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 I think my head exploded..... Interesting read though. I thought that you just drafted players and started players because you like their team name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Ryan Posted October 24, 2006 Author Share Posted October 24, 2006 (edited) Seems to me there are two sides to every story, so why would the accused party not want to give his side too? If you ask for someone's opinion on an issue and only give them one side of the story, wouldn't the opinions you receive be biased to the side of the story they received???? just a thought. There are two sides to the story, and I mentioned both sides in my post. One person doesnt feel he is tanking, others in the league do. I gave the info, and asked opinions. I wanted unbiased opinions based on the info I provided. The owner in question has not been able to justify not starting a Qb, RB, and LB for 7 straight weeks that appeases a strong number of owners in the league. This isnt an airing of dirty laundry. If that was the case, Id have mentioned the league, owner and tried to crucify this owner with a slanted view of the facts. Instead I gave the rules, contracts, cap, and starting lineups of this yr and last and explained as much as I could without making a post that takes a whole huddle page, in which case would have lost most of the readers. This is not a personal issue against anyone. No one that I know of wants this owner removed, or has any dislike for him. This is about what people feel is right or wrong. I just wanted as many opinions as possible. I hate I have to keep saying that. So, this is the last time I will. Edited October 24, 2006 by Sgt. Ryan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 There are two sides to the story, and I mentioned both sides in my post. One person doesnt feel he is tanking, others in the league do. I gave the info, and asked opinions. I wanted unbiased opinions based on the info I provided. The owner in question has not been able to justify not starting a Qb, RB, and LB for 7 straight weeks that appeases a strong number of owners in the league. This isnt an airing of dirty laundry. If that was the case, Id have mentioned the league, owner and tried to crucify this owner with a slanted view of the facts. Instead I gave the rules, contracts, cap, and starting lineups of this yr and last and explained as much as I could without making a post that takes a whole huddle page, in which case would have lost most of the readers. This is not a personal issue against anyone. No one that I know of wants this owner removed, or has any dislike for him. This is about what people feel is right or wrong. I just wanted as many opinions as possible. I hate I have to keep saying that. So, this is the last time I will. i said i was done and this is the last of it, what i cant stand is making it look like you are giving all the facts when you clearly arent and then you post false information....sarge has his preception of it just like many others may and that is their right, but for him to misrepresent things just isnt right: 16 team leagues we dont use TEAM QBs a team could end up without a QB I chose to deal mine...see above I dont need to re-explain why or what i got: RBs are also pretty scarce and I have given my reasons for not activating Bush...if you agree with them that is fine if you dont that is fine, but when sarge states I havent started a RB he leaves out the fact that I have started KFaulk every week except for his bye week...is he a great RB he11 no but he has scored points...do to injuries i was forced to start Shaud Williams and unfortunately he has yet to score a point yet this yr(i have not started him EVERY WEEK) LB, I dont know what the hel1 he is talking about: Here are my LB scores by week: wk1:Pierce 19.5, Thorton 14.5, Ulbrich 7 wk2:Pierce 17.5, THornton 11.0 Ulbrich 7 wk3:Thorton 16.5, Ulbrich 6(starting 2 LBs is a legal lineup)look at my post to see what i got for pierce wk4:Thorton 12.0, Ulbrich 10 wk5:Thorton 25.0, Ulbrich 4 wk6:Arrington 2.0, Ulbrich 13.0 wk7:Arrington 10.5, Poppinga 4.5 So where are the 7 weeks of ZEROS i am accused of taking? also not once did i start a LB and leave more points on the bench Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyOne Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Still looks like he's tanking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Ryan Posted October 24, 2006 Author Share Posted October 24, 2006 (edited) i said i was done and this is the last of it, what i cant stand is making it look like you are giving all the facts when you clearly arent and then you post false information....sarge has his preception of it just like many others may and that is their right, but for him to misrepresent things just isnt right: 16 team leagues we dont use TEAM QBs a team could end up without a QB I chose to deal mine...see above I dont need to re-explain why or what i got: RBs are also pretty scarce and I have given my reasons for not activating Bush...if you agree with them that is fine if you dont that is fine, but when sarge states I havent started a RB he leaves out the fact that I have started KFaulk every week except for his bye week...is he a great RB he11 no but he has scored points...do to injuries i was forced to start Shaud Williams and unfortunately he has yet to score a point yet this yr(i have not started him EVERY WEEK) LB, I dont know what the hel1 he is talking about: Here are my LB scores by week: wk1:Pierce 19.5, Thorton 14.5, Ulbrich 7 wk2:Pierce 17.5, THornton 11.0 Ulbrich 7 wk3:Thorton 16.5, Ulbrich 6(starting 2 LBs is a legal lineup)look at my post to see what i got for pierce wk4:Thorton 12.0, Ulbrich 10 wk5:Thorton 25.0, Ulbrich 4 wk6:Arrington 2.0, Ulbrich 13.0 wk7:Arrington 10.5, Poppinga 4.5 So where are the 7 weeks of ZEROS i am accused of taking? also not once did i start a LB and leave more points on the bench Keg To date you have started Clarene Moore 4 times in in 7 weeks and he is not even on a active roster. You have started, and received goose eggs for the following number of players each week. Week 1 - 4 goose eggs - QB, RB, WR, WR Week 2 - 3 goose eggs - QB, WR, WR Week 3 - 4 goose eggs - QB, WR, WR, DB Week 4 - 5 goose eggs - QB, RB, RB WR, WR Week 5 - 4 goose eggs - QB, RB, WR, WR Week 6 - 4 goose eggs - QB, RB, WR, TE Week 7 - 3 goose eggs - RB, WR, WR Thus far you have received 29 goose eggs to date in 7 weeks, or 1/4th of your starting lineup of 16 each week have been zeros. You gave away all your players before the season, knowing you would have to start no one at these positions each week. Aj Hawk is a huge upgrade over any LB on your roster, which was more the point of you starting him, not that the LB position was as neglected, as the QB, RB, and WR position each week. I got the feed back i wanted and think its fair to say, an honorable owner would never go to such extreme measures from week 1, to lose enough to secure the #1 pick. That tank job began before the season started. Edited October 24, 2006 by Sgt. Ryan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junebugz Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 There are two sides to the story, and I mentioned both sides in my post. One person doesnt feel he is tanking, others in the league do. I gave the info, and asked opinions. I wanted unbiased opinions based on the info I provided. The owner in question has not been able to justify not starting a Qb, RB, and LB for 7 straight weeks that appeases a strong number of owners in the league. This isnt an airing of dirty laundry. If that was the case, Id have mentioned the league, owner and tried to crucify this owner with a slanted view of the facts. Instead I gave the rules, contracts, cap, and starting lineups of this yr and last and explained as much as I could without making a post that takes a whole huddle page, in which case would have lost most of the readers. This is not a personal issue against anyone. No one that I know of wants this owner removed, or has any dislike for him. This is about what people feel is right or wrong. I just wanted as many opinions as possible. I hate I have to keep saying that. So, this is the last time I will. I understand you wanting to be as concise as possible to get as many people as possible to read it, but without all parties giving all their reasoning an unbiased opinion is impossible IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 I understand you wanting to be as concise as possible to get as many people as possible to read it, but without all parties giving all their reasoning an unbiased opinion is impossible IMO. look at post # 24 in this thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Ryan Posted October 24, 2006 Author Share Posted October 24, 2006 (edited) This owner has started a guy not even on an NFL roster 6 of 7 weeks, now that I have looked deeper into this. Per our rules he should be tossed out of the league, already. So Tanking is the least of his problems at this point. Clarence Moore has been out the whole season, yet he has figured into this owners lineup every week but week 7. This is pretty black and white. 5.3 Lineup Submission If no lineup is submitted, the lineup for that week will default to the previous week’s lineup. Every effort should be made to submit a complete lineup each week throughout the season. Owners continuously submitting line-ups with bye or out players will be subject to replacement under rule 2.3. In MFL, Clarence Moore has been listed as OUT for 6 weeks now. Id say that is a lil problem. Edited October 24, 2006 by Sgt. Ryan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 This owner has started a guy not even on an NFL roster 6 of 7 weeks, now that I have looked deeper into this. Per our rules he should be tossed out of the league, already. So Tanking is the least of his problems at this point. Clarence Moore has been out the whole season, yet he has figured into this owners lineup every week but week 7. This is pretty black and white. 5.3 Lineup Submission If no lineup is submitted, the lineup for that week will default to the previous week’s lineup. Every effort should be made to submit a complete lineup each week throughout the season. Owners continuously submitting line-ups with bye or out players will be subject to replacement under rule 2.3. In MFL, Clarence Moore has been listed as OUT for 6 weeks now. Id say that is a lil problem. to bad you really dont have a clue...i even posted it in this very thread. Moore was released at 9:30ish prior to week 6s games...i missed that and he ended up in my lineup...the previous weeks i started him he was a RAVEN and as far as I am aware was active for each game i started him in....in our forum you yourself even said today that owners sometimes miss late scratches and that is understandable...that is what you said isnt it? after moore was released did i start him in week 7? NO I DIDNT keep trying to push false facts and your slanted view... i keep saying i am done but when someone is attacking your integrity and then posts FALSE INFORMATION its hard to sit back and say nothing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Wrong. Moore played against Denver Week 5: NFL.com link He also played against Oakland Week 3 2. Do your research before you open your piehole. i was unaware that moore was inactive for weeks 1,3,4 & cut in week 6 he was never listed as D or OUT at MFL as far as I can remember. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junebugz Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 look at post # 24 in this thread when the initial post was there it was not common knowledge though ... that was my point. it seems to me that kegz is basically willing to forego a chance at trying to win any stake this year (since he knows he would be losing several key players) while trying to reassemble troops for next year. i think the main question that sarge is wondering about is keeping two young guys on the squad instead of signing them and getting em started right away ... really there are a few ways of looking at that from an owner's point of view - will Reggie Bush even be around the league for 10 years (maybe, maybe not) so why not sign him for less years and have a chance to sign another guy you want this coming off season for more time? i understand both perspectives, but i don't see how you can mandate settings someones lineup unless there are set provisions in the rules. starting someone who is not even on a team should be a no-brainer (rules or no rules) ... that should be taken care of IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Ryan Posted October 24, 2006 Author Share Posted October 24, 2006 Wrong. Moore played against Denver Week 5: NFL.com link He also played against Oakland Week 3. Do your research before you open your piehole. Actually, I stand corrected, he was active weeks 2 and 5, not week 3 as you claim, so it looks like we both need to do our research before we open our pie hole. http://football17.myfantasyleague.com/2006...?L=37496&P=7589 Weeks 1,3,4,6 Moore was inactive and listed as OUT in MFL, which is a violation of our rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.