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 This theme may be out of date.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.]]

Immoral to tank week one for WW priority?


faceplant
 Share

Recommended Posts

So my guys came out pretty flat this Sunday and I'm down big going into tonight. I've got Brandon Marshall and Reggie Bush going but I'd need about six touchdowns and a couple hundred yards to come close to winning. Is it bad form to mail it in so I can take priority on the waiver wire if its in my best interest to do so?

 

FYI - I've definitely got first dibs on WW if I sit my guys tonight

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my guys came out pretty flat this Sunday and I'm down big going into tonight. I've got Brandon Marshall and Reggie Bush going but I'd need about six touchdowns and a couple hundred yards to come close to winning. Is it bad form to mail it in so I can take priority on the waiver wire if its in my best interest to do so?

 

FYI - I've definitely got first dibs on WW if I sit my guys tonight

I would think it is really up to you but I would hesitate only because in our league if there is a tie for a playoff spot it goes to the team with the most points scored..which if that is the case you would be hurting yourself...if you make it to the playoffs ;>)

Edited by Number 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my guys came out pretty flat this Sunday and I'm down big going into tonight. I've got Brandon Marshall and Reggie Bush going but I'd need about six touchdowns and a couple hundred yards to come close to winning. Is it bad form to mail it in so I can take priority on the waiver wire if its in my best interest to do so?

 

FYI - I've definitely got first dibs on WW if I sit my guys tonight

 

Who is on your waiver wire that's worth taking a "L" for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my guys came out pretty flat this Sunday and I'm down big going into tonight. I've got Brandon Marshall and Reggie Bush going but I'd need about six touchdowns and a couple hundred yards to come close to winning. Is it bad form to mail it in so I can take priority on the waiver wire if its in my best interest to do so?

 

FYI - I've definitely got first dibs on WW if I sit my guys tonight

Presumably WW is based on W-L record but since 6 of you will be 1-0 and the other 6 will be 0-1, total points are coming in to the picture, right?

 

IMO, you should still start and play your best line up at all times. Might want to consider blind bids to avoid this nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have to ask....

Bush league and many leagues have language in rules referring to submitting best lineup possible.

Who decides that? Trust me, I can't tell you how many weeks my dumbass would be saved by a rule like that. "Sorry Detlef, you're going to need to keep Ben Tate in your line-up and bench Brandon Jacobs instead."

 

Not that I agree that the OP should tank, but what it seems your implying is a slippery slope to be sure. Didn't this come up last year with someone who benched a "stud" because she thought it was a bad start and people were all huffy because they thought she was doing it to help her husband's team?

 

Among the all-time great Huddle threads.

Edited by detlef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't tank. You will take a loss anyway so don't you end up with the same ww priority?

No, tanking seemingly puts him first in line. Losing but not tanking probably puts him 3rd, 4th, 5th, something like that. So, technically, there's something to gain. Not that he should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who decides that? Trust me, I can't tell you how many weeks my dumbass would be saved by a rule like that. "Sorry Detlef, you're going to need to keep Ben Tate in your line-up and bench Brandon Jacobs instead."

 

Not that I agree that the OP should tank, but what it seems your implying is a slippery slope to be sure. Didn't this come up last year with someone who benched a "stud" because she thought it was a bad start and people were all huffy because they thought she was doing it to help her husband's team?

 

Among the all-time great Huddle threads.

 

I remember that thread, she benched CJ, saying she didn't think he would do well that week. She ended up being right and won her game.

 

The object of FF to me is to show your skill in choosing and playing players: it is not to show how well one can manipulate the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who decides that? Trust me, I can't tell you how many weeks my dumbass would be saved by a rule like that. "Sorry Detlef, you're going to need to keep Ben Tate in your line-up and bench Brandon Jacobs instead."

 

Not that I agree that the OP should tank, but what it seems your implying is a slippery slope to be sure. Didn't this come up last year with someone who benched a "stud" because she thought it was a bad start and people were all huffy because they thought she was doing it to help her husband's team?

 

Among the all-time great Huddle threads.

 

I agree with this. no one should tell you who you can and can't start. However, this guy is talking about taking players out and not replacing them at all. it is blatant tanking and should be kicked out of any league for doing so. i am very much for freedom of managing your team how you see fit. i do not like trade veto's or even voting on trades. If you want to sit Austin for Jimmy Graham thats fine too(i did) There is just no excuse to for what he wants to do...period!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember that thread, she benched CJ, saying she didn't think he would do well that week. She ended up being right and won her game.

 

The object of FF to me is to show your skill in choosing and playing players: it is not to show how well one can manipulate the system.

 

 

I agree with this. no one should tell you who you can and can't start. However, this guy is talking about taking players out and not replacing them at all. it is blatant tanking and should be kicked out of any league for doing so. i am very much for freedom of managing your team how you see fit. i do not like trade veto's or even voting on trades. If you want to sit Austin for Jimmy Graham thats fine too(i did) There is just no excuse to for what he wants to do...period!!

FWIW, I think it's doochie as hell what he's doing. I'm just saying you can't have a rule about it because you get stuck in that BS argument where people are implying that someone is tanking because they're not playing a guy "they" think that person should start.

 

All you can do is make it advantageous to start a good team in this situation (like the total points tie-breaker for the play-offs) or have blind bids or have the waiver wire order in week one be determined by reverse order of the draft order. Either that or just recognize that you're playing with a Thighmaster and not worry about it.

 

Ultimately, nobody "deserves" to have the first choice of waivers because they sucked worse the first week of the season than everyone else. It's one week. The NFL's deal with draft and waiver order is a bit more big picture than that and has to do with taking teams who, quite obviously, sucked compared to everyone else and improve the overall product by giving them a shot at the best new talent. And, for many reasons, even that doesn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NFL will sit players when a team has locked up it's playoff spot in week 16-17. Teams do it. I don't know of teams that will sit a player when they're 2-13 in hopes of getting the #1 pick, but I wouldn't be surprised if private conversations were held to that end.

 

If his league is okay with it, then does it matter what we think?

 

 

An NFL team still needs to play 11 men on the field. What he wants to do is like playing with 8!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This says nothing of the embarrassment that one should feel about bringing up the rear out the gate. You have a draft, where everyone walks away thinking their team is great. Then there's the chight talk leading up to week one. Then, someone's team goes off, plenty of others put up solid numbers either in a winning or losing cause, and some d-bag stinks it up and wins the Randal Cobb sweepstakes.

 

Trust me, I'm in the running for that "prize" in one of my leagues and I'm not exactly happy about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, I think it's doochie as hell what he's doing. I'm just saying you can't have a rule about it because you get stuck in that BS argument where people are implying that someone is tanking because they're not playing a guy "they" think that person should start.

 

All you can do is make it advantageous to start a good team in this situation (like the total points tie-breaker for the play-offs) or have blind bids or have the waiver wire order in week one be determined by reverse order of the draft order. Either that or just recognize that you're playing with a Thighmaster and not worry about it.

 

Ultimately, nobody "deserves" to have the first choice of waivers because they sucked worse the first week of the season than everyone else. It's one week. The NFL's deal with draft and waiver order is a bit more big picture than that and has to do with taking teams who, quite obviously, sucked compared to everyone else and improve the overall product by giving them a shot at the best new talent. And, for many reasons, even that doesn't work.

 

I think we agree on this. I wouldn't care if he put in scrubs. He wants to not field a complete team. there can be no bs arguement about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush League.

 

The simple fact that you are here asking means you know it too.

 

First your league should implement a rule next year that requires teams to field complete starting lineups - this would lessen the impact of dead beat owners attempting to manipulate their lineups Monday night to improve their waiver wire positions.

 

Second your league should implement a rule next year that states bye players can't be started - this would lessen the impact of dead beat owners attempting to manipulate their lineups Monday night to improve their waiver wire positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NFL will sit players when a team has locked up it's playoff spot in week 16-17. Teams do it. I don't know of teams that will sit a player when they're 2-13 in hopes of getting the #1 pick, but I wouldn't be surprised if private conversations were held to that end.

 

If his league is okay with it, then does it matter what we think?

 

I remember one very good example. Remember the Jimmy Johnson Hershall Walker trade to the Vikings that led to the Troy Aikman getting man handled his first year due to "conditional" draft picks based upon the performance of those traded players? Brilliant trade, mind you, but Dallas never put their best players forward, nearly at the expense of their hall of fame QB.

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