bwhaley Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 In our league the race is close. We had one team owner(father) who is in last place, play his son who needed a win to stay alive, take out Newton and put in Fitzpatrick. Is there some logic in this that I am missing? Thanks for the input. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bier Meister Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 was it just newton or were there other funky lineup changes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwhaley Posted December 10, 2012 Author Share Posted December 10, 2012 Took out Nicks and put in Ogletree also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA Baracus Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Sounds and smells fishy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) Shady. At very least he should be asked to justify the moves, because those are very questionable. Cam has been playing lights out and Ogletree hasn't even been startable lately.... But I wouldn't even mention too much about that, or make too bold of accusations about him helping his son UNTIL you get his justification of the starts. Then you go from there if his explanation doesn't suffice (and that doesn't mean you have to agree with his explanation, but in last place playing his son, he obviously has to explain himself sufficiently). Edited December 10, 2012 by delusions of grandeur 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WashingtonD Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Suspicious I didn't see any site rank Fitz over Cam this week, but the Nicks out for Ogletree is even worse unless he was worried about Nicks not being able to play. Is he just bad at fantasy football, if you look back at his line up changes was he pretty stupid all year long? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwhaley Posted December 10, 2012 Author Share Posted December 10, 2012 Just wanted some other thoughts. It's not like he's a young boy. The dad is 60's and son 40's. Thanks for the input. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorcher Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Suspicious I didn't see any site rank Fitz over Cam this week, but the Nicks out for Ogletree is even worse unless he was worried about Nicks not being able to play. Is he just bad at fantasy football, if you look back at his line up changes was he pretty stupid all year long? Gotta give some credence to his being in last place. Would be interesting to know if he had been playing Cam the last couple of weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Gotta give some credence to his being in last place. Would be interesting to know if he had been playing Cam the last couple of weeks. Good points, he probably isn't in last for no reason, so I agree would need to determine if this is par for the course for him or if he's throwing the game against his son. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwhaley Posted December 10, 2012 Author Share Posted December 10, 2012 Started Cam the last 2 weeks when he had 37 and 44 points each week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 those two moves cannot be justified Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 If you pay for a team, doesn't an owner have the right to set whatever valid lineup they want? Projections don't mean squat... They are simply some guidance and ideas. You play the guys who you think are going to score the most points. Personally, I would not have started Cam against Atlanta, either. As for Nicks, he's been a crapshoot all year. As a commish myself, i don't think an explanation is warranted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 If you pay for a team, doesn't an owner have the right to set whatever valid lineup they want? Projections don't mean squat... They are simply some guidance and ideas. You play the guys who you think are going to score the most points. Personally, I would not have started Cam against Atlanta, either. As for Nicks, he's been a crapshoot all year. As a commish myself, i don't think an explanation is warranted. No, if you pay for a team, you are not allowed to collude. That's like the Golden rule of fantasy football. You say that Newton and Nicks aren't automatic starts, but when your options are between them and Fitzpatrick (QB17) and Ogletree who's been essentially worthless lately. Sorry, but that warrants an explanation when he all of the sudden pulls them the week he's playing his son who's fighting for a playoff spot. What's the problem with asking for an explanation if the league thinks it looks fishy? It's not like we're saying to kick him out unless the explanation is clearly BS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwhaley Posted December 10, 2012 Author Share Posted December 10, 2012 I want in a league with Junkyard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Line-up decision-making constitutes collusion simply because you disagree with a choice??? People get slammed on The Huddle all year long (and rightfully so) when they complain about following the rankings and projections, only to have them not work out. It's guidance, and you start who you feel is going to give you the most points. That is your right as an owner. If he had switched out Aaron Rodgers for Nick Foles, would we still be having the same conversation? If the owner benched Cam and Nicks to start Vick and Jordy Nelson, then you have a legitimate beef since it is not a competitive lineup. Otherwise, no, I don't think it's appropriate to ask for an explanation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malta69 Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 That really is a tough one. I have a run a league with friends for 14 years, and I've seen all sorts of questionable nonsense go down from the ol' Sat night drunken trades to guys "accidentally" leaving in players on bye. With Nicks being questionable and playing in a late game, then going with Ogeltree could be defendable if all of the other WRs on his roster were done after the 1s. That said, Fitzpatrick over Cam is awfully hard to defend, and this is coming from a guy who once sat Kurt Warner in a blizzard for Tyler Thigpen in a championship game! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Line-up decision-making constitutes collusion simply because you disagree with a choice??? People get slammed on The Huddle all year long (and rightfully so) when they complain about following the rankings and projections, only to have them not work out. It's guidance, and you start who you feel is going to give you the most points. That is your right as an owner. If he had switched out Aaron Rodgers for Nick Foles, would we still be having the same conversation? If the owner benched Cam and Nicks to start Vick and Jordy Nelson, then you have a legitimate beef since it is not a competitive lineup. Otherwise, no, I don't think it's appropriate to ask for an explanation. Two things that spit in the face of that: 1) He is completely out of it, yet actively putting forth a lineup that seems very tough to justify is his best one... This is not like some judgement call. 100 people out of 100 will tell you Newton/Nicks is the clear best play over Fitzpatrick/Ogletree, and he had been starting Newton on his hot weeks. 2) Playing his son fighting for a playoff spot - no I don't think that being family is sufficient to accuse him of anything, but it sure does contribute to the suspicion that he's actively throwing the game to help his son. I'm all for letting managers manage their teams how they see fit, but where there's smoke, you have all the reason to make sure there's not a fire brewing. Pretty clear that if he can't defend the moves, then something fishy is afoot. Sorry, but anything doesn't just go in most leagues. If you're suspected of cheating (and there is more than enough reason for suspicion), then you owe the league an explanation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Two things that spit in the face of that: 1) He is completely out of it, yet actively putting forth a lineup that seems very tough to justify is his best one... This is not like some judgement call. 100 people out of 100 will tell you Newton/Nicks is the clear best play over Fitzpatrick/Ogletree, and he had been starting Newton on his hot weeks. 2) Playing his son fighting for a playoff spot - no I don't think that being family is sufficient to accuse him of anything, but it sure does contribute to the suspicion that he's actively throwing the game to help his son. I'm all for letting managers manage their teams how they see fit, but where there's smoke, you have all the reason to make sure there's not a fire brewing. Pretty clear that if he can't defend the moves, then something fishy is afoot. Sorry, but anything doesn't just go in most leagues. If you're suspected of cheating (and there is more than enough reason for suspicion), then you owe the league an explanation. 1. If anyone had questions about his lineup setting, why wait until Week 14? Did no one complain about beating him all season long? Or is it that you don't like the ramifications of the particular loss this week? Did Bwhaely benefit from poor lineup decisions earlier in the season, too? It is completely a judgement call, because you're passing judgement on the owner. And 100 out of 100 people doesn't mean squat, because 100 people don't manage his team. As for hot weeks, yes, Cam was hot Weeks 12 and 13 against the powerhouse Chiefs and Eagle. Curious, though, that Fitzpatrick and Cam were about dead even in points for Weeks 1-11. It's not as clear-cut as you might think. 2. Personally, if I was in last place and playing a relative or close friend, just think of the mileage you could get out of the reminders all winter-long that I smoked your a$$ out of playoffs with Ryan Fitzpatrick. You don't have to like or agree with the moves. Just like you don't have to like or agree with the trades we see all season. I've seen more than enough things that just leave me shaking my head. But if somebody challenged me to justify my decision-making for the team I paid for because they thought I was cheating.... I'd be walking without a moments hesitation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriots Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 This is a tough one but I have to side on the fact that he still put in a valid lineup. It stil could have went the other way and Fitz could have had a career game. Maybe he felt since he was out of it he could take more a chance and play the matchups he liked instead of what others thought? He still put in a valid lineup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) 1. If anyone had questions about his lineup setting, why wait until Week 14? Did no one complain about beating him all season long? Or is it that you don't like the ramifications of the particular loss this week? Did Bwhaely benefit from poor lineup decisions earlier in the season, too? It is completely a judgement call, because you're passing judgement on the owner. And 100 out of 100 people doesn't mean squat, because 100 people don't manage his team. As for hot weeks, yes, Cam was hot Weeks 12 and 13 against the powerhouse Chiefs and Eagle. Curious, though, that Fitzpatrick and Cam were about dead even in points for Weeks 1-11. It's not as clear-cut as you might think. 2. Personally, if I was in last place and playing a relative or close friend, just think of the mileage you could get out of the reminders all winter-long that I smoked your a$$ out of playoffs with Ryan Fitzpatrick. You don't have to like or agree with the moves. Just like you don't have to like or agree with the trades we see all season. I've seen more than enough things that just leave me shaking my head. But if somebody challenged me to justify my decision-making for the team I paid for because they thought I was cheating.... I'd be walking without a moments hesitation. As was said above, if the owner has made questionable moves all year, then maybe give him the benefit of the doubt that he's just an idiot. However, to have been starting Newton and then pull him right as he's heated up and is putting up huge numbers for Fitzpatrick, sorry but that stinks and is worth looking into. As I also said, no you don't have to agree with his reasoning, but if enough people think it looks fishy (which it does), then he owes the league an explanation of why he felt this was his best lineup. Yuo don't have to agree, but he owes an explantion. No one is accusing him yet, but there is plenty enough reason for suspicion here, and so if you walked over being challenged over what is very clearly a fishy looking move right as your playing your son, then sorry, you were probably guilty, because any reasonable person can see that should draw some questions. Believe me that I'm usually on the other side of this argument, but no, you owe to your league to play it the right way. There is nothing wrong with politely asking for an explanation. Just because you pay, doesn't give you the right to skew the standings by starting whoever you want, and heavy suspicion of collusion certainly warrants an explanation. Edited December 10, 2012 by delusions of grandeur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwhaley Posted December 10, 2012 Author Share Posted December 10, 2012 I really appreciate everybody's opinion, that why I asked. I can't seem to justify why it would be done. The other son runs the league so there is not much room for discussion. We are all freinds and its only a 50 dollar league(but I'm fighting for 1st and want the bragging rights). Just thought I would vent a little. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 As was said above, if the owner has made questionable moves all year, then maybe give him the benefit of the doubt that he's just an idiot. However, to have been starting Newton and then pull him right as he's heated up and is putting up huge numbers for Fitzpatrick, sorry but that stinks and is worth looking into. As I also said, no you don't have to agree with his reasoning, but if enough people think it looks fishy (which it does), then he owes the league an explanation of why he felt this was his best lineup. Yuo don't have to agree, but he owes an explantion. No one is accusing him yet, but there is plenty enough reason for suspicion here, and so if you walked over being challenged over what is very clearly a fishy looking move right as your playing your son, then sorry, you were probably guilty, because any reasonable person can see that should draw some questions. Believe me that I'm usually on the other side of this argument, but no, you owe to your league to play it the right way. There is nothing wrong with politely asking for an explanation. Just because you pay, doesn't give you the right to skew the standings by starting whoever you want, and heavy suspicion of collusion certainly warrants an explanation. Pretty much agree with this, sounds fishy and has the potential for collusion. Reading the final post that says the commish is also related, I doubt he's going to say anything. I see no harm in an owner or commissioner asking, "just curious why you sat Cam for Fitzpatrick" and see what the answer is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA Baracus Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 1. If anyone had questions about his lineup setting, why wait until Week 14? Did no one complain about beating him all season long? Or is it that you don't like the ramifications of the particular loss this week? Did Bwhaely benefit from poor lineup decisions earlier in the season, too? It is completely a judgement call, because you're passing judgement on the owner. And 100 out of 100 people doesn't mean squat, because 100 people don't manage his team. As for hot weeks, yes, Cam was hot Weeks 12 and 13 against the powerhouse Chiefs and Eagle. Curious, though, that Fitzpatrick and Cam were about dead even in points for Weeks 1-11. It's not as clear-cut as you might think. 2. Personally, if I was in last place and playing a relative or close friend, just think of the mileage you could get out of the reminders all winter-long that I smoked your a$$ out of playoffs with Ryan Fitzpatrick. You don't have to like or agree with the moves. Just like you don't have to like or agree with the trades we see all season. I've seen more than enough things that just leave me shaking my head. But if somebody challenged me to justify my decision-making for the team I paid for because they thought I was cheating.... I'd be walking without a moments hesitation. Wow...quit a league over being asked to explain a very questionable roster move. That's a bit extreme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Wow...quit a league over being asked to explain a very questionable roster move. That's a bit extreme. Yeah he seems to think that once an owner pays the league fee they can do whatever they want and can never be questioned by the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Yeah he seems to think that once an owner pays the league fee they can do whatever they want and can never be questioned by the league. Go back and read it again. You will see that I said a question is not warranted in this case, and as a commish, I would hear your complaint. However, based on the limited facts presented here, I would let the results stand for what they are. I also gave an example of when a question would be warranted. Though you would to paint it that way, it's not a matter of "absolutes." Now, please tell me the way the question could be asked in a way that does not pull a person's character or integrity into it? "Hey, I noticed you started Fitz over Cam in a critical game against your son that ended up deciding who gets in the playoffs. Care to explain why?" As a commish, if I have to ask you a question, I'm not going to BS around... I'm also going to tell you why I'm asking the question. Sorry, but I need a little bit more than "i don't like the last place team's lineup choice" in Week 14 because I didn't like the outcome. Valid lineup... not one I would start or agree with... but valid and arguable without having to take it further. Also, I noticed the question wasn't answered about Nick Foles. Would everyone be as up in arms if the dad started someone like Foles instead of Fitz? An even lower projection and he absolutely went off. And when did people start complaining? After the game because they didn't like the results, or were they protesting at 1:05 EST? 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.