your thoughts on benching Newton

[Ice1]

Regardless how some spin this. The guy tanked the game and that is bad for any league. Anyone who knows anything about this game knows one thing for certain; Every single game Cam goes against weak run defense this season he torches them. Fitzpatrick in a rain storm vs Newton against a crappy run Defense? Really?

 

As far as the Foles against Rodgers comparison earlier, that was closer to a coin flip given Foles looked better last week and was going against an atrocious pass defense. Rodgers has been running for his life for weeks. Rodgers ranks around 17 over the last 4 weeks. Foles 20th, and Fitzpatrick 23rd. (5pt TD league passing)

 

I would have easily started Foles over Fitzpatrick this past week and could at least justify him over Rodgers given how bad he has been due to terrible line play in a desperate swing for the fences game. ( I wouldn't but the 32nd ranked pass defense would at least make it a valid thought process)

 

Can Newton ranks 1st over that span.

 

Not sure it worth making a big an issue over but I know I would think twice before throwing in $50 next season when it is obvious to any player that knows this game what was really going on.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Ice1

[delusions of grandeur]

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?

 

 

Again, I don't care who he starts, but if he's starting the likes of Fitzpatrick and Nick Foles, then it should not be tough to justify why and be done with it. I have no idea why you're so opposed to people asking for an explanation in one of the rare cases where suspicion of collusion is actually warranted. That's doing things very fairly compared to the alternatives, such as a witch-hunt without any chance to defend himself, or even letting it slide as if you don't care...

[BA Baracus]

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?

 

 

That's a fair point, but it doesn't change the fact that the whole thing is very suspicious.

 

It doesn't have to be a witch hunt, a simple email asking why he made those specific lineup decisions would suffice. If he can't give some kind of logic, or refuses to, then it is a clear cut case of collusion. Hell, the guy may not even understand the concept of collusion and freely admit to tanking. Either way, it is questionable enough that a responsible commissioner should ask the question, and it shouldn't take another manager making a stink of it to get the question on the table.