HappyFace Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 I don't get this rule in any of it's intrepretations. I believe its the owners responsibility to play a viable team. If for some reason he deems he can win without playing the full complement he should be able to try to do so. That is provided he has his positioning correct. Several years ago I had only one Tight End (Gates), with a late bye week and was doing quite well in the league. Being very sure I could win without dropping him or letting a good player go to pickup a replacement stiff, I elected to start Gates anyway. I knew I was a man short but I easily won the game and saved Gates and my roster for the playoffs. I think this and other strategies are part of the game. I don't want any Commisioner changing my guys around or charging me for substitutions someone else made, EVER. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 Sounds like a pretty ridiculous rule to me - way over the top insofar as making sure owners stay on top of things. What happens if you intentionally want to leave a slot open b/c you don't have anyone worth dropping and think you can win your game that week playing a man short? The "council" forces you to drop someone? Foolish. +98749823747293847729384727934872394873274982374792384723 This might be the worst rule in fantasy history. If a guy on your team is injured for only a week or two and you would rather take a zero than drop him - that should be your perogative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goopster24 Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 I find it pretty funny that everyone is just ripping this rule apart, with no mercy. Not saying it doesn't deserve to be, but still.... 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.