2022 NFC North Fantasy Football League Discussion (2022 Keeper Deadline August 4th at 8pm CENTRAL)

[Packerraymond]

Just now, Pool said:

Are you going to argue that you played your team competitively? That you were trying to win games each week? That would be blatantly false. And you started a defense on a bye in week 5. So you didn't have one week of playing players on a bye, you had two. And yea, playing a guy who had 0 fantasy football points in back to back weeks is pretty blatant. So is starting Nkeal Harry. I'd bet there are 10 WR's on waivers right now with more fantasy points than him.

It's a keeper league dude, I'm not going to drop a former 1st round WR for some waiver wire fodder to lose by 30 instead of 40.

[Bigbear72]

2 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Lol over my TE selection? I'm in leagues with Squire, my team I took over in the league was literally terrible and you were having problems filling it, no picks and no decent players either but I signed up for a long rebuild. I missed a week due to hunting trip, but every week I had a full lineup of players that were playing. Dawson Knox was out most of the year, I didn't switch it back because to be honest, until the last two weeks it didn't matter, neither scored. 

We shouldn't punish the other team, as that owner should just be kicked out, and taking over that roster with punitive draft picks is going to leave you in the same boat. 

I don't see any agreed upon rule either for not setting a proper lineup. It's fantasy football and not a job, so I'd have strongly vetoed anything that didn't have a grace week in it. 

I understand your position completely for your team. That being said there needs to be a deterrent in place to keep teams from intentionally putting in bad line ups.  Trading away your assets and not having a good enough team to win match ups is one thing.  Intentionally putting in bad line ups is another.

[Packerraymond]

2 minutes ago, Bigbear72 said:

I understand your position completely for your team. That being said there needs to be a deterrent in place to keep teams from intentionally putting in bad line ups.  Trading away your assets and not having a good enough team to win match ups is one thing.  Intentionally putting in bad line ups is another.

Well I inherited a team that did just that, so my team was going to suck no matter what. Worst team in the league last and I didn't have draft picks to fix it, so of course my team was going to be miserable this season.

[Pool]

2 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

It's a keeper league dude, I'm not going to drop a former 1st round WR for some waiver wire fodder to lose by 30 instead of 40.

That isn't what I said either. There's multiple players on your team that are easy drops that aren't former 1st round picks. But I'm not going to argue this. You want to say you weren't intentionally tanking when your roster, lineup decisions, and starting injured/bye week players says otherwise. 

[DannyB]

5 minutes ago, Pool said:

Are you going to argue that you played your team competitively? That you were trying to win games each week? That would be blatantly false. And you started a defense on a bye in week 5. So you didn't have one week of playing players on a bye, you had two. And yea, playing a guy who had 0 fantasy football points in back to back weeks is pretty blatant. So is starting Nkeal Harry. I'd bet there are 10 WR's on waivers right now with more fantasy points than him.

My position on tanking is that it you want to strip your team to the studs, that's totally fine. Owners shouldn't have to pick up FAs that might be better options. Those are assets that they don't have control over, and anybody else has the option to acquire.

My problem is when owners stockpile good players on their roster, but purposely leave them on the bench so they don't contribute to wins. Therefore they are getting the benefit of a higher draft position, while still controlling a valuable asset that nobody else can get.

If you want to tank by dropping any and all good players you have, by all means go ahead.

[Packerraymond]

Just now, Pool said:

That isn't what I said either. There's multiple players on your team that are easy drops that aren't former 1st round picks. But I'm not going to argue this. You want to say you weren't intentionally tanking when your roster, lineup decisions, and starting injured/bye week players says otherwise. 

I was intentionally tanking by taking over the worst team in your league that had given away a bunch of draft picks and had nothing to show for it. This is the worst team in the league no matter what lineup was out there.

[Pool]

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

I was intentionally tanking by taking over the worst team in your league that had given away a bunch of draft picks and had nothing to show for it. This is the worst team in the league no matter what lineup was out there.

I get it. And it is appreciated. You still should have set your best lineups and not started players on byes/injuries etc. I am sure you can appreciate my position in that I tried to be competitive and the two teams that finished below me did not. I am not going to argue any of this any further and will abide by whatever squire/the league decides. 

[squire12]

29 minutes ago, Bigbear72 said:

I have no vested interest in this debate other than I am definitely anti-tanking.  That being said, as someone who is running a league, and given the fact that suggestions were given and discussed, shouldn't you have finalized the rules or at the very least put it to a vote?  As team managers we don't have the capability to do this (unless I missed something).

I dont look at this as "my" league.  I view it as our league where rules are discussed and spelled out.  I was not the original commissioner.  That individual left I offered to run things.  

Everyone has the ability to bring things forward for discussion a votes.  

[Pool]

10 minutes ago, DannyB said:

My position on tanking is that it you want to strip your team to the studs, that's totally fine. Owners shouldn't have to pick up FAs that might be better options. Those are assets that they don't have control over, and anybody else has the option to acquire.

My problem is when owners stockpile good players on their roster, but purposely leave them on the bench so they don't contribute to wins. Therefore they are getting the benefit of a higher draft position, while still controlling a valuable asset that nobody else can get.

If you want to tank by dropping any and all good players you have, by all means go ahead.

I agree to a point. I mean, I could have dropped Tom Brady and started some scrub QB. Would that have been fair? I feel that goes against the integrity or general point of anti tanking rules. 

[Bigbear72]

3 minutes ago, squire12 said:

I dont look at this as "my" league.  I view it as our league where rules are discussed and spelled out.  I was not the original commissioner.  That individual left I offered to run things.  

Everyone has the ability to bring things forward for discussion a votes.  

Fair enough.  I was not clear on that fact otherwise I would have brought it to a vote or been inclined to make a decision.  

 

4 minutes ago, Pool said:

I agree to a point. I mean, I could have dropped Tom Brady and started some scrub QB. Would that have been fair? I feel that goes against the integrity or general point of anti tanking rules. 

I feel that if you want to drop all your players for scrubs for a draft pick then that is on you.  I think it would make your team worse overall using that strategy but each to his own.  Everyone thinks every year that there is a must have rookie...the outcome is often different than what people originally perceive it to be.

[Pool]

14 minutes ago, Bigbear72 said:

Fair enough.  I was not clear on that fact otherwise I would have brought it to a vote or been inclined to make a decision.  

 

I feel that if you want to drop all your players for scrubs for a draft pick then that is on you.  I think it would make your team worse overall using that strategy but each to his own.  Everyone thinks every year that there is a must have rookie...the outcome is often different than what people originally perceive it to be.

Well Brady won't be one of my keepers this year so losing him wouldn't have been much of a loss. I kept him and started him strictly due to our anti tanking discussion prior to this season. I could have made my team significantly worse by dropping him and starting Drew Lock but I didn't because I did not want to be penalized for tanking.

[squire12]

On 5/2/2019 at 7:54 AM, squire12 said:

Might be something to consider to have a 3-4 owner "committee" that can review any claims of "tanking" to get information and make a decision on whether a penalty needs to be issued.  

I agree completely that sometimes life situations will put a fantasy football league on the back burner for a few days to a few weeks or longer and those situations should be handled differently/appropriately.

Anyone want to be apart of such a small committee?   Comes with a fancy title and a nice name plaque!!!!!!!!!!

 

On 5/2/2019 at 10:07 AM, Bigbear72 said:

I'd be game for it.

 

1 hour ago, Bigbear72 said:

I have no vested interest in this debate other than I am definitely anti-tanking.  That being said, as someone who is running a league, and given the fact that suggestions were given and discussed, shouldn't you have finalized the rules or at the very least put it to a vote?  As team managers we don't have the capability to do this (unless I missed something).

 

46 minutes ago, squire12 said:

I dont look at this as "my" league.  I view it as our league where rules are discussed and spelled out.  I was not the original commissioner.  That individual left I offered to run things.  

Everyone has the ability to bring things forward for discussion a votes.  

 

38 minutes ago, Bigbear72 said:

Fair enough.  I was not clear on that fact otherwise I would have brought it to a vote or been inclined to make a decision.  

 

I feel that if you want to drop all your players for scrubs for a draft pick then that is on you.  I think it would make your team worse overall using that strategy but each to his own.  Everyone thinks every year that there is a must have rookie...the outcome is often different than what people originally perceive it to be.

 

 

This is not a new idea on the league being something that every owner has a stake in and has a piece of managing.  The concept of a anti-tanking committee was brought up, but no one really gives much of an issue until it becomes an issue.

[Packerraymond]

24 minutes ago, Pool said:

Well Brady won't be one of my keepers this year so losing him wouldn't have been much of a loss. I kept him and started him strictly due to our anti tanking discussion prior to this season. I could have made my team significantly worse by dropping him and starting Drew Lock but I didn't because I did not want to be penalized for tanking.

I personally don't think that's tanking at all. Brady is old, no reason to roster him on a team that's not playoff bound. That's "rebuilding" to me, not tanking. 

To me tanking would be leaving top 20 players at their position on the bench purposefully. Making your team worse via trade to get younger or playing the 55th best WR in a week instead of the 45th isn't tanking. 

This league has an imbalance of power, there's teams in this league who's benches could smoke my starting lineup. It's going to take some bad years to get to the point where I'm competitive, best way to do that is to try and get the best draft picks I could. I played Kyler every week I had him, to me that was the only player on my roster who Is have been "tanking" to bench.

[Bigbear72]

22 minutes ago, squire12 said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is not a new idea on the league being something that every owner has a stake in and has a piece of managing.  The concept of a anti-tanking committee was brought up, but no one really gives much of an issue until it becomes an issue.

Fair enough.  Who then would like to be a part of the tanking committee?  I apparently said I would a year and a half ago and have no problem doing so.  Who is joining me?

[DannyB]

3 hours ago, Pool said:

I agree to a point. I mean, I could have dropped Tom Brady and started some scrub QB. Would that have been fair? I feel that goes against the integrity or general point of anti tanking rules. 

Again, this could be totally personal, but I wouldn't care if you did that. My problem is deliberately sandbagging by holding on to valuable players but not using them. You're artificially sinking your team that way. If you actually cut all your good players, then your team actually just sucks. "Integrity" can be debated at that point, but I personally don't mind.