Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Neil Beaufort Zod

Members
  • Content Count

    4,118
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

212 Excellent

About Neil Beaufort Zod

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Recent Profile Visitors

5,951 profile views
  1. I have 107 as my total (each week's results is in my entry). Can you see if I made a mistake? Thanks.
  2. Used O: Ind (20) Dal (40) Phi (23) Bal (31) Sea (27) Min (23) Cle (37) LV (16) Pittsburgh (24) Green Bay (24) Kansas City (35) Used D: Phi (27) Pit (21) TB (10) Bal (17) LA Rams (10) NE (18) Buf (10) LAC (31) Green Bay (16) NO (13) Miami (20) Total: +107 Week 12: O -- Miami D -- NY Giants
  3. Here's the problem with that stance: If you pre-emptively make the change, and he ended up playing WR/TE during the game...what is your remedy to the team who had him? "Oh, but the rumors and the practice reports and blah blah blah?" Not good enough. Payton came out and said he specifically had not named a starter. If you make that assumption and you're wrong, what's your remedy to compensate the owner? After all, he's already designated as a TE and you're changing it.
  4. This is a good point I had not considered. If it was kept secret, was it really a contingency of the trade, or merely a gentleman's agreement on the side? If two owners have a side bet one week, the league can't force the loser to pay up. It's between them. I think you could argue it wasn't an official part of the trade since it wasn't announced that way, and there would be no repercussions to starting Thomas. If they argued it was an official part of the trade, why wasn't it announced? Tough to claim it was official but unspoken. As an aside, if the league forced the new owner to start Thomas (let's say that's how they ruled it) against his wishes, and Mattison outscored him, how would the league compensate them for costing them a win?
  5. I believed everything I said and stand by it before week 11. Now that we saw the game, I completely agree with what my debate opponents said going forward. They were right that he'd play QB. I was skeptical. But before that, I don't think they should have changed his designation. People say he should have been a WR instead of TE, but I don't really get the difference anymore. Considering that he accumulated almost no QB stats (Hill's behind-center plays were essentially wildcats) I didn't see the rationale for changing, and he wasn't named the starting QB before the game. It's all moot now, but it wasn't a charade for me. Nobody was knocked out of the playoffs due to ESPN's error. All 13-1 teams will make the playoffs. All of them, as in 100 percent. If a team lost four or five games before this, I'd say they have themselves to blame.
  6. I don't know why this has triggered you so badly. It has nothing to do with me. I don't work at ESPN. I promise. If it cost you a win, I hope you go on a tear and win out. If it didn't, I hope whatever caused you to be so upset about it passes soon, and you have an awesome Thanksgiving. Either way, this won't be an issue going forward. Cool?
  7. I think everyone can agree going forward that his designation should now change to just QB. That's based on his usage on the field. Before this week I think he should have been allowed at any position except kicker using the same criteria. But for week 12 and going forward I'm confident the Hill debate is effectively over.
  8. Okay, then I'll address them. 1. The commissioner is a team owner and should be treated exactly like any other. Unless you think the commissioner is an unethical person, why would we assume they're only accepting it because it's their team? Are we assuming the commissioner is a shady person, because that would change things. 2. You keep saying they colluded, which is not proof of collusion. I'm concerned about whether it's a fair condition and if the teams actually colluded. 3. I think we have hit upon the issue. You think a condition is unethical. Is it conditions in general, or just not starting a player that you think is unethical? Because if the team had won anyway, the deal still goes through, right? So it's not "I beat you" as a condition. It's not starting a player you're getting in a trade. Is this correct?
  9. These are two different trades. In the first one, a team gets Mahomes, etc. What does the other team get? In the other, same thing. I don't see how you can make it equitable. If it's all "one trade" then you're talking about renting a player which is very different. That's more than a "condition." I see your point, but I think you used an unrelated example. You'd have to find a way to compensate both sides, and I don't see how you compensate a team on a bye. Plus the other team could just keep Mahomes, etc. and not make the second trade. What team would risk that?
  10. Yes, of course. I agree. No health reasons in fantasy. NFL teams bench perfectly-healthy players. Not hurt at all. They simply don't care about the game, so they let backups get some work and let the starters rest. Kind of loosely-related to "health" but other factors as well. The rationale is different than fantasy, but the strategy is the same. Don't play your best players today = better chance of winning a title tomorrow.
  11. How does that benefit you? And how does it benefit the other team to trade them back to you? In the original example, both teams benefit. How do both teams benefit in either trade?
  12. I apologize for not adding in "within the rules" when saying the goal was to win a championship. I mistakenly assumed it would be understood. I'll be sure to add in that caveat to avoid confusion in the future. It seems like you think if a trade is accepted by both sides, and approved by a commissioner but you don't like it, it's cheating. Okay. That's fine. I'm not buying it. If both teams are trying to win a title and they do that (within the rules) and they both are acting in their own interest (within the rules) then they are doing what they're supposed to do. The goal is not to score the most points (unless it's a total points league). The goal is not to win the most games. The goal is to win a championship. In our game, the winner is the last team standing after week 16 (some leagues are different). If you're tryng to do that (within the rules) then you're not cheating. Just my opinion.
  13. Well, I guess that's where we differ. If both teams are trying to act in their best interests-- and those interests oppose each other (both can't win a title)-- then it can't really be collusion. All we can ask of an owner is that they act in their team's best interests. If they're honestly doing that, it's good gameplay imo.