Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About NightStalkers

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

5,100 profile views
  1. This league is very good. This is an opportunity to build something and you get extra picks to work with. We have a solid commish who keeps full an open communication with all league members. How many times did I wish I took over an orphin team and had this kind of head start. Don't miss out...
  2. My view is it has to be stupid value to do anything with those guys. But nothing like current trade values or ADP would be acceptable. I had Zeke for a few weeks last offseason and moved him for Kamara and Conner before the Leveon situation...
  3. For me I think you have to put some guys in a don't draft box. Like Tyreek, Zeke, Hunt, and Mixon. They have either been suspended or have previous incidents. With Zeke I don't really know if he did something or not but no matter what if any of these 3 has an issue a lifetime ban is possible. Kind of like drafting or trading for Gronk not knowing if he will even continue his career. So I pass on those guys....
  4. My guess is the quality of his other WR teammates. Brown and Lodge are considered to be good prospects themselves. Brown may go ahead of Metcalf and I saw some write up a long time ago that said Lodge had better separation than either of them. Can't remember how productive or raw Calvin Johnson was but I remember an article that he had a task master of a WR coach his first few years in Detroit who really refined him. Hope Metcalf gets the same type of coaching. If he learns his craft that size speed combo is in the Calvin/Julio type area.
  5. And who decides who works for a company? As long as this wasn't in the CBA they players don't have a recourse. No matter how good the cause may be. Like I said before the NFL would probably not react much without the money involved...
  6. You might have the right under the bill of rights to use your first amendment rights but your employer can fire you as a representative of the company. Hence the player can be cut and it isn't against the bill of rights. I personally don't have a high opinion of the political people being involved in this. There are 2 basic things going on here. The use of power by political people to further what they want (power and reelections) and the for the league it is about money. if it affects the bottom line the owners and the league office will react to protect that. In the end lower revenues also affect the players as they get a percentage of the pie. Political activism has it's rewards and downsides. Do you favor your checkbook or your principles? That is a decision each player has to make on his own.
  7. I am the other end of this deal. This team was getting older and I reengineered this year. I had no stud RB so I made the deal from one of my strength positions. It was about building my core. OBJ, Nuk, Saquon, and Evan Engram are the core guys on the team. It is a risk to give up that much but I wanted to have a build piece at RB...
  8. in my league it isn't that much. Each league ranges from 25 to up to 250 per team. Most are 25 and 50 leagues. If MFL is like 80 per league I guess so it is less then 10 percent in mine. (50) And if MFL is more then the percentage is less. Like I said he is well known and respected. He is also giving refunds for the leagues if he doesn't commish or if he is walking away.
  9. JohnnyU it does not affect the Hyperactive 1-5. This only affects the leagues that end in a letter. Ryan does not play in these leagues that I know of. He commishes them. The "rake" is not a big amount that I can see at all, especially after MFL fees. My league Hyperactive "O" so far everyone I have seen reply to the email wants Ryan to keep doing the commish job and have no issues with the current setup. Ryan is well known in the industry and this has been disclosed on his "Commish Impossible" podcast so it is really old news. Sounds like someone just wasn't paying attention to the rule sets....
  10. He's in a competition with Gordon for that title. I think I'd have to go back to Koren Robinson to find a proven guy who threw away this much talent over an addiction. If accountants were banned for eating Doritos I'd be in big trouble. lol..Classic Bruce classic
  11. I don't think you understand what "an uncapped year" means.Sure I do. It means sign every free agent you want and pay them whatever you want. It DOESN'T mean pay a guy 20 million one year and 4 million in the other (presumed to be covered by cap) years. It also doesn't mean dumping a guy you would never otherwise be able to dump without a 10 million dollar cap hit in a normal year.Again, it isn't about what the teams spent in 2010. It's about what they WOULD HAVE HAD TO SPEND in 2012. It's about teh extra money they efectively got for this year and next.Goodell and the other owners might lose this battle, but they're still right in fighting it.From a legal point of view they are not right. From a competitive standpoint they may be right. I think in the long run the cowboys get fined 3 Million or so and the redskins get fined 10 million. All of this will be not capped related.
  12. The NFL already approved the contract.The NFL had no choice at that time. To do otherwise would have been collusion then. Had a new CBA never been made....then those contracts could never and would never be questioned.The teams knowingly avoided money payments for a capped year. The teams were notified that utilizing a capped year to avoid payments in a capped year could be held against them under a new CBA...there is no surprise here.This isn't about spending extra money on better players. It's not about "taking advatage of an uncapped year". It's about exploiting an uncapped year to circumvent a capped year. The money penalized is LESS than the actual dollars those contracts would have cost against the salary cap in the CBA approved salary-capped seasons had they been structured in a more normal way.Isn't that a circular arguement being made by the league? We want to collude but won't admit to it by voiding contracts? If the contracts were bad now then they were then. The NFLPA would have gone mad with lawsuits if they were voided because of collusion and the league would have been lible for the damages. So if you do what the league said then you are making yourself open to damages via a NFLPA lawsuit.