"Benching" Players for MNF if already ahead (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

I play in several leagues that let you update rosters up until the start of each player's game for that week--so guys that play on MNF can still be swapped up until game time Monday.So here's the question. If you had a player or defense still active going into Monday yet were holding the slimmest of leads going into the game (and your opponent had no one else yet to play), would you bench that player/defense if your league deduced for turnovers (for offensive players) or took away points from defenses based on points and yardage allowed?To the letter of the law, is this ethical? The other team did not have a chance to pull their players or defense if they were ahead, why should you get the chance?I've had this situation happen to me last year AND the year before. One time, my QB threw a pick on the first drive and was sacked, fumbled, and injured on the next drive for a grand total of -4 for the day. The other time, a WR had only one reception and fumbled and tried a razzle dazzle pass play that was intercepted and also had -4 for the day.I suspect that in leagues with a lot of points taken away for poor defensive play that that would be a common problem as well. I am in that same situation heading into tonight, and I'm trying to decide if yanking th TB defense is an uncool thing to do.

 

[The Man Who Met Andy Griffith]

It's the same as taking a knee. I don't see the problem.

 

[Doug B]

To the letter of the law, is this ethical? The other team did not have a chance to pull their players or defense if they were ahead, why should you get the chance?

Absolutely unethical. Lineups should be frozen after a given point, such as kickoff of the early Sunday games. Every head-to-head fantasy matchup should be X number of starters vs. X number of starters (excepting severe bye week mismanagement).

 

[H.K.]

If league rules allow it then there is no question of ethics involved. So then its a matter of how important the win is versus accumulating more total points.FYI: I voted yes because FF is about strategy and making this kind of choice fits that parameter

 

[Doug B]

It's the same as taking a knee. I don't see the problem.

There's no comparison between this and what happens in an actual NFL game.Your opponents has to start, say, 8 starters, who have scored 50 points. Say 7 of your starters have scored 51 points. IMHO, you should have to assume the risk of starting that eighth player -- your opponent had to.Monday night games shouldn't be treated differently just because they're one day later.

 

[Cazador]

It shouldn't be an option. We are required to start 8 players. The only choice our league rules would allow would be between the TB defense and the STL defense if both were on the same roster. Benching a defense without putting another defense in results in an illegal roster = zero points for the week.

 

[Val Rannous]

Do not allow this. In our league, we allow lineup changes up until 5 mins before game time for each player, BUT our rule is that for it to be a legal lineup, AT ALL TIMES it must consist of 1 QB, 2 RB, 3WR, 1 K, and 1 D, and that teams that have already played have their rosters locked. So the only legal move would be to start somebody else from tonights game. Otherwise they get 0 points for the week by not having a legal lineup.

 

[JAA]

What do your rules say? Other than that, alligator blood

 

[Sammy B]

Ethical? No. Legal? Yes. In the leagues I'm in all rosters are "frozen" as of the week's first game. You're just using your league's rules to avoid a loss. I don't see a problem with that. But you should have the cajones to play the roster you submitted.

 

[nerangers]

Has happened a few times to me.A workaround that I have seen is mainly due to how Yahoo does things is to insert a bye week player. My league wants you to have a full roster, but we do allow for players on bye weeks. That being said, I have seen a Monday night WR swapped out with a bye week WR. If you don't have someone on a bye week, then you can't do it.Dropping someone and not inserting anyone should be considered an incomplete roster, and a zero.

 

[Doug B]

If league rules allow it then there is no question of ethics involved.

Allowed by the rules != ethical. It's just that the aggrieved party has no recourse within the rules.Side question -- did anyone ever play in an old pre-Internet hand-scored league that allowed MNF player benchings? ISTM that this is a relatively new thing that came along with online leagues.

 

[gorf]

Absolutely unethical. Lineups should be frozen after a given point, such as kickoff of the early Sunday games.

ok, maybe lineups should be frozen at the start of the first game. but in a lot of leagues they're not. if they're not -- if your league rules allow you to make these kinds of changes -- why is it unethical?personally, i see no problem with it. it seems like good strategy to me.

let's take the opposite scenario: suppose a player has a team that is just pitiful. we're talking about an absolutely horrendous team here. every RB on the team fumbles an average of 3 times a game, and in fact the team has been scoring negative points some weeks. if you were playing this guy, and he benched his entire roster -- guaranteeing himself a zero score for the week -- would you complain?

 

[glumpy]

Personally I prefer requiring the play of a full and legitimate starting lineup. That would include not starting players on bye, listed as 'out' on the weekly injury report, in jail or suspended, etc.

To the letter of the law, is this ethical?

Two separate questions here. Given my feelings expressed above--I consider it unethical not to play a full roster. If it is allowed in your league bylaws though it is most certainly legal.

 

[davearm]

I'd definitely frown on this, but IMO the solution is to make every player/defense's minimum weekly score be 0... ie, no negative net scores.

 

[Sidewinder16]

To the letter of the law, is this ethical? The other team did not have a chance to pull their players or defense if they were ahead, why should you get the chance?

Absolutely unethical. Lineups should be frozen after a given point

Maybe they "should" and maybe they shouldn't. But I don't think that's the question. He stated his league rules allow it. Where league rules allow it, I don't see it as a problem. Whether or not it should be in the rules in the first place is fairly moot, at this point.

 

[Jason Wood]

How can someone say it's unethical? If the rules allow this, there's NO problem with it...it becomes another feather in potential ways a team owner can maximize his chances for victory.Leagues that are concerned about this should (and do) have rules in place to prevent the occurence. If your league doesn't fall under that umbrella, live (and die) by MNF strategy.

 

[nerangers]

Also it might bite them.I like to track the players they "bench" so they do not get negative points, and see if it comes back to bite them later. Our tie breaker on records is overall points.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

It depends.....many leagues require you to have a full active roster each week....it sounds like yours does not.......our leagues address this by "fining" any owner who submits an illegal lineup....(guy on bye week, no TE, etc)if your league allows you to do it.....then you would be stupid not toountil they change the rules....you must always use the rules to your advantage....I could see this as being a benefit/advantage of having guys playing on Monday Night and argueably maybe part of the reason you chose to play that player instead of another......the NFL schedule comes out before most drafts, so everybody knows who plays on Sun/Mon night.....so everybody could do thisdoes your league use total points scored for anything....???.....because you could justify your move by saying you are operating within the rules of the league and you may actually be taking a chance of scoring less points during the season which could comeback to haunt you....although you are getting a for sure win in the process which is probably more valueable and worth the gamble....using the rules, lineup requirements, add/drop policies, and scoring systems to your advantage is as much part of the game as preparing for the draft.....maybe not as important, but still a part of the game........

 

[Godsbrother]

In our league the only thing you could do would be to switch TB for STL or vice verse. Any other substitution would be a lineup violation and you would get 1 point less than the lowest scoring team in the league, thereby guaranteeing as loss.

 

[Doug B]

Absolutely unethical. Lineups should be frozen after a given point, such as kickoff of the early Sunday games.

ok, maybe lineups should be frozen at the start of the first game. but in a lot of leagues they're not. if they're not -- if your league rules allow you to make these kinds of changes -- why is it unethical?personally, i see no problem with it. it seems like good strategy to me.

It is unethical because the MNF bencher is not assuming the same risks as the player who had to start a full roster just because he didn't happen to have a MNF player.I look at it as akin to letting one team substitute in their highest-scoring bench player after all scores are known, and not letting the other team do the same. IMHO, both teams should assume exactly the same risks with their rosters.

If it's legal in other people's leagues ... hey that's great for them. But I'll never consider it ethical.

 

[jetmonkey]

If league rules allow it then there is no question of ethics involved.

Allowed by the rules = ethical.

Are you sure you understand what ethical means?

 

[Jason Wood]

Absolutely unethical. Lineups should be frozen after a given point, such as kickoff of the early Sunday games.

ok, maybe lineups should be frozen at the start of the first game. but in a lot of leagues they're not. if they're not -- if your league rules allow you to make these kinds of changes -- why is it unethical?personally, i see no problem with it. it seems like good strategy to me.

It is unethical because the MNF bencher is not assuming the same risks as the player who had to start a full roster just because he didn't happen to have a MNF player.I look at it as akin to letting one team substitute in their highest-scoring bench player after all scores are known, and not letting the other team do the same. IMHO, both teams should assume exactly the same risks with their rosters.

If it's legal in other people's leagues ... hey that's great for them. But I'll never consider it ethical.

Doug, you're forgetting that in a typical week the people who have MNF players are assuming RISKS that other league members don't too. It works both ways. For example, If you have a MNF player, who's questionable or a game time decision, that pretty much GUARANTEES you can't play him b/c if he indeed is a no-go, you have no other alternative to substitute in.

 

[davearm]

If league rules allow it then there is no question of ethics involved.

Allowed by the rules = ethical.

Are you sure you understand what ethical means?

:rotflmao: Doug said, "Allowed by the rules != ethical"!= is computer programming code for "not equal to".

 

[Doug B]

To the letter of the law, is this ethical?  The other team did not have a chance to pull their players or defense if they were ahead, why should you get the chance?

Absolutely unethical. Lineups should be frozen after a given point

Maybe they "should" and maybe they shouldn't. But I don't think that's the question. He stated his league rules allow it. Where league rules allow it, I don't see it as a problem. Whether or not it should be in the rules in the first place is fairly moot, at this point.

David Yudkin is also raising an ethical dilemma, which is quite distinct from a rules interpretation.We can debate the genreral ethical merits of the MNF strategy regardless of what goes on in Yudkin's league.

 

[Jason Wood]

Another thought...is this any different than when an NFL franchise decides to rest their key starters in Week 17 when the playoff picture is already locked in stone? Theoretically under your definition of "ethical" this shouldn't be allowed because they are unfairly limiting their teams ability to suffer major injuries that other playoff bound teams would subject their players to.

 

[jetmonkey]

sorry, thought it was a typo ; I'm not a programmer

 

[The Man Who Met Andy Griffith]

To those who say it is unethical, what is the ethical principle that is being violated? Please don't say it's unfair to take advantage of dumb luck because luck happens.To me, this is substantially similar to two other hypos:-College football, team A gets ball first in overtime; team B intercepts pass and runs for TD. Should team B be allowed to just kneel on their possession, or should they have to make a serious attempt to score since team A did?-Fantasy football, you are up by 15. Your opponent has Clayton left, and you can start either Griese or Bulger. You expect Bulger to outscore Griese, but you know that the likelihood of Clayton outscoring Bulger by > 15 is greater than the likelihood of Clayton outscoring Griese by > 15. In otherwords, starting Griese does NOT maximize your expected score, but it DOES maximize your likelihood of winning. Should you have to start Bulger?People seem to be confusing a rule system that they don't like with unethical conduct.nEDIT: changed players in second hypo. Forgot who Griese was playing for.

 

[H.K.]

How can someone say it's unethical? If the rules allow this, there's NO problem with it...it becomes another feather in potential ways a team owner can maximize his chances for victory.Leagues that are concerned about this should (and do) have rules in place to prevent the occurence. If your league doesn't fall under that umbrella, live (and die) by MNF strategy.

100% Correct. Within this league's rules there is no difference between making a choice to start Favre or McNair vs. taking a zero on defense instead of playing TB.People wanting to discuss the rule itself should start another thread on the topic.

 

[Doug B]

Doug, you're forgetting that in a typical week the people who have MNF players are assuming RISKS that other league members don't too. It works both ways. For example, If you have a MNF player, who's questionable or a game time decision, that pretty much GUARANTEES you can't play him b/c if he indeed is a no-go, you have no other alternative to substitute in.

That's a better positive argument then I've normally seen on this issue. However, I am unmoved -- to me, injury concerns and game-time-decisions are the breaks of the game of FF.The ability to start a quantitatively different lineup from one's opponent is a far bigger advantage, IMHO, than a MNF game-time-decision is a disadvantage.

 

[davearm]

To those who say it is unethical, what is the ethical principle that is being violated? Please don't say it's unfair to take advantage of dumb luck because luck happens.To me, this is substantially similar to two other hypos:-College football, team A gets ball first in overtime; team B intercepts pass and runs for TD. Should team B be allowed to just kneel on their possession, or should they have to make a serious attempt to score since team A did?-Fantasy football, you are up by 15. Your opponent has Clayton left, and you can start either Griese or Bulger. You expect Bulger to outscore Griese, but you know that the likelihood of Clayton outscoring Bulger by > 15 is greater than the likelihood of Clayton outscoring Griese by > 15. In otherwords, starting Griese does NOT maximize your expected score, but it DOES maximize your likelihood of winning. Should you have to start Bulger?People seem to be confusing a rule system that they don't like with unethical conduct.nEDIT: changed players in second hypo. Forgot who Griese was playing for.

Better edit the first hypo too, because the game ends on the INT return.

 

[Da Masses]

In all of my leagues it's record followed by total points for each division.It wouldn't be to our advantage to sit a player just because you're winning. May come back to bite you later on in the season when you're tied with someone for first in your division and they edge you out and get a bye for the first week of the playoffs, because you decided to be easy on someone.I voted no

 

[The Man Who Met Andy Griffith]

The ability to start a quantitatively different lineup from one's opponent is a far bigger advantage, IMHO, than a MNF game-time-decision is a disadvantage.

No question, it's an advantage? But so what? In fantasy football you get advantages over the opponent all the time.Your starting RB gets injured; theirs doesn't.Your RB's opposing DL gets decimated by injuries; theirs doesn't.Your QB has a perfect pass bobbled by a normally reliable receiver and then intercepted; those doesn't.In what way is gaining an advantage over your opponent by dumb luck unethical? I'm in a league where I got Reuben Droughns over another guy by a coin flip. Can I still start him?

 

[Maelstrom]

Its called strategy - no question of ethics - part of his strategy is to play a DF on Monday night that he CAN bench if he chooses to (according to the rules) if he was ahead.Just becuase the other guy couldn't do the same is immaterial - he coulda had some monday night players, etc. If he wins becuase he benched the DF, then the stategy paid off. Ethics are a SUBJECTIVE measure in FF - is really depends on the league and the league members as to what is considered acceptable and what isn't.Mike

 

[Cittigirl]

Do not allow this. In our league, we allow lineup changes up until 5 mins before game time for each player, BUT our rule is that for it to be a legal lineup, AT ALL TIMES it must consist of 1 QB, 2 RB, 3WR, 1 K, and 1 D, and that teams that have already played have their rosters locked. So the only legal move would be to start somebody else from tonights game. Otherwise they get 0 points for the week by not having a legal lineup.

Our league is the same way - you can make changes to players anytime before the game starts, but you must change to another player playing so unless you had the Rams D, you couldn't switch out the Bucs D right now.Otherwise if you had Corey Dillon on your bench and you think his 105 yds and 2 TD's will beat Faulk, you could swap Faulk out for Dillon. I also think benching a player for someone that's on a bye to lower your point total is pretty lame. But not illegal if it's not in the rules I suppose. Thing is, you shouldn't be able to do so after you know your opponents final score.Depending on how your league is, you may have to eat this one, but since this has happened to you in the past, and I'd guess you're not alone; try to lobby for a rule change that directly addresses this problem. Maybe your league will pass a rule mid-season if the majority agrees? Otherwise, bring it up during the off-season.

 

[Doug B]

Another thought...is this any different than when an NFL franchise decides to rest their key starters in Week 17 when the playoff picture is already locked in stone? Theoretically under your definition of "ethical" this shouldn't be allowed because they are unfairly limiting their teams ability to suffer major injuries that other playoff bound teams would subject their players to.

Apples and oranges argument to me for two reasons:1) There are no analogs between actual NFL play and FF stat-tracking. I pretty much reject any real-play-based FF argument. FF is nothing like the NFL.2) When an FF player benches a MNF player, they are assured of an outcome -- namely, a zero. When an NFL team rests a player during week 17, they are still not assured of that player's availability for the playoffs, or that player's performance in the playoffs. The player could get hurt in practice the next week, could get rusty from sitting out, could get hurt in the first series, or could just plain stink it up.On top of that, any NFL team can apply the bench-studs strategy at any time -- even in the middle of the game. An FF team can only do the MNF strategy if they happen to have a MNF player -- it's an accident of schedule timing.

 

[Doug B]

The ability to start a quantitatively different lineup from one's opponent is a far bigger advantage, IMHO, than a MNF game-time-decision is a disadvantage.

No question, it's an advantage? But so what? In fantasy football you get advantages over the opponent all the time.Your starting RB gets injured; theirs doesn't.Your RB's opposing DL gets decimated by injuries; theirs doesn't.Your QB has a perfect pass bobbled by a normally reliable receiver and then intercepted; those doesn't.In what way is gaining an advantage over your opponent by dumb luck unethical? I'm in a league where I got Reuben Droughns over another guy by a coin flip. Can I still start him?

Getting advantages over an opponent is kosher because it's something that happened in the actual game play -- it is a result. The idea is that both teams in head-to-head competition should hold to the same initial conditions (e.g. number of starters, etc.) that determine results. If the actual results end up differing, that is not unfairness so long as the initial conditions are the same for both teams.Getting an advantage over an opponent because of a decision made in the NFL offices in April is a different animal to me. YMMV.Re: the coin flip -- of course it's ethical. Both players had the same exact chance at the player.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

On top of that, any NFL team can apply the bench-studs strategy at any time -- even in the middle of the game. An FF team can only do the MNF strategy if they happen to have a MNF player -- it's an accident of schedule timing.

unless his draft was prior to the release of the NFL schedule it is NOT an "accident of schedule timing"....and in fact could/should be viewed as potentially "sharky"

 

[Bad Moon]

I remember a thread from days gone by where someone had used this strategy only to find out the Live Scoring that had him ahead by 1 pt (or whatever the number was) was incorrect - he was actually BEHIND by 1 pt. Unfortunately he didn't find out about that little problem until Tuesday morning. :rotflmao: He was trying to drum up support for his argument that since Live Scoring was wrong, and he had relied on it, he ought to be able to re-activate the player he had benched. What a maroon.I have no problem with the strategy as long as it's legal under your leagues rules. Just be careful!

 

[BlueOnion]

1 The rules stated above say this is a legal move.

2 There is nothing unethical when a move is made that is within the rules and in the spirit of winning.

This move should be considered legal and ethical. The only reason I could possibly see such a move as being unethical is if the fantasy football owner made the move in attempt to lose the game, but this is obviously not the case.

Please consider this…most likely there is a third (and maybe fourth) team which not only would benefit from the trailing team losing tonight, but may also need ‘said team’ to lose tonight. If the team leading tonight started his players (while having a lead) and intentionally gave his team a chance to lose, I would suspect collusion between the two teams tonight.

I think it is unethical to start those players tonight.

 

[Da Flyin Lion]

This actually happened to me in a Yahoo league last year. My oppenent had a 2 or 3 point lead on me going into Monday night. I didn't have anyone left and he still had TO. Instead of risking and Negative score by TO (which is pretty stupid since it's TO) he decided to bench him for Monday night. On Tuesday, when the final scores came out, Yahoo had awarded my Defense an extra TD (I think it was Seattle Defense and K-Rob recovered a Fumble in the endzone which they somehowe ruled a Defensive TD.) Now I was ahead by 3 or 4 points and his decision to bench TO (who had somewhere around a 15 point game) cost him the game. Moral of the Story: Never Bench a player on Monday Night.

 

[Doug B]

On top of that, any NFL team can apply the bench-studs strategy at any time -- even in the middle of the game. An FF team can only do the MNF strategy if they happen to have a MNF player -- it's an accident of schedule timing.

unless his draft was prior to the release of the NFL schedule it is NOT an "accident of schedule timing"....and in fact could/should be viewed as potentially "sharky"

How can it be "sharky"? No drafters can know that they will have a slim lead going into, say, Week 7's MNF game, and can thus employ the MNF-bench strategy.Look, people are bringing up a lot of unrelates arguments, IMHO. It's simple for me:Starting 7 players to my opponents 8is just likeStarting 9 players to my opponents 8Why? Because the initial, pre-result conditions are different for both teams. Everyone uses the same scoring rules, right? Roster specifications should be treated that way.Like I said, if your league is different, cool.

 

[BlueOnion]

What a maroon.

Somebody has to call you out on this one. But I'll be gentle; spelling is not my forte either.

 

[placeholder10391]

To the letter of the law, is this ethical?  The other team did not have a chance to pull their players or defense if they were ahead, why should you get the chance?

Absolutely unethical. Lineups should be frozen after a given point

Maybe they "should" and maybe they shouldn't. But I don't think that's the question. He stated his league rules allow it. Where league rules allow it, I don't see it as a problem. Whether or not it should be in the rules in the first place is fairly moot, at this point.

I can't think of a single reason for saying this is "unethical."If the rules allow it, it is good strategy, then it should be allowed.It's the same thing as burning the last two minutes of the clock by taking a knee. Is it "cheap" to do that and now allow the losing team a chance to get the ball back? Who the hell cares, it is perfectly within the rules and it is sound strategy. You could make similar arugments for an on-side kick. The first time a team did this it was probably viewed as "cheap", but it is within the rules and is good strategy sometimes.The bottom line is this - you have absolutely every right to do it - and you should.I posted some hypotheticals about this a couple weeks ago, and the only downside we could come up with are the following two scenarios:- In leagues where total points is a tiebreaker at the end of the year, it could come into play if you shorted yourself the 10 points or so.- If you have a very small lead (1 or 2 points), and there is some type of scoring change overnight which affects your point total (crediting a turonever to someone else, etc.), you might end up actually losing - and thus losing the game because you benched your only chance to make up the points on MNF.These are strategy calls, and anyone who considers this unethical is simply clueless.

 

[Doug B]

1 The rules stated above say this is a legal move.

2 There is nothing unethical when a move is made that is within the rules and in the spirit of winning.

This move should be considered legal and ethical. The only reason I could possibly see such a move as being unethical is if the fantasy football owner made the move in attempt to lose the game, but this is obviously not the case.

Please consider this…most likely there is a third (and maybe fourth) team which not only would benefit from the trailing team losing tonight, but may also need ‘said team’ to lose tonight. If the team leading tonight started his players (while having a lead) and intentionally gave his team a chance to lose, I would suspect collusion between the two teams tonight.

I think it is unethical to start those players tonight.

I'm not comfortable with treating MNF games as some kind of separate entity from the Sunday games. The FF game is not over until all roster positions have "played".If a team had a slim lead over you before MNF, and you have Bulger, Bruce, and Wilkins going, should they be allowed to bench your players? Of course not. Should they be allowed to "call" the game after the Sunday scores are final? Of course not.

 

[BigActionMike]

This is a good question that has been addressed on the board before. Truthfully, it comes down to your league rules? If there is no requirement to start a full roster then it is a smart move in order to guarantee a win. I view this as a similar plan of attack as when an NFL teams remove studs from the lineup in the fourth quarter. Why risk a loss? You are limiting total point production which can be a tie breaker, or may be paid out... and that affects your team.

 

[Doug B]

These are strategy calls, and anyone who considers this unethical is simply clueless.

It's both good strategy (if allowed) and unethical, IMHO.

 

[Doug B]

Going over this issue with everyone, I think a bigger issue is whether or not to allow an individual player to "go negative". In my money leagues, there are no negative points of any kind, so MNF benching never comes into play. I am not a big fan of negative points for turnovers, missed kicks, etc. either -- IMHO, it's penalty enough that your player doesn't score or that your player's offense has to give the ball up. The penalty of negative points on top of that is overkill, IMHO.But the beauty of FF is that everyone can seek out their own flavor of league and participate.

 

[BlueOnion]

The objective here is to win and any move (or lack there of) that increases a team's chances of losing opposed to winning is outside the spirit of game. I strongly believe starting these players tonight would be unethical and inquiries would have to be made regarding collusion. Starting these players can only result in said team losing and the only motive for starting these players would be to potentially 'throw the game'.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

On top of that, any NFL team can apply the bench-studs strategy at any time -- even in the middle of the game. An FF team can only do the MNF strategy if they happen to have a MNF player -- it's an accident of schedule timing.

unless his draft was prior to the release of the NFL schedule it is NOT an "accident of schedule timing"....and in fact could/should be viewed as potentially "sharky"

How can it be "sharky"? No drafters can know that they will have a slim lead going into, say, Week 7's MNF game, and can thus employ the MNF-bench strategy.Look, people are bringing up a lot of unrelates arguments, IMHO. It's simple for me:Starting 7 players to my opponents 8is just likeStarting 9 players to my opponents 8Why? Because the initial, pre-result conditions are different for both teams. Everyone uses the same scoring rules, right? Roster specifications should be treated that way.Like I said, if your league is different, cool.

he may not know if he will need it but he may know that he "can" use it if neccessary so it might make a difference on what team/players he chooses to play in a given week....In his league because of the way the rules are set up.....this is an example of how having players/teams playing on Monday night might be an advantage.....and why you may or may not play a player/team that week......so knowing the schedule and managing your draft/roster moves/WW pick ups etc.....an arguement could be made that planning ahead of time might allow you to use this rule to your advantage if needed, which in fact he can now do this week....is it blind luck.....maybe....maybe notyou made it seem that is was just dumb luck because of the NFL schedule, when in fact there may have been some strategy involved...

 

[Bad Moon]

What a maroon.

Somebody has to call you out on this one. But I'll be gentle; spelling is not my forte either.

Clearly! That's how Bugs Bunny spells it. Didn't you ever watch Bugs Bunny when you were a kid?