Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Have comments been deleted? From what I can see you dramatized what has been said. It was a pretty simple basic question.
I understand playing defensively - keeping players away from others is a strategy - but to do on TNF and then drop them the next day?
Oh I agree, I think it's a ridiculous rule but it's allowed in Yahoo for some reason.
Yahoo does allow it for some reason. You can add players that played on Thursday also up until 1 pm Sunday
You can do it in FFPC leagues. I dropped Gallman for IND DST yesterday.
Weirdest part of the thread imo. It must be very shallow league as both of those RBs have a ton of upside - who would be on the wire that’s better?
true. bad example. let's switch kicker for defense and pretend you have jacksonville, Chicago, or someone else good you dont want to drop
Needs at other positions. Seriously cannot rely on either of those running backs since they are in committee
One team, in first place, dropped Clement for a kicker, Dan Bailey. First, earlier in the week, he dropped Crosby for Fairbairn, then Clement for Fairbairn, leaving him no kicker. With a short bench (4), Clement was the odd man out.
This is incorrect.
Agreed. Players should be locked once their game starts. Even if they're just on the bench, they were available to use and you've "used" the roster spot for the week. Allowing players to be dropped in this fashion, violates roster limits. Site should enforce.
I have no problem with that.
No one is arguing against picking up a player. The issue is related to when a player can be released and the circumvention of roster limits.
Every team has the option to do this, no one has an unfair advantage.
Oh yeah, you shouldn't be able to grab a player after their week's game has started.
If you choose to play Smallwood, you've played 1 of your 15 players already. If you bench him, yes you could drop him for someone else, but you're still choosing from only 15 players to start since you already decided to bench Smallwood for Thurs night.
Of course it does. Don't confuse "starters" with startable options.
Of course I do. But would you agree that I only had the chance to start 15 of them?
Suppose Smallwood is your only borderline player. You're loaded with 14 other undroppable players. But because of byes/injuries, you are debating starting Smallwood. If you start him, you had 15 startable options for the week. If you bench him, sure you can drop him for another startable option, but you're just delaying the decision until Sunday and are picking from the 15 you now have. I think it's mostly just semantics at this point.
As Commish this is something you should have known. You get what you pay for. Next season try a different host.
This week sucks for me. I have Tate and Stafford on bye. My opponent doesn't have anyone on bye. My opponent has an advantage on me this week. But I don't think anyone would call it unfair.
I think this mentality is a shame. People should not go into a thread, ridicule a point, then cowardly duck out from further discussion. I've seen this a lot around here lately and it's frankly an incredibly immature mentality that serves absolutely zero benefit. Inexcusable and shameful. Have the decency to disagree or agree in a mature fashion. If you can't do that, you should probably refrain from posting.
I think you'd be well served to make some tweaks to some of your postings and attitudes. It seems we're going to have to respectfully disagree.
I also bypass the roster limit on Yahoo when I add someone to IR that is eventually not eligible. You're not allowed to make any moves for as long as you have someone on IR that isn't eligible but you effectively bypass the roster limit. Do people have a problem with that too?
I imagine that people have a problem with someone in the IR slot that isn't eligible. Why is that a question?
Your Jeffery Sanders example doesn't demonstrate that there isn't an unfair advantage.
Your Jeffery Sanders example doesn't demonstrate that there isn't an unfair advantage.
The rule itself is the problem, not owners taking advantage of it. Of course guys should look for edges.
