Tanking

General talk about Dynasty Leagues.
FantasyFreak
GOAT
GOAT
Posts: 27107
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 1:03 am

Re: Tanking

Postby FantasyFreak » Sat May 19, 2018 4:32 pm

ArrylT wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 3:56 pm If you dont want players put on taxi squads - dont play in leagues that use taxi squads.

If you dont want to have devy - dont play in leagues that use devy.

If you dont want owners to focus on the long term - play in redraft leagues.

If you want to control how other owners run their teams - then play in leagues that allow vetos.
I don't think it's quite as simple as that. Sometimes there are oversights and grey areas within league by-laws. Nothing wrong about a dialogue about the validity of taxi squad stashing and whether it constitutes tanking, IMO.
"You're a creep. You got caught.." -Dan Patrick

User avatar
ArrylT
Degenerate
Degenerate
Posts: 9526
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 9:32 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Tanking

Postby ArrylT » Sat May 19, 2018 5:05 pm

FantasyFreak wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 4:32 pm
ArrylT wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 3:56 pm If you dont want players put on taxi squads - dont play in leagues that use taxi squads.

If you dont want to have devy - dont play in leagues that use devy.

If you dont want owners to focus on the long term - play in redraft leagues.

If you want to control how other owners run their teams - then play in leagues that allow vetos.
I don't think it's quite as simple as that. Sometimes there are oversights and grey areas within league by-laws. Nothing wrong about a dialogue about the validity of taxi squad stashing and whether it constitutes tanking, IMO.
Well either you allow it for

(a) all rookies
or
(b) for all players
or
(c) you dont have taxi squads.

There is no (or should not be no) option where Rookie A qualifies but Rookie B does not qualify because owners believe that Rookie B is going to have a better statistical season. I would not be surprised if at least 2 rookie RBs end up having a better season that Barkley.

Once you get into rules saying These rookies can be taxi'd but those rookies cannot be - then you're in the realm of telling other owners how to run their teams and what rookies they are allowed to draft if they want to use the taxi squad.

Taxi squad discussions should be about # of spots, length of usage, whether or not poaching can occur and so forth. Not on whether a certain subset of rookies do not qualify to be on taxi squads.

Why stop at Barkley? Lets veto the use of the WR/TE/QB we deem most pro-ready. Lets ban the use of the 1.01 rookie period - and hey if the side effect is that the contending team is now going to have a better chance to buy low on the 1.01 - well thats just a bonus.

What if Barkley had landed at 4 instead? And had Duke & Hyde to deal with, instead of Chubb in that situation - would Chubb then be the guy not allowed to be taxied because we know for 100% certainty he is going to go off for 1600 yards and 16 TDs???

If an owner feels the use of taxi squads is akin to tanking - then the easy solution is mentioned above - do not play in leagues that have taxi squads. Do not join a league that has taxi squads and then badger the league into removing the taxi squads because you dont like them or the idea that Barkley can be taxi'd. Do not complain that an owner is putting Barkley on the taxi squad if the rules allow for rookies to be placed on taxi squads.

This is dynasty - not re-draft.

There is always going to be that 1 player every year that owners are absolutely certain will be a super stud from the get go - I'm sure next year people are going to complain if an owner puts Bryce Love on the taxi squad *shrugs
Please speak to clarion contrarion before considering the use of vetos..

FantasyFreak
GOAT
GOAT
Posts: 27107
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 1:03 am

Re: Tanking

Postby FantasyFreak » Sat May 19, 2018 5:17 pm

ArrylT wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 5:05 pm
FantasyFreak wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 4:32 pm
ArrylT wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 3:56 pm If you dont want players put on taxi squads - dont play in leagues that use taxi squads.

If you dont want to have devy - dont play in leagues that use devy.

If you dont want owners to focus on the long term - play in redraft leagues.

If you want to control how other owners run their teams - then play in leagues that allow vetos.
I don't think it's quite as simple as that. Sometimes there are oversights and grey areas within league by-laws. Nothing wrong about a dialogue about the validity of taxi squad stashing and whether it constitutes tanking, IMO.
Well either you allow it for

(a) all rookies
or
(b) for all players
or
(c) you dont have taxi squads.

There is no (or should not be no) option where Rookie A qualifies but Rookie B does not qualify because owners believe that Rookie B is going to have a better statistical season. I would not be surprised if at least 2 rookie RBs end up having a better season that Barkley.

Once you get into rules saying These rookies can be taxi'd but those rookies cannot be - then you're in the realm of telling other owners how to run their teams and what rookies they are allowed to draft if they want to use the taxi squad.

Taxi squad discussions should be about # of spots, length of usage, whether or not poaching can occur and so forth. Not on whether a certain subset of rookies do not qualify to be on taxi squads.

Why stop at Barkley? Lets veto the use of the WR/TE/QB we deem most pro-ready. Lets ban the use of the 1.01 rookie period - and hey if the side effect is that the contending team is now going to have a better chance to buy low on the 1.01 - well thats just a bonus.

What if Barkley had landed at 4 instead? And had Duke & Hyde to deal with, instead of Chubb in that situation - would Chubb then be the guy not allowed to be taxied because we know for 100% certainty he is going to go off for 1600 yards and 16 TDs???

If an owner feels the use of taxi squads is akin to tanking - then the easy solution is mentioned above - do not play in leagues that have taxi squads. Do not join a league that has taxi squads and then badger the league into removing the taxi squads because you dont like them or the idea that Barkley can be taxi'd. Do not complain that an owner is putting Barkley on the taxi squad if the rules allow for rookies to be placed on taxi squads.

This is dynasty - not re-draft.

There is always going to be that 1 player every year that owners are absolutely certain will be a super stud from the get go - I'm sure next year people are going to complain if an owner puts Bryce Love on the taxi squad *shrugs
Many people within leagues may agree with the line of thinking that a league is better without taxi squads. Many haven't experienced this type of tanking. Especially in a league that allows for rule changes based on vote, why can't an owner propose to do away with the taxi if the league encounters what the OP is suggesting? What if you have been in a league for a while, like it for the most part but realize that after experiencing these types of scenarios that it might be better without it? You should quit the league as opposed to bringing up the idea as a rule change? Seems pretty drastic.

I, in fact did quit a league when a commish starting telling owners they had to promote guys off of their taxi etc., because it was not anywhere within his bylaws, and he also happened to own a first round rookie pick the next year that looked like it could be the 1.01. (Ended up being the 1.02, but he certainly did his best to make it the 1.01 by dictating to owners how to use their taxi squad)

I agree with your overall sentiment, I do, but I do think that in the case the OP suggests, the intent is tanking, and there is another recourse other than quitting a league if you don't agree with the loophole/dodgy method of trying to lose by using the taxi. As I stated earlier, many, if not most leagues do allow for rule changes to be proposed. If the idea gets shot down, then you have to make a decision on what to do.
"You're a creep. You got caught.." -Dan Patrick

Pullo Vision
Degenerate
Degenerate
Posts: 7557
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 11:53 pm

Re: Tanking

Postby Pullo Vision » Sat May 19, 2018 6:06 pm

ArrylT wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 5:05 pmTaxi squad discussions should be about # of spots, length of usage, whether or not poaching can occur and so forth. Not on whether a certain subset of rookies do not qualify to be on taxi squads.
Allowing teams to promote players from the practice squad of other team to their own active roster, unless the original team stops the poach attempt by promoting to their own active roster, seems to be a great way to stop what the OP refers to.
League #1- 14 tm ppr, 1Q, 2R, 3W, 1T, 1 R/W/T, 1K
1 DT, 2 DE, 2 LB, 1 CB, 1 S, 1 flex

League #2- 12 team PPR, 1Q, 1R, 2W, 1T, 1 R/W/T, 1 W/R/T, 1 Def

League #3- 12 tm PPR, 1Q, 0R (yes, ZERO RB) 3W, 1T, 2 R/W/T flex, 1 Def

cd6696
Role Player
Role Player
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 6:59 pm

Re: Tanking

Postby cd6696 » Sat May 19, 2018 6:28 pm

Pullo Vision wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 6:06 pm
ArrylT wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 5:05 pmTaxi squad discussions should be about # of spots, length of usage, whether or not poaching can occur and so forth. Not on whether a certain subset of rookies do not qualify to be on taxi squads.
Allowing teams to promote players from the practice squad of other team to their own active roster, unless the original team stops the poach attempt by promoting to their own active roster, seems to be a great way to stop what the OP refers to.
Allowing other owners to poach from the taxi squad players would eliminate this.

There was an owner in a league that put Zeke on the taxi squad when he came out. There was an initial uproar about it, but otherwise it caused no major issues.

If I'm rebuilding, I'm looking for any advantage I can get over the long term. I will always start what I believe is the best roster, but if I'm able to put a rookie in my taxi squad so he can help me when I need him, I'm doing it. As long as the bylaws don't state otherwise. In one rebuild I traded away all my qbs, so my best lineup each week was a back up qb.

FantasyFreak
GOAT
GOAT
Posts: 27107
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 1:03 am

Re: Tanking

Postby FantasyFreak » Sat May 19, 2018 7:23 pm

cd6696 wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 6:28 pm
Pullo Vision wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 6:06 pm
ArrylT wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 5:05 pmTaxi squad discussions should be about # of spots, length of usage, whether or not poaching can occur and so forth. Not on whether a certain subset of rookies do not qualify to be on taxi squads.
Allowing teams to promote players from the practice squad of other team to their own active roster, unless the original team stops the poach attempt by promoting to their own active roster, seems to be a great way to stop what the OP refers to.
Allowing other owners to poach from the taxi squad players would eliminate this.

There was an owner in a league that put Zeke on the taxi squad when he came out. There was an initial uproar about it, but otherwise it caused no major issues.

If I'm rebuilding, I'm looking for any advantage I can get over the long term. I will always start what I believe is the best roster, but if I'm able to put a rookie in my taxi squad so he can help me when I need him, I'm doing it. As long as the bylaws don't state otherwise. In one rebuild I traded away all my qbs, so my best lineup each week was a back up qb.
This sounds interesting. Can you elaborate on this?
"You're a creep. You got caught.." -Dan Patrick

Online
cazzie33
All Pro
All Pro
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 2:37 pm

Re: Tanking

Postby cazzie33 » Sat May 19, 2018 8:13 pm

cd6696 wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 6:28 pm
Pullo Vision wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 6:06 pm
ArrylT wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 5:05 pmTaxi squad discussions should be about # of spots, length of usage, whether or not poaching can occur and so forth. Not on whether a certain subset of rookies do not qualify to be on taxi squads.
Allowing teams to promote players from the practice squad of other team to their own active roster, unless the original team stops the poach attempt by promoting to their own active roster, seems to be a great way to stop what the OP refers to.
Allowing other owners to poach from the taxi squad players would eliminate this.

There was an owner in a league that put Zeke on the taxi squad when he came out. There was an initial uproar about it, but otherwise it caused no major issues.

If I'm rebuilding, I'm looking for any advantage I can get over the long term. I will always start what I believe is the best roster, but if I'm able to put a rookie in my taxi squad so he can help me when I need him, I'm doing it. As long as the bylaws don't state otherwise. In one rebuild I traded away all my qbs, so my best lineup each week was a back up qb.
Remind me to never invite you into a league I'm running or even in. By the way, are you a corporate contract lawyer ?

Ethics obviously weren't taught to you in either school or at home if you're proud of such tactics. Not to single you out but anyone who has no regard for the rest of the teams in the league is not an owner I want in any league I'm participating in.

Especially annoying is when such tactics are implemented in season . It gives an obvious unfair advantage to those who got to play against a deliberately under manned lineup while the teams that played them earlier had to play a full lineup.

Putting a rookie that wouldn't start for you on the taxi squad is fair game but stashing Saquon to play Matt Breida is obvious tanking and should be punished if tanking is outlawed in the bylaws. Like the poaching aspect as a way to stop the tanking but I could see it causing problems between owners. But that's how it is used in the NFL. Would definitely help in creating parity as the better teams would stand to lose some good depth players in the process.

User avatar
ArrylT
Degenerate
Degenerate
Posts: 9526
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 9:32 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Tanking

Postby ArrylT » Sat May 19, 2018 9:04 pm

cazzie33 wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 8:13 pm
cd6696 wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 6:28 pm
Pullo Vision wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 6:06 pm
Allowing teams to promote players from the practice squad of other team to their own active roster, unless the original team stops the poach attempt by promoting to their own active roster, seems to be a great way to stop what the OP refers to.
Allowing other owners to poach from the taxi squad players would eliminate this.

There was an owner in a league that put Zeke on the taxi squad when he came out. There was an initial uproar about it, but otherwise it caused no major issues.

If I'm rebuilding, I'm looking for any advantage I can get over the long term. I will always start what I believe is the best roster, but if I'm able to put a rookie in my taxi squad so he can help me when I need him, I'm doing it. As long as the bylaws don't state otherwise. In one rebuild I traded away all my qbs, so my best lineup each week was a back up qb.
Remind me to never invite you into a league I'm running or even in. By the way, are you a corporate contract lawyer ?

Ethics obviously weren't taught to you in either school or at home if you're proud of such tactics. Not to single you out but anyone who has no regard for the rest of the teams in the league is not an owner I want in any league I'm participating in.

Especially annoying is when such tactics are implemented in season . It gives an obvious unfair advantage to those who got to play against a deliberately under manned lineup while the teams that played them earlier had to play a full lineup.

Putting a rookie that wouldn't start for you on the taxi squad is fair game but stashing Saquon to play Matt Breida is obvious tanking and should be punished if tanking is outlawed in the bylaws. Like the poaching aspect as a way to stop the tanking but I could see it causing problems between owners. But that's how it is used in the NFL. Would definitely help in creating parity as the better teams would stand to lose some good depth players in the process.
And I am sure that the next time in-season you get an offer of

Give random 2019 1st

Get AJ Green

You'll reject the offer because accepting this trade is completely unfair to your future opponents because your team would now be much stronger than it was compared to the past opponents. :lol: :lol:
Please speak to clarion contrarion before considering the use of vetos..

User avatar
ArrylT
Degenerate
Degenerate
Posts: 9526
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 9:32 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Tanking

Postby ArrylT » Sat May 19, 2018 9:19 pm

FantasyFreak wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 5:17 pm
Many people within leagues may agree with the line of thinking that a league is better without taxi squads. Many haven't experienced this type of tanking. Especially in a league that allows for rule changes based on vote, why can't an owner propose to do away with the taxi if the league encounters what the OP is suggesting? What if you have been in a league for a while, like it for the most part but realize that after experiencing these types of scenarios that it might be better without it? You should quit the league as opposed to bringing up the idea as a rule change? Seems pretty drastic.

I, in fact did quit a league when a commish starting telling owners they had to promote guys off of their taxi etc., because it was not anywhere within his bylaws, and he also happened to own a first round rookie pick the next year that looked like it could be the 1.01. (Ended up being the 1.02, but he certainly did his best to make it the 1.01 by dictating to owners how to use their taxi squad)

I agree with your overall sentiment, I do, but I do think that in the case the OP suggests, the intent is tanking, and there is another recourse other than quitting a league if you don't agree with the loophole/dodgy method of trying to lose by using the taxi. As I stated earlier, many, if not most leagues do allow for rule changes to be proposed. If the idea gets shot down, then you have to make a decision on what to do.
Absolutely - an owner should have the ability to propose changes. I think there is an obvious difference between saying

"I had never played in a league with taxi squads, and after playing with them, I still think our league would be better off without taxi squads - can we consider it and put it up to a vote"

vs

"I think using taxi squads is unethical/tanking/wrong and this league needs to remove taxi squads because Owner X is a cheater for putting Player Z on the taxi squad"

which is what I mean by badgering. ;)

As for the part that I underlined - thats part of what I am talking about - plenty of people argue against "tanking" because it is bad for the common good - but they are actually masking either (a) a desire to make other owners play the same way they do or (b) trying to benefit personally while arguing its for the common good.
Please speak to clarion contrarion before considering the use of vetos..

cd6696
Role Player
Role Player
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 6:59 pm

Re: Tanking

Postby cd6696 » Sat May 19, 2018 11:34 pm

cazzie33 wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 8:13 pm
cd6696 wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 6:28 pm
Pullo Vision wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 6:06 pm
Allowing teams to promote players from the practice squad of other team to their own active roster, unless the original team stops the poach attempt by promoting to their own active roster, seems to be a great way to stop what the OP refers to.
Allowing other owners to poach from the taxi squad players would eliminate this.

There was an owner in a league that put Zeke on the taxi squad when he came out. There was an initial uproar about it, but otherwise it caused no major issues.

If I'm rebuilding, I'm looking for any advantage I can get over the long term. I will always start what I believe is the best roster, but if I'm able to put a rookie in my taxi squad so he can help me when I need him, I'm doing it. As long as the bylaws don't state otherwise. In one rebuild I traded away all my qbs, so my best lineup each week was a back up qb.
Remind me to never invite you into a league I'm running or even in. By the way, are you a corporate contract lawyer ?

Ethics obviously weren't taught to you in either school or at home if you're proud of such tactics. Not to single you out but anyone who has no regard for the rest of the teams in the league is not an owner I want in any league I'm participating in.

Especially annoying is when such tactics are implemented in season . It gives an obvious unfair advantage to those who got to play against a deliberately under manned lineup while the teams that played them earlier had to play a full lineup.

Putting a rookie that wouldn't start for you on the taxi squad is fair game but stashing Saquon to play Matt Breida is obvious tanking and should be punished if tanking is outlawed in the bylaws. Like the poaching aspect as a way to stop the tanking but I could see it causing problems between owners. But that's how it is used in the NFL. Would definitely help in creating parity as the better teams would stand to lose some good depth players in the process.
Actually I am a school teacher and we teach ethics in our homeroom program. I've never asked to be in any of your leagues, I think we're good there.

Every week I try my best to win. I start my best line up each and every week. But if I can trade away points for injured players, future picks, suspended players that will add value to my roster and in turn potentially make my pick higher, that's a move I'm willing to make. Rebuilders everywhere were making trades for OBJ after he got injured, or Josh Gordon after one of his many suspensions, or trading aging vets for rookie picks. Isn't that cheating and unfair to teams that have to play them later? . If I'm rebuilding a team and my starting QB is Tom Brady, and I move him for Lamar Jackson, who doesn't start, I would definitely be proud of such tactics. I feel most owners would agree.

Yes it does suck if you are in a league and a team is rebuilding and their team is full of IR guys, future picks and rookies by the 2nd half of the season and the other members are getting easy wins. I would suggest you make your last playoff slot on Potential Points instead of standings. This takes out some of the luck of the schedule factor and doesn't give owners anything to whine about because one team in the division has Luck, Rodgers, DJ, Dalvin Cook, OBJ, Davis, Gordon, Reed, Eifert, and a bunch of rookie picks.

FantasyFreak
GOAT
GOAT
Posts: 27107
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 1:03 am

Re: Tanking

Postby FantasyFreak » Sun May 20, 2018 12:19 am

ArrylT wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 9:19 pm
FantasyFreak wrote: Sat May 19, 2018 5:17 pm
Many people within leagues may agree with the line of thinking that a league is better without taxi squads. Many haven't experienced this type of tanking. Especially in a league that allows for rule changes based on vote, why can't an owner propose to do away with the taxi if the league encounters what the OP is suggesting? What if you have been in a league for a while, like it for the most part but realize that after experiencing these types of scenarios that it might be better without it? You should quit the league as opposed to bringing up the idea as a rule change? Seems pretty drastic.

I, in fact did quit a league when a commish starting telling owners they had to promote guys off of their taxi etc., because it was not anywhere within his bylaws, and he also happened to own a first round rookie pick the next year that looked like it could be the 1.01. (Ended up being the 1.02, but he certainly did his best to make it the 1.01 by dictating to owners how to use their taxi squad)

I agree with your overall sentiment, I do, but I do think that in the case the OP suggests, the intent is tanking, and there is another recourse other than quitting a league if you don't agree with the loophole/dodgy method of trying to lose by using the taxi. As I stated earlier, many, if not most leagues do allow for rule changes to be proposed. If the idea gets shot down, then you have to make a decision on what to do.
Absolutely - an owner should have the ability to propose changes. I think there is an obvious difference between saying

"I had never played in a league with taxi squads, and after playing with them, I still think our league would be better off without taxi squads - can we consider it and put it up to a vote"

vs

"I think using taxi squads is unethical/tanking/wrong and this league needs to remove taxi squads because Owner X is a cheater for putting Player Z on the taxi squad"

which is what I mean by badgering. ;)

As for the part that I underlined - thats part of what I am talking about - plenty of people argue against "tanking" because it is bad for the common good - but they are actually masking either (a) a desire to make other owners play the same way they do or (b) trying to benefit personally while arguing its for the common good.
OK. Glad that was cleared up. Agreed.
"You're a creep. You got caught.." -Dan Patrick

jordanzs
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame
Posts: 4003
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 3:11 pm
Location: USA

Re: Tanking

Postby jordanzs » Sun May 20, 2018 11:36 am

Side question about legally tanking in leagues that use potential points to determine draft order:

Last year is a great example. What if early in the year you traded away Leveon Bell, Hopkins, and Fournette for David Johnson, OBJ, and Dalvin Cook. You did this after their injuries.

Would that skew your weekly “potential points” way down because they will score zero that week? And even projected to score zero?

Is that how it works?

If so, that seems like a smart strategy to give yourself a competitive edge for next year.

Last season, I made a trade like that with an owner, but we don’t use potential points. I got leveon and Matt Ryan. He got David Johnson and Wentz. I went on to make the title. His lack of leveon points in his lineup helped to secure barkley for him. Win-win.

FantasyFreak
GOAT
GOAT
Posts: 27107
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 1:03 am

Re: Tanking

Postby FantasyFreak » Sun May 20, 2018 11:44 am

jordanzs wrote: Sun May 20, 2018 11:36 am Side question about legally tanking in leagues that use potential points to determine draft order:

Last year is a great example. What if early in the year you traded away Leveon Bell, Hopkins, and Fournette for David Johnson, OBJ, and Dalvin Cook. You did this after their injuries.

Would that skew your weekly “potential points” way down because they will score zero that week? And even projected to score zero?

Is that how it works?

If so, that seems like a smart strategy to give yourself a competitive edge for next year.

Last season, I made a trade like that with an owner, but we don’t use potential points. I got leveon and Matt Ryan. He got David Johnson and Wentz. I went on to make the title. His lack of leveon points in his lineup helped to secure barkley for him. Win-win.
Nothing wrong with trading away for the future. Potential points is how many points you would have scored, even if you left guys on your bench that scored more. So if you sat Fournette for Andre Ellington, Fournette's higher score would still go to your Potential Points. (it's your best possible starting lineup, like a bestball league) It's designed to stop people from playing a bad lineup to tank for the better pick next year. The problem is, on most taxi squads, the Potential points of the player aren't included, so Barkley's Potential points don't count towards your lineup, thus giving you a better shot at next years draft pick.
"You're a creep. You got caught.." -Dan Patrick

User avatar
BelichekYourSelf
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame
Posts: 4687
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 10:49 am
Location: Virginia

Re: Tanking

Postby BelichekYourSelf » Sun May 20, 2018 1:39 pm

If the league rules allow it I see no problem keeping Barkley on your taxi squad.

The way my leagues do the Taxi Squad is that only rookies drafted after the 1st round of our rookie drafts can be placed on it. Stops people from putting players like Barkley on there.
12 Team. Roster 22, 4 TS. PPR, TE Prem (1.75). Start 1 QB, 5 flex (2 RB Max), 1 Def, 1 K
QB P. Mahomes, J. Goff, B Zappe (TS)
RB S. Barkley, N. Chubb, R. Stevenson, T. Pollard, J. Cook, K. Herbert, A. Mattison, E. Mitchell
WR AJ Brown, DK Metcalf, C. Kupp, A. Cooper, D. Hopkins, DJ Moore, B. Aiyuk, R. Doubs, K. Boutte (TS), C. Tillman (TS), M. Wilson (TS)
TE M. Andrews
Def Patriots, Ravens

Online
cazzie33
All Pro
All Pro
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 2:37 pm

Re: Tanking

Postby cazzie33 » Sun May 20, 2018 5:08 pm

"Actually I am a school teacher and we teach ethics in our homeroom program. I've never asked to be in any of your leagues, I think we're good there.

Every week I try my best to win. I start my best line up each and every week. But if I can trade away points for injured players, future picks, suspended players that will add value to my roster and in turn potentially make my pick higher, that's a move I'm willing to make. Rebuilders everywhere were making trades for OBJ after he got injured, or Josh Gordon after one of his many suspensions, or trading aging vets for rookie picks. Isn't that cheating and unfair to teams that have to play them later? . If I'm rebuilding a team and my starting QB is Tom Brady, and I move him for Lamar Jackson, who doesn't start, I would definitely be proud of such tactics. I feel most owners would agree."

So you'd have no problems if you're a game behind and I'm playing a buddy that you need to catch for the last playoff spot and I go to him and say "Give me a first and a second rd then I'll give you A. Rodgers and have no QB to beat you with. It will improve my draft position and give me more picks next year. My team is not going to be in the playoffs anyway." And I do that after playing your team the week before and beat you cuz A. Rodgers scored 35 points. Not a problem :liar:

And your scenario that you laid out here isn't what you said you did. You claimed that you purposely constructed a lineup w/o a single starting QB. If you did that from week one then it wouldn't be giving certain teams an advantage. Still I wouldn't want you in a league I'm going to be in. But doing it in the middle of the season is giving teams a huge advantage vs the ones you played with a full lineup.

Trading to rebuild and having a weaker starting lineup is fine. But purposely having a starting lineup with players known to not be playing is utterly B.S. Hoping you don't teach those ethics in your classroom.

Nobody is giving up Odell, Aaron, DJ,Luck, etc...or any such player for peanuts. In all of the leagues I played in the return was Le'Veon, D. Carr, J. Landry, D. Freeman,etc...So while you had a dead spot (unless your lg. has an IR designation) you still had to play someone that would be in the game that week. If you played backup players all the time to secure the top draft spot next season you should be booted from the league.

If you played B. Hundley in place of A. Rodgers then there's no bitch. Obviously you aren't going out of your way to field the best possible team but even Hundley could have a big game on any given Day. That's not what you said you did.

And no I don't agree most owners would be fine with you trading Brady midseason and going with a Lamar Jackson the rest of way knowing he doesn't dress or isn't listed on the 53 man active roster game day. That's a weasel move and I sure wouldn't be proud of it. Make the trade ,fine. Then get a Nathan Peterman if you like or Ryan Fitzmagic as long as they are starting that week. If it makes you feel better to play semantic games and say "but Lamar Jackson is my best QB to put in my lineup" because you traded yourself into him being your ONLY QB then in my book you are unethical and cheating other owners in the league.

And now I'm sure some will come here to say "if it's not written in the bylaws it isn't cheating". That's why lawyers have such low approval ratings along with congress members. They hide behind legalities to cover up their lack of ethics.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 81-, Ahrefs [Bot], cazzie33, Farley and 37 guests