| 0 |
Subject: Debate raging! lol Seeking broad input
Posted by: sarge33rd
- [575352217] Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 12:57
As I stated in this thread;
keeper league player keeping philosphies
our league currently requires all managers to keep 3 players. I have once again,. proposed that we allow a manager to keep none, 1,2 or 3 as they deem appropriate. This noone seems to have any problems with. It is the subsequent draft rd that is causing the controversy. (If thats even the right word.)
My contention is, if I for ex, only keep 2 players, then I get what amounts to a 3rd rd pick from all available players. In the highly unlikely event that I am the only manager who doesnt keep 3, and I have the 1st overall pick due to a last place finish in the previous season, then I;d get the first 2 picks off the board from all available players.
The counter to this proposal, is to have a manager keeping less than 3, fill out their roster AFTER the draft is otherwise overwith.
Now, the reason for not wanting to keep 3, might be that looking over your roster, you have a viable 1st and 2nd rd pick on the squad, but nobody else you rate above a 6th rd pick. By requiring you to name 3, you are essentially burning a pick in what amounts to rd3, to take a player who shouldnt go for 3 more rounds. If we require that manager to pick at the end of the draft. (Rd 17) we're requiring a manager to essentially trade away a 3rd pick for a 17th rd pick. This to me, makes less than no sense at all.
Thoughts? |
| 1 | Perm Dude
ID: 30650127
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 13:00
|
You aren't describing the counterproposal correctly, sarge.
The counterproposal would be to hold a supplemental draft before the waiver period begins to fill out those rosters not yet full. Draft order would remain the same as in the regular draft.
Your description makes it sound like a manager needs to fill out their roster by competing on the waiver wire or FA market, which isn't the case in the counterproposal.
|
| 2 | Species
Leader
ID: 07724916
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 13:02
|
I'm just curious, in regards to "broad input":
1 - Are you asking for a "wide range" of input?
2 - Only seeking the opinions of 'tough' females - i.e. "she's one tough broad"?
;-)
|
| 3 | Perm Dude
ID: 30650127
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 13:03
|
I believe he might also be asking for "foxy" input.
:)
|
| 4 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 13:03
|
you indicated that the supplemental draft, would occur AFTER the normal draft. Yes, before F/A but after rd 16 of the draft. This in essence, makes this supplemental draft, rd 17,18 and potentially 19. You get, by surrendering what amounts to your 1st 3 picks.
I for one, utterly fail to see how not keeping an 8th, 9th and 10th rd player, and gaining a 17th,18th and 19th rd pick in lieu...is going to enable me to "build a team".
|
| 5 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 13:04
|
wide range and particularly from foxy broads. :)
|
| 6 | Perm Dude
ID: 30650127
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 13:10
|
Re #4: I don't think it is an "utter" failure at all. I think it is a matter of reference: You are just not seeing my counterprosal as much of an advantage over the current rules as your proposal would be.
Its like Republicans who claim Democrats are for tax increases because the Dems are voting against larger tax cuts. You have to compare each proposal to the current system. Will my proposal help the weaker teams? You bet. But not as much as your proposal will, and that's because I think your proposal helps the weaker teams at the expense of those teams who have worked hard to build a core of keepers.
And, keep in mind, that keepers are not draft picks.
|
| 7 | The Fantasy Broad
Dude
ID: 439372011
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 13:29
|
I play in two keeper leagues. One does what sarge wants to do (each keeper held is in lieu of a Top 3 round pick). One (Exit 42) allows you to keep up to 5 players (I think it's 5, maybe 4?) and for each one you keep, you get an additional choice at the end of the draft. Now in that one, it's suicidal to keep less than the maximum number of possible keepers.
Either way is reasonable, as long as everyone knows about it before they have to designate keepers. I mean, if it's a 12 team league and you have 6 managers voting for one option and 6 voting for the other, you could have a problem. But that doesn't sound like the case to me.
I agree that parity is aided by equating keepers with the first 3 rounds of the draft. It makes it much tougher to build a good team if you have 5th round talent for keepers, and you are stuck with extra picks in the 18th+ round if you hang onto them. But it's not necessarily ludicrous. Just a different style.
|
| 8 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 13:42
|
I disagree on virtually all counts. In no way do I benefit by surrendering a player I can get in the 5th rd, or 7th rd, for one I take in what amounts to the 17th rd. Not unless I get just stupid lucky with that 17th pick and stupid unlucky with that 5th rd pick.
|
| 9 | Kyle
ID: 261371521
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 14:14
|
I believe that what you should do is something similar to the baseball draft. You have a round based on record and then a supplement at the end of each round. For example: In an 8 team league you have players a thru h and they finish in alphabetical reverse order so that A drafts first and H last (for ease). Here's what I think you should do:
Keepers:
a- keeps 0
b- keeps 1
c- Keeps 1
d- Keeps 2
e- Keeps 2
f- Keeps 2
g- Keeps 3
h- Keeps 3
Round 1
1-1. A
1-2. B
1-3. C
1-4. D
1-5. E
1-6. F
1-7. G
1-8. H
Round 1 Supplement
1s-1. A (Kept 0 Players)
Round 2
2-1. A
2-2. B
2-3. C
2-4. D
2-5. E
2-6. F
2-7. G
2-8. H
Round 2 Supplement
2s-1. A
2s-2. B (Kept 1)
2s-3. C (Kept 1)
Round 3
3-1. A
3-2. B
3-3. C
3-4. D
3-5. E
3-6. F
3-7. G
3-8. H
Round 3 Supplement
3s-1. A
3s-2. B
3s-3. C
3s-4. D (Kept 2)
3s-5. E (Kept 2)
3s-6. F (Kept 2)
The rest of the rounds would go like normal. If that's what people have described already I am sorry for the reiteration. I just felt like I'd understand what I was trying to say if I wrote it out long hand.
|
| 10 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 14:21
|
I can accept that. Holding the supplemental draft as each rd otherwise goes by. I cant see where anyone in ouor league cant name 1 and very few couldnt see their way clear to name 2 viable keepers. (Players worthy of a 1st or 2nd rd pick)
So the earliest supplemental under that scheme, would be a rd 2 pick, and I doubt more than 2 or 3 managers would be involved.
Then those managers who had a rd supplemental pick, would execute their rd 3 selection, followed by a suplemental rd for them and those managers who only kept 2.
This would then be followed by our normal draft routine until all rosters were fleshed out.
|
| 11 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 17:24
|
I'm assuming I have an email I haven't seen yet.
Will put down my thoughts once I do.
I think I know how I feel, but want to make sure.
Cliff
|
| 12 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 18:18
|
I'm assuming I have an email...
an email? hmmmmmmmmm you could say that. ;)
|
| 13 | Perm Dude
ID: 30650127
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 19:08
|
Just read the ones from me. I'm sure I captured the other side's argument well, and it'll save you time.
:)
|
| 14 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 20:17
|
lmao
|
| 15 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 21:01
|
I like Kyle's proposal in post #9. I like it better than having the "predraft fill-in" for keepers and much better than the "end of the draft fill out your roster" solution.
You are only talking about 3 keepers per team. Everyone should have three solid keepers at the end of each season. If they want to toss them back to go fishing again, why not?
I had my neighbor, who is a large, tough-looking broad, provide her input for this response.
|
| 16 | Perm Dude
ID: 30650127
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 21:12
|
A broad broad? Double points!
|
| 17 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 21:24
|
OK, I added to the 90 or whatever it is email thread on this.
And hell, ya never know if I might not throw PM back for Bush.
Cliff
|
| 18 | Promize
ID: 141018197
Sun, Jul 16, 2006, 10:46
|
They didn't enter the formula for "hair pulling" "key pounding" moments the commish will have to endure in the limited time he has - in either of their discussion. :)
|
| 19 | Promize
ID: 141018197
Sun, Jul 16, 2006, 11:13
|
Question:
Say that the last place team picks all his keepers.. He actually has a very good core team, but just had a bunch of bad mishaps last year. Yet he still finished in last place.
Say that everybody else but the Top Place team keeps all their keepers also.
So, the top place team decides to drop 1 player.
So under Sarges suggestion, he would get the first pick in our draft before anyone else correct?
And most likely, that Top Place finishing team will probably pick Reggie Bush. Which will only increase the strength of that top place team and decreasing the lower ranked teams?
This would be the same case with PD's suggestion.
Am I missing something, isn't this just hurting those lower seeded teams who are probably excited about a chance for Reggie Bush, Young, etc etc... But they might not get that chance goes another team didn't like team enough to keep 3 keepers?
I can easily see a mediocre team not taking any of their 3 keepers and picking up 3 potential YOUNG studs superstars.
================================================
Here is another problem, how do you do the keeper decisions.
I see people waiting till 11:59 of the deadline to see who dropped or who kept who. If higher drafting teams before me all decide to keep 3 keepers, heck I might drop all my players just for the chance to get 3 young new studs.
We as a league would then have to vote on another rule I guess on the order of who has to claim their keepers. Or some sort of random keeper decision dice roll.
Am I reading too much into this and seeing to many other angles? OR is this a legitimate claim?
At this point I think 3 keepers period is way it should be.
|
| 20 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Sun, Jul 16, 2006, 11:59
|
"Which will only increase the strength of that top place team and decreasing the lower ranked teams?"
In your example he is keeping two people. How can you judge the strength of a team based on two players? You would be hard pressed to find a better set of keepers than Larry Johnson and LT, but those two players alone don't constitute a "team"
The reality is that teams with a weak set of keepers will be able to get better keepers and teams with strong keepers will have to make a tough decision. I still like Kyle's plan in post #9 much better, though.
On keepers, I would have a deadline where they are all emailed to the commish and once they are all turned in, he posts them before the draft.
|
| 21 | sarge33rd
ID: 2464896
Sun, Jul 16, 2006, 12:50
|
agree with TB's sentiment re notifying the commish.
re your scenario Promize...yes. That is precisely what would happen IF the league chamion threw back into the pool, more players than anyone else.
All this would do, is allow each manager to "manage" their rosters between seasons. You have 3 guys you really like as keepers? Great, keep them. But by what "right" do you dictate that I keep players I'd just as soon toss back?
Counter to your scenario....
I finish last in the season. During the off season, due to trades and drafts, I dont have a single starter on my squad. Not one. Yet under the current rules, I'd have to name 3 as "keepers". How does it improve a last place team, to keep guys who are sitting on the bench? (Ridiculously extreme example I'll admit, but no less plausible than one you put forward.)
And as I said in post 10, I too could live with kyles post 9 suggestion.
|
| 22 | sarge33rd
ID: 2464896
Sun, Jul 16, 2006, 12:53
|
and I'm not pulling hair.
I'm just biting...
and scratching...
OK, and pinching
and kicking every once in a while.
:)
|
| 23 | Perm Dude
ID: 296141619
Sun, Jul 16, 2006, 20:45
|
I'm going to mention here as well that my counterproposal takes care of that loophole without the need for corrective legislation.
|
| 24 | sarge33rd
ID: 2464896
Sun, Jul 16, 2006, 21:05
|
your counter PD, trades out what amounts to a 3rd rd pick, by granting what amounts to a 17th rd pick.
I'd much rather keep a 5th or 6th rounder, than start the draft 1 or 2 bodies short. Then after everyone has their 16 players drafted, golly...I get to pick from the F/A pool. Thats a bad deal, any way you look at it.
|
| 25 | Perm Dude
ID: 296141619
Sun, Jul 16, 2006, 21:46
|
Your preferences aren't the issue. I'd rather have a different team myself. Your proposal makes a loophole that mine doesn't. And adding some changes (after voting has started) just isn't kosher.
I hope you'll consider my email suggestions to simply work within the rules we have and trade a draft pick for a keeper-level player, since that's really what you want to do anyway.
|
| 26 | sarge33rd
ID: 2464896
Sun, Jul 16, 2006, 23:19
|
My proposal makes no "loophole". It creates a scenario wherein you can keep any nr of players you like, upto the league maximum. What it doesnt do, is penalize you if you keep less than the maximum.
No changes have been made in the proposal "since the voting started". As for "play within the rules'....we've addressed that in private emails. You know where I stand re your ability to lay that one at my feet.
|
| 27 | sarge33rd
ID: 2464896
Sun, Jul 16, 2006, 23:21
|
Now...for why I came back in here in the firstplace.
CBSSPORTSLINE.COM, has it setup so that the individual managers can name their keepers upto the league max. This data is not visible to other managers. Once the "set keepers by date" goes past, cbssportsline I believe, will automatically clear the rosters except for the designated keepers. In this way, no manager can "sandbag" his decision and wait to see how many players the other managers are keeping.
|
| 28 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 09:37
|
I am not in this league or involved in any of the email strings, but, IMO, any decisions regarding keepers should be ironed out a season beforehand (changes for 2006 should of been addressed in 2005), so, you can manage your team during the season effectively. Any change will cause problems as people have managed their teams based on what they thought the rules were.
As Sarge said as a plausible what-if scenario: "During the off season, due to trades and drafts, I dont have a single starter on my squad."
The only way he does this is if he knows what the rules are for the following season. He could not do this strategy last season, as the rules were not set to allow this to happen.
Basically, the above discussion should gear towards changes for your leagues NEXT season, and this season should be based on rules in place last year.
|
| 29 | sarge33rd
ID: 2464896
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 10:09
|
except that the league voted to change a central aspect of the keepers at the end of last season, and in affect made that change retro active.
ie..we had initially rules that you could only name a player as a keeper for 3 years, after which time thatplayer had to be released back into the draft pool.
Well, after the 3rd year, the league decided to do away with this aspect, which means that your LT's, S Alexanders, P Mannings, T Holts, et al...wont be released back into the draft pool until their careers reach the point Jerry Rices was when he was traded to Oakland.
|
| 30 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 10:20
|
oof. That's rough. That would of been a tough issue for me to get over (changing rules after a season ends in regards to keepers).
So, it appears that the league has been in progress for at least 3 years, so, I'm guessing re-starting the league and making concrete rules is not an option.
|
| 31 | sarge33rd
ID: 2464896
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 11:40
|
hard to say.
The league consists entirely of rotoguru regulars and frankly, I'm surprised that the anti-homesteading rule got tossed. Even more surprised, that it was tossed AND the vote indicated a desire to do so without executing a fresh redraft from scratch.
Now the resistance I've seen to this proposal of mine, has me totally confused. The one guy I can see from the content of his roster, who I could understand if from a selfish pov he didnt like the idea, has already said to the league that he DOES favor the proposal. To his credit, he also favored a redraft if we did away with the toss back aspect of keepers. On his roster, sit 4 guys who are almost without question, 2 1st rd and 2 2nd rd selections.
Ostensibly, the toss-back rule got kicked, because a specific manager felt that it made another managers players (those in their 3rd year), untradeable. This league doesnt trade anyway. lol Not to speak of. In the first 2 years, before we went keeper league, I dont believe we saw 5 trades get executed. In the 3 years since, I doubt we've seen 10 trades get done. Nobody in the league is about to trade, unless they get "the better" part of the stick. We're also all too savvy, to accept the short end of the stick. Result? There is no stick. lol Now, had the toss-back been kept in place, that manager could name as his 3 keepers, a pair of #2 RBs (#2 as in 2nd tier, not backup to a starter) and a 2nd tier QB. He has 1st overall pick, so he could then take his choice of LT or S Alexander (both of whom would have been "tossed back" with this draft), if he wanated to stabilize his RB corps, OR he could take T Holt or TO or R Moss, if he wanted to jump on a top-gun WR, OR he could have taaken P Manning, if he wanted to have a top tier QB and use his 2nd tier as either trade bait or an option based on schedule. ANY of those moves would have strengthened his team and improved his competitiveness in the league, more than drafting a rookie who will take 1-2 years to turn into a producer.(IF the rookie turns into a producer)
No, I and at least a couple of other managers have serious issues with the deletion of the toss-back rule. Particularly when you do so following the season in which the players were to have been released, and after 3 years of draft strategy based on that impending release, have been executed.
|
| 32 | Perm Dude
ID: 7620178
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 11:49
|
sarge, the reason there was no trading can be traced to the homesteading rule, which required the players to be tossed back after three years automatically, which made trading for players almost useless.. As I recall, we also had an opportunity of a compromise in which the clock would start again for a player once he was traded, but this was rejected in the hopes of an all-or-nothing anti-homesteading rule.
because a specific manager felt that it made another managers players (those in their 3rd year), untradeable
To be fair, this specific manager (me) was joined by the manager of the team who was and is in last place and who was unable to trade to better his team. There might have been others as well who say the rule as being anti-competitive because it removed nearly all the incentive for trading.
On another matter, perhaps you overlooked my personal email to you as to why you dropped nearly all your players on July 1st (including two starters)?
|
| 33 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 11:58
|
I and at least a couple of other managers have serious issues with the deletion of the toss-back rule. Particularly when you do so following the season in which the players were to have been released, and after 3 years of draft strategy based on that impending release, have been executed.
I completely agree and would of also had issues. In the context of the proposals for the current issue at hand, I think you and PD's proposals both have +'s and -'s, and you certainly have the right to ask for a change for this season given the recent rule change regarding keeper tenure, but the execution will be up to a league vote.
If this issue arose in a league of mine I would push for a re-draft, even if 3 years have come by.
|
| 34 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 11:59
|
On a side note, a keeper league I am in has strucutred its keeper rules this way:
- Three year max tenure
- You must keep 3 players
- For who you keep, you lose that draft pick (i.e. Assuming LT went 1st round, if that coach decided to keep him this year, he wouldn't have a 1st round pick. Conversely, the team that drafted Jamal Lewis in the 1st round would likely drop him this year and have a 1st round pick).
- For each keeper, in a subsequent season, his draft round is halved: (if you kept Gado THIS year, you get him as a last round keeper, NEXT year, he becomes an 8th round keeper, and the THIRD year he becomes a 4th round keeper - assuming 16 round draft)
Overall, some players are kept for all three years, but there is some good strategy involved in deciding who are your "best" keepers, because round drafted is taken into account.
Sorry for the tangent, but I really like my keeper league rules :)
|
| 35 | sarge33rd
ID: 2464896
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 12:01
|
quite possible PD that I did miss an email in the flurry of them all. lol (and by all, I do mean A-L-L!!!!)
Just because a player is a starter, doesnt mean he's a keeper. see "Kyle Boller" for ex. Started for a few years...never reached "keeper" status.
|
| 36 | Perm Dude
ID: 7620178
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 12:08
|
Oh, I hear ya. For example, Muhammed isn't the guy he was two years ago, now that he's on a run-first, cold weather team.
|
| 37 | sarge33rd
ID: 2464896
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 12:25
|
I think legg, the part I have the biggest problem with...is that I have never been involved ina keeper league in any sport, that allowed a manager to keep a player for their entire career if they chose to. At some point, there has always been a requirement to turn that player loose. (5 years being the longest I've ever seen first hand.)
PD..starting the 3 yr clock over with a trade of the player, does the same thing as our now perpetual keep them rule. It prevents the player from EVER being returned to the draft pool, until nobody would want him anyway. Every 3rd year, we'd trade our 3rd yr keepers to each other. Thats all that idea would have accomplished.
|
| 38 | sarge33rd
ID: 2464896
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 12:39
|
re 36...precisely. And the reason I havent cut Greg Jones loose yet, is that there is still time for Fred Taylor to hurt himself. :)
|
| 39 | Perm Dude
ID: 7620178
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 12:41
|
I understand, sarge. I hope that you also understand that this takes trading out as a strategy for bettering your team. In effect, it means that your team is make-or-break on draft day, plus some tweaks with FA pickups during the season.
This also means that poor teams are unable to trade for those players, but must suck it up during the season and hope they get lucky in the draft.
|
| 40 | sarge33rd
ID: 2464896
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 12:51
|
PD...nobody in this league trades anyway. In the past 5 years, I'd be amazed if we've seen 12 trades executed. In this league, trading has never been a realistic option, cause nobody accepts someone elses offers anyway.
|
| 41 | Perm Dude
ID: 7620178
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 14:05
|
Well, yeah. Why would anyone? I've had one big deal knocked down because of the anto-homesteading rule and didn't bother even looking at making trades because of it.
The implication that people don't trade anyway ignores the fact that people wouldn't under the old rule.
Trading is good. And the old rule made it not an option anymore. Hopefully the league will get back on track now that the rule no longer obstructs trading.
|
| 42 | sarge33rd
ID: 2464896
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 16:50
|
First 2 years,s we were a non-keeper league, and I dont believe 5 trades were done between the 2 years. You're ignoring the larger point, which is that this league wont trade r-e-g-a-r-d-l-e-s-s.
|
| 43 | Perm Dude
ID: 7620178
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 16:56
|
OK, you're right.
|
| 44 | Dr. Doom
ID: 232152517
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 17:28
|
My turn to speak. I have never been in a keeper league before this one so far it's been fun and I'm sure it will continue to be going forward. Sometimes it seems that administration of the league is way to ownerous, but that's a different story. I would just as soon keep it simple.
Last season was a disaster, Deuce and Bulger, my third year keepers were gone for large parts of the season. Knowing that both had season ending injuries, I suppose I could have dropped them both. Chances are that they might have been late season waiver wire pickups. The appearance of Reggie Bush in New Orleans will diminish Deuces value this year, but that wasn't known at the end of last football season.
It was my misunderstanding that a player could only be on one teams roster for three seasons. If he moved to a different roster. That clock would be reset. To my thinking, that would cause much more trading to be done(good), but also increase the administrative activity (that's bad).
If this is standard practice in keeper leagues, three years and toss-em back, fine, I don't want to rock the boat, just play. If I didn't understand the rules, that's my problem.
|
| 45 | leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 17:31
|
It was my misunderstanding that a player could only be on one teams roster for three seasons. If he moved to a different roster. That clock would be reset. To my thinking, that would cause much more trading to be done(good), but also increase the administrative activity (that's bad).
The league I am in does not re-start the 3 year period after a trade. The sole reason is that their could be unspoken alliances where teams trade their players back and forth at the end of each 3rd year. We thought of a potential solution, and that was a player cannot be on a team for more than three seasons out of nine, but that got shot down as too big of a hassle.
|
| 46 | Dr. Doom
ID: 232152517
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 18:20
|
A perfectly good reason to not use that rule. Thanks, I would never have thought of allying.
|
| 47 | sarge33rd
ID: 2464896
Mon, Jul 17, 2006, 19:25
|
DD...you came into the league at the behest of many of us, to replace a manager who was booted. You were quite unfortunately, saddled with one of the sorriest teams ever assembled in the history of fantasy sports. You have ever since, and continue to this day, handled that challenge quite well. I sincerely hope, that none of my posts have cast any doubt as to how highly I regard the way you have faced the challange you took on.
As I said earlier, the entire tossing of the anti-homestead rule, came about because of another managers (IMHO mistaken) opinion re that rule. Had the rule been left in place, I most likely would have dropped this proposal of mine. Were that the case, looking at your roster and assuming for a moment I were in your shoes, I'd probably keep T Barber, P Manning and B Rothlisberger, taking either LT or S Alexander with your first off the board draft choice. This would secure an admirable backfield, with 2 solid QBs and 2 solid RBs, which would allow you to pickup a 3rd later on so as to use Berger as trade bait for a WR should you desire, while acquiring 2 WR's with your 2nd/3rd picks. I think you would agree, that such would have moved your team forward by quantum leaps, re its competitiveness from what you inherited.
For my part then with the pick after yours, I'd have taken either LT or Alexander, which ever one you left on the board. I've worked my "keepers" so that in any given year, only 1 had to go back. At the end of this year, Westbrook would have been cut loose. The following year, S Jackson.
In any event, since this "debacle" is public, and since I brought out your name as one of the driving factors (though not driven by yourself), I felt it necessary to say in public too, that I in no way shape or form, meant to cast aspersions in your direction.
|
| 48 | sarge33rd
ID: 2464896
Tue, Jul 18, 2006, 08:11
|
with apologies, the roster I was looking at isnt Dooms. :( Got myself "off kilter" and read across incorrectly.)
With the final vote cast last night, my proposal passes 7-5. If I'm Doom, I toss 'em all back and start from scratch.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|