Self Editor

Forum: foot
Page 4329
Subject: RIFC 2005: Regular season discussion #1

Posted by: Guru - [330592710] Wed, Sep 07, 2005, 11:09

Let the games begin! We'll start with this thread for regular season discussion.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Sep 07, 2005, 11:10

I should probably comment on the rites of succession for next year.

I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that there are two AAA leagues and one AA League this season. If so, I'm leaning to the following tentative plan:

Teams to be invited to the 2006 RIFC:
1. me
2. The top 4 playoff seeds in the RIFC
3. The RIFC Playoff winner
4. The top 2 playoff seeds in each AAA league
5. The playoff winner in each AAA league
6. The playoff winner in the AA league

This list will provide anywhere from 9-13 teams, and these teams will receive an invitation next year as long as there are no "issues" related to this season's performance (attempted collusion, behavioral problems, etc.) Additional teams will be selected from among the remaining playoff teams in the RIFC, the remaining playoff teams in the AAA leagues, and the top regular season team in AA. Selection from among those teams will be determined by me, based upon a variety of factors.

Priority list of teams which will qualify for a AAA league in 2006:
1. RIFC teams not invited to be in the 2006 RIFC
2. AAA playoff teams not invited to be in the 2006 RIFC
3. AA playoff teams not invited to be in the 2006 RIFC

Qualification for additional AAA slots, if any, will be determined next summer.

Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Wed, Sep 07, 2005, 15:52

Looks like we have a free pick 'em contest included with our site (picking our games, not real NFL games). I went ahead and submitted some... anyone else planning on participating? You have until 9EST tomorrow evening to post your picks.

Athletics Guy
ID: 184715
Wed, Sep 07, 2005, 16:04

Does it keep track of our picks throughout the season?

Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Wed, Sep 07, 2005, 16:05

Dunno but I would assume it keeps track of aggregate results over the season (not just each week).

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Sep 08, 2005, 10:50

Challenger - I note that Ware is listed as a LB, yet you somehow seem to have him in a DL slot. Did they drop the DL option for him since you set your starting lineup? Or are they allowing him to be used as either a DL or LB?

I didn't think the system would allow you to set a lineup with the incorrect position configuration. If there is a brewing issue here, we need to head it off before the season starts.

Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Thu, Sep 08, 2005, 11:06

I'm pretty sure Challenger set his lineup, and since then Fanball has changed Ware's position designation to be LB (more detail including email quotes from fanball in a prior thread, I forget which... draft discussion maybe?).

Basically they said there is no dual eligibility... but that they would continue to review individual player eligibility to make sure they had their players properly assigned. Guys like T Suggs and D Ware and Adalius Thomas are all hybrid players and thus tough to designate, but they were going to review before the season to try to make sure they had them in the right slots... sort of a "buyer beware" situation (IIRC, Challenger didn't know they might be shifting eligibility when he drafted... but he also didn't know that they wouldn't be).

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Sep 08, 2005, 11:19

What do others think of this? I've never played in a game where a player could lose eligibility at a listed position after the draft.

I have sent in a ticket to Fanball to find out our options, although I suspect they will confirm Doug's story.

That leaves us with several options.

1. We can stick with Fanball's LB position designation for Ware, and force Challenger to adjust.

2. We can figure out some way to allow the league to continue to treat Ware as a DL.

3. We can figure a way to allow Challenger to treat Ware as a DL, but if he is ever dropped, Ware reverts to the Fanball position designation.

There may not be an efficient way to make the override, but one approach would be to code the roster criteria to allow an extra flex IDP and remove the DL requirement. We would then have to enforce the DL requirement manually - i.e., Challenger would be allowed to treat Ware as a DL, but every other team would be required to have a listed DL in one of the flex spots.

Feedback?

Bandos
Sustainer
ID: 279492419
Thu, Sep 08, 2005, 12:03

I am leaning toward 1 AFTER week 1. He was drafted in good faith as a DL, the game changes his designation, we need to allow for Challenger to make adjustments. I dont think he will be allowed to put him at DL after week 1.

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 41713300
Thu, Sep 08, 2005, 12:22

Hmmm... So his lineup would currently be "invalid", and he doesn't have an extra DL on his bench. On top of this, he set his lineup on the 29th of Aug, so we have no guarrantees that he'll see this problem before this evening.

No matter what, I think we got to let it slide this week (Unless he's willing to correct his lineup himself before hand). Correct the points and standings manually for his team.

Personally, I think I'd go with option 1.

ie... if Troy Brown starts starting at WR, the he shouldn't be listed as DB anymore, thus a roster move would be needed.

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Thu, Sep 08, 2005, 12:25

Easiest solution is 1.

Fairest solution is probably 3.

I assume Challenger picked Ware knowing that he was a LB listed on Fanball as a DL, so, he used a draft pick that he may not have used on Ware at the time without this knowledge.

I think we can trust each other enough to ensure that everyone has a DL for as long as Challenger has Ware. So, my vote is for 3 (as of right now).

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Sep 08, 2005, 12:34

I don't think this evening has any lineup implications. He can still make lineup changes after tonight.

By Commissioner fiat, I'm going to rule that he is able to use Ware as a DL for week 1. I assume I'll have to adjust the league roster specs to permit that.

The bigger question is how to treat the rest of the season.

I'm leaning toward 2 or 3.

BoNkA
ID: 1687813
Thu, Sep 08, 2005, 14:07

I like option 1 because he isn't the only guy who plays on the line and drops back to play LB as well. Now the only thing is he was drafted as a DL. The other thing is I'm sure almost everyone had in the back of their minds that this guy might get switched to LB at any point in the season. This to me is a somewhat risky pick that should not have been relied upon.

Now despite what I just said, I would also be ok with 3 since that is more fair and I wouldn't want to be in that position.

Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Thu, Sep 08, 2005, 14:35

I totally agree on allowing him as a DL for week 1. I
think going forward, this should be standard practice. If
a player (such as Troy Brown) has his position
designation changed... the affected manager can
continue using that player at their former position for 1
week (or maybe 2)... but after that must have made
appropriate moves to accomodate the change in
position.

This issue was brought up at the time Ware was
drafted, and I agree with BoNkA's assessment... I
actually assumed Ware was a LB and didn't even
consider him on my cheatsheets accordingly. The DL
designation was unusual IMHO (the other 2 IDP sites I
use have him listed as LB as well). I think if a player
switches positions, we should be required to play him
at that new position, with a reasonable grace period
allowed.

Option 3 allows a manager to capitalize on a
misdesignation for a full season. Even if the manager
didn't expect the misdesignation (such as Troy Brown
being converted to a receiver, Randle El or Ward to a
QB, or any other such situation which might arise)...
there still should be a limit. I think 1 or 2 weeks should
be sufficient.

Another reason I don't like option 3 is it opens a can of
worms... so if I have a LB who gets converted to DL by
Fanball... do I have to leave him as an LB? Or can I
elect to use the new designation. At what point do I
need to make this decision? Can I change my mind
later on down the road? Etc. etc. Same questions
apply for option 2 actually. Option 3 seems wildly unfair
to me.

In short, mine is a strong vote for option 1 with a 1 or 2
week grace period to make the change. Option 2 is a
distant second... option 3 shows favoritism to a
manager who happened to have a player on their
roster at the time of the switch. If he has the option of
retaining the old position, we all should.

Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Thu, Sep 08, 2005, 14:37

Ugh... sorry for the linebreaks in prior post... it's a friggin' IE on a Mac issue! I forgot to add in a bunch of BR tags and push the ignore line feed button. Sorry! =-p

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Sep 08, 2005, 15:11

I don't view Option 3 as a "favoritism" issue.

If you pick up (or draft) a player, you should be able to use him at the position you drafted him under. If his position changes after that, and you release him into the F/A pool for any reason, anyone picking him up at that time knows what the current position eligibility is.

Similarly, under option 3, I would argue that Challenger should not have the ability to use Ware as a LB unless he first drops him and then picks him up again (after waiver processing). Everyone had an initial chance to draft him as a DL. Everyone should have a similar chance to add him as a LB.

I know that the issue was raised shortly after Ware was drafted. However, it was not raised before he was drafted. If Challenger took care to look up the position eligibilty before the draft, and if that position was not an obvious error (since either position could have been justified), it seems unfair to me to lose that eligibility.

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 41713300
Thu, Sep 08, 2005, 16:13

I think we need to set precedence now for how we'll deal with other potential issues in the future.

I think option 1 covers this with less dispute. Of course as stated, I think their should be some leniance, or a grace period for the manager to properly adjust/substitute that position.

Ender
ID: 406351010
Thu, Sep 08, 2005, 18:12

I have thought about this off and on all day. My knee-jerk reaction was of the tough luck, sucks to be Challenger variety. He knew it was possible when he drafted him and now he needs to deal with it. I'll confess that the pre-lunch part of my day was below average. 6th graders can put you in that mood especially when you are an 8th grad teacher forced to deal with them.

Anyway, at this point, I think he definitely gets a pass for the weekend. I also think he drafted him in good faith planning to play him at DL and take advantage (not in a bad way) of the greater potential for tackles when he dropped back to LB in some sets. If it's not cumbersome to keep him at DL then I say we do it. This is one more issue where the grunt work won't fall on us, but on Guru so I'll default to him as to what's "too much trouble." I guess I'm saying I'm voting for option 3.

Ender
ID: 406351010
Thu, Sep 08, 2005, 18:13

Defer not default :P

Taxman
ID: 029463114
Thu, Sep 08, 2005, 18:44

StLCards
ID: 31010716
Thu, Sep 08, 2005, 19:13

What I find interesting is what their rules are going to be moving forward. What if a DB is moved up to LB during the year due to an injury or vise versa? Maybe a TE becomes a FB? Is fanball going to change the designation mid-season or once the season starts are positions fixed?

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Sep 08, 2005, 20:19

I haven't heard back from Fanball yet, but I would be really surprised if they would make any changes after the start of the season. They probably figured that a change before the start of the season wasn't disruptive. But maybe I give them too much credit.

Manual administration really isn't a problem, since I would simply code the system to accept more flexibility than we really allow. We'd only need to ensure each week that every team had at least one DL (except for the Ware exception).

GoatLocker
ID: 060151121
Thu, Sep 08, 2005, 23:35

Thought about it all day, and 3 works for me.

Cliff

Athletics Guy
ID: 184715
Fri, Sep 09, 2005, 02:10

I vote for option #1.

kev
ID: 043111845
Fri, Sep 09, 2005, 10:37

#1 after week 1, which I think he got a bit screwed on.

For this week, I think he should be able to use Ware as a DL, as it wasn't noticed until right before gametime.

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 41713300
Fri, Sep 09, 2005, 10:47

So far voting basically looks like:

Votes for 1: 6
Votes for 3: 4

No Doubt Challenger will vote for 3 also, only leaving:

Undecided: Bonka

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Sep 09, 2005, 10:56

I wasn't necessarily putting this to a vote. I think this only calls for a commissioner ruling. I did ask for feedback, to help me decide. I'll rule later today.

I did get an email from Challenger on this issue. I think he's understandably steaming on this, but I thought his comments were useful perspective:

"As I already stated in the other thread at the time of drafting Ware, I verified Fanball and Yahoo had Ware listed as a DL before selecting him on Kafenatid. I only visited those two sites as I didn't expect anyone to run to Fanball and get it changed. Would anyone else???

A day or two after I drafted Ware, checking to see if I would need to draft another DL on the possibility of a position change, I went and checked to see how other popular sites had him listed. Rotoworld, Rototimes, ESPN, CBS Sportsline, and NFL.com all had him listed as DE or DL. With 5 more sites confirming each other, and since I do not backup this position except for the bye week due to the short bench, I chose to follow through with my original plans and not draft a another DL starter or backup even though I still had ample opportunity to draft a quality DL.

Also, after I drafted my last required starting position, DB at 18.12, I set my lineup and at that time I had no red glaring lines indicating my starting lineup was out of whack.

Ware is a defensive player which plays multiple positions as the Cowboys defensive scheme calls for. He is not a LB misdesignated as a DL. He plays both positions, as a matter of fact he even plays DB when Dallas is in the 3-4 defense and the offensive team has a slot receiver. Ware's job is then to cover the slot.

When the Texans play Dallas in the preseason, the Texans went into a hurry up offense their 2nd series with 3 wideouts against Dallas's 3-4 defnese and put Andre Johnson in the slot whom Ware was forced to cover until Dallas finally was able to get into their 4-3 nickel package at which Ware then went to DE."

Ref
ID: 539581218
Fri, Sep 09, 2005, 11:06

Sorry to butt in, but as an outsider and not playing in any RIFC games, I'd say to be totally fair to Challenger, he'd get to use him at DL. But, I think if Fanball is like most lineups, once he changes his designation (i.e. bench him for his bye week) he won't be able to put him back at DL. So then if he is permitted to keep him there he still has to keep him in his lineup for the bye week and receive 0 points or he can switch him out and lose his eligibility there.

I think it's absurd, that they change a player's position after the draft and not allow for multiple positions. Challenger shouldn't be penalized for this. He drafted him in good faith and should be allowed to keep his guy at that position if the site allows it.

I'll butt out now. ;)

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Sep 09, 2005, 13:18

Commissioner ruling:

I’ve given this quite a lot of thought. My original inclination was to go with option 3, which would have grandfathered Ware’s DL status for Challenger, but forced a reversion to the current LB designation for any subsequent manager. This had the advantages of allowing Challenger to use him in the way he had every right to expect, and would not disadvantage others to the extent that they would know his status if/when they picked him up. It also meant that if Ware was ever dropped, we would no longer need to manage the discrepancy.

But, assuming that fairness dictates that Challenger should get continued use of the DL eligibility, even this isn’t quite fair to Challenger. That’s because it would diminish any trade value that Ware might have. If a potential trading partner could not use Ware as a DL, then Challenger still has damaged goods.

As I discussed above [post 15], I don’t see option 3 as a favoritism issue. If anything, it still penalizes Challenger somewhat, given the trade issue I just described.

If Fanball had simply left Ware as a DL, there would be no issue. And, as Challenger has discussed, the DL designation is not a clear error. Either DL or LB eligibility could be justified. Fanball’s ultimate classification as LB may be the best alternative in a vacuum, but their decision to make the change after the draft has been completed is simply unacceptable, in my opinion. I have never played in a game where a player can be drafted under one eligibility criteria, and then subsequently had that eligibility eliminated. That might be justified if the original eligibility was clearly an error, but that is not the case here.

It’s been interesting to see the various viewpoints expressed above. It’s particularly interesting to see that the preferences seem to favor either option 1 or option 3, split fairly evenly.

But I’m going to rule option 2. I think we all would prefer that Fanball had simply left things well enough alone. Option 2 puts us back in that position. Option 1 is unfair to Challenger, and option 3 creates artificial asymmetries that just don’t seem necessary.

Therefore, for this entire season, Ware will be eligible as a DL only, regardless of the team that he is on. No team will be allowed to use him as a LB. Although I have yet to hear back from Fanball on this issue, I assume that this will require a manual workaround. Thus, here is how we will accommodate this adjustment:

1. The Fanball system will coded to enable a team to hold 0 DLs and up to 3 LBs. This will allow Challenger to keep Ware in a DL capacity.

2. We are not changing the general league rules, however. We are only doing this to trick the system into allowing a team to place Ware into what should be a DL slot. Thus, barring any other position changes (which I don’t expect), every roster without Ware must still have at least one listed DL in the starting lineup. We will need to monitor this manually. I’ll try to review starting lineups each weekend, but I would ask your help in notifying me ASAP if you see a lineup that does not comply with the DL requirement.

3. If a team inadvertently has a non-conforming lineup after the freeze, I will use my Commissioner powers to change the lineup to bring it into compliance. I will not enforce an invalid week unless that team has no DL on its entire roster – in which case the breach would not seem to be inadvertent.

Thanks for your thoughtful feedback on this.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Sep 09, 2005, 14:45

Changing the topic...

Since one game is in the books, please review the Fanball scoring for last night's game and let me know if you notice any discrepancies. Occasionally, the live scoring results don't get corrected until the scores are finally posted, but I'd like to be aware as early as possible about any potential scoring issues.

StLCards
ID: 31010716
Fri, Sep 09, 2005, 15:00

I have a general scoring question, sorry if I missed it somewhere, but how are negative rush/pass yds handled?

I see Brady had -1 rushing yds, but his score of 20.28 (in aol anyway) does not reflect a -.1 rushing yds.

Do negative rush/pass/KR/PR yds just count as 0 then?

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Sep 09, 2005, 15:18

Negative yards count as negatives.

In our league, Brady shows up properly as 20.18.

There is a setting in the scoring rules that specifies how negatives are handled. Perhaps this isn't correctly set in your league.

StLCards
ID: 31010716
Fri, Sep 09, 2005, 16:12

Another question. Is a blocked extra point scored the same as a blocked kick (+2) for a Team Def? I show in AOL the Oak D with +1.0pts (+2 blk punt, -1 30pts allw). Should it be +3?

I can't seem to find the player L. Walker on Oak to see if he got credit or not.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Sep 09, 2005, 16:21

For team defense, a blocked XP counts as a blocked kick. At Fanball, Oakland's defense correctly shows 3 points.

IDPs do not earn points for blocked kicks of any kind.

StLCards
ID: 31010716
Fri, Sep 09, 2005, 16:28

I just looked again and now Oak. shows +3 for TeamD and Brady's score is changed, although still not right (20.14 now), not yet anyway.

Maybe AOL is making some adjustments or something.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Sep 09, 2005, 16:33

For comparative purposes, here is the fanball listing of points for the Pats/Raiders game.

Curiously, I see that it now shows Brady with 20.14 points, which seems correct. I thought I had seen 20.18 about an hour ago (post 31). Maybe they took away a passing yard in the meantime.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Sep 09, 2005, 16:35

Brady:
2 passing TD = 8
306 passing yards = 12.24
-1 rushing yards = -.1
Total = 12.14

The stats agree with the NFL gamebook.

StLCards
ID: 31010716
Fri, Sep 09, 2005, 16:37

That seems to be it for Brady. Earlier they showed him with 307 yds.

StLCards
ID: 31010716
Fri, Sep 09, 2005, 16:45

Thanks for that listing Guru. There seems to be a few discrepancies that we need to investigate, of course it could just be that it is in an update phase and hasn't yet rippled over to AOL.

leggestand
ID: 451036518
Fri, Sep 09, 2005, 17:02

My points for LaMont Jordan and Danny Clark were updated about an hour ago, as were my opponent's points for Kerry Collins.

kev
ID: 043111845
Fri, Sep 09, 2005, 19:35

That opponent who almost started Kyle Boller, and is glad he didn't.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Sep 09, 2005, 19:41

How do you know? Boller might go nuts!

kev
ID: 043111845
Fri, Sep 09, 2005, 19:45

I know, I am still happy with Collin's results though. At the brief time when I considered starting Boller, I thought, Collins could throw 4 INT's in this game. He didn't and he threw 3 TD's, so I'm happy.

And it's Kyle Boller. Even against the Colts D, I don't trust him.

Doug
ID: 02730280
Fri, Sep 09, 2005, 22:57

Re: 21... I asked this question to Fanball as part of the discussion after Ware was drafted and they indicated that a player's designation could change mid-season, just like in real life.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Sep 10, 2005, 16:55

I finally got the following reponse from Fanball regarding Ware:

The player data updates with the official NFL stats. His position has been changed. There is no option to edit his position. If you have any further questions, please ask.

That's a bit puzzling, since I just pulled up Ware's player page at NFL.com and see that he is listed there as a defensive end.

youngroman
ID: 50818914
Sat, Sep 10, 2005, 17:35

on the official Cowboys website, Ware is listed as LB.

Doug
ID: 02730280
Sat, Sep 10, 2005, 22:03

He's also listed as an LB on NFL.com's depth chart page (that's not a recent change though).

Sludge
ID: 14411118
Sun, Sep 11, 2005, 01:30

Boller might go nuts!

And what? Shoot someone the night before the game? :)

Ender
ID: 406351010
Sun, Sep 11, 2005, 11:06

You heard it here first: Boller will have 20+ TD passes this season. Write it down ;)

Maybe I'm the one going nuts...

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Sep 11, 2005, 13:34

Anyone able to get to Fanball's live scoring? All I've been able to get thus far is "Server too busy".

As I recall, they had similar capacity problems for the first week last year. With the addition of the AOL platform, they may have bitten off more than they can handle.

TB
ID: 031811922
Sun, Sep 11, 2005, 13:42

I was thinking the same thing. The live scoring for Exit 42 is now trying to open a pop-up window, verus just being a normal page, and it is doing the same thing.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Sep 11, 2005, 13:45

I finally got as far as the pop up window, but it is stalling while trying to load.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Sep 11, 2005, 14:00

Now the whole site seems to have vaporized.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Sep 11, 2005, 15:26

And now it's working. Will wonders never cease!

Maybe enough people gave up, thereby relieving the server stress.

Trip
ID: 13961611
Sun, Sep 11, 2005, 18:29

Norm Cwho?

Sludge
ID: 14411118
Sun, Sep 11, 2005, 19:59

When my tight end is the 2nd highest scorer on my team, I believe I'm in a spot of trouble.

Athletics Guy
ID: 184715
Sun, Sep 11, 2005, 20:07

What a week for Doug! He barely gets a point from his QB and is still likely to wind up with a 140+ pt week.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Sep 11, 2005, 20:09

Sludge - A negative from your QB certainly hurts.

But, you could be Motley Crue, looking at Mike Anderson in your starting lineup, and Willie Parker on your bench! ;-}

(Of course, he still has a good chance to go 2-0 for the day!)

kev
ID: 043111845
Sun, Sep 11, 2005, 23:02

Unbelievable.

Keenan McCardell sits on my bench, while I had Rod Gardner starting. Great move kev! Great move!

I should still be able to steal a 1-1 for a pitiful lineup week.

Or, if Brooking can be Dansbyesque, I might win 2.

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 41713300
Mon, Sep 12, 2005, 01:28

Will be watching MNF with a lot of interest. I'm behind by ~30 Points in both my games. In one matchup, my opponents players are done, and the other he stills have Crumpler to go. I got to hope that McNabb/Trotter put up some really nice #s. If not 0-2 looks like a big possibility this week.

Oddly enough, I went up against oponents that had Darren Sharper and Cato June this week. Nothing like having those IDPs going the extra mile for the team. Not that I'm complaining... my IDPs avg'd almost 11 points each so far.

kev
ID: 043111845
Mon, Sep 12, 2005, 01:31

My last round pick, Julian Peterson, had himself a good game, also on my bench.

I'm really upset about the Gardner thing- I didn't read anything on him being hurt, found him in no injury report, and there is Keenan McCardell, on my bench, with his 2 TD's.

Oh, and Kyle Boller really does suck. A lot.

Doug
ID: 02730280
Mon, Sep 12, 2005, 03:43

Re: 54 - Norm Chow knows that this is a team game, and that success does not hinge on the performance of any individual. As such, with the rest of my fantasy team providing solid performances, it would have been foolish to have McNair and the TEN offense put up gaudy numbers this week. Better to save those stats for next week and beyond, when they might really be needed. Norm Chow is a mastermind. You may not understand his ways, but this does not mean you ought to question his wisdom.

Left, right... left, right... left and... Chow-Chow-Chow.

holt
ID: 498451119
Mon, Sep 12, 2005, 06:49

fanball confuses me.
do you have to wait til after monday night's game to put in waiver requests?
I just tried to put in a waiver claim but I got that "players lock 5 minutes before kickoff" message.
I know they're locked - I just want to make a claim. why does it give you an error message instead of a pending waiver claim? I don't get it. I'm used to yahoo.
anyway, I'm commish of AAA2 so I need to make sure that this is normal.

Guru
ID: 33856128
Mon, Sep 12, 2005, 09:57

holt - I don't recall whether that's the case every week, but there is a separate page for claiming players, and I can't even find that page yet.

Fanball doesn't activate the claiming system until the start of week 2, presumably since priorities are based on week 1 results. So, I'd expect that ability to be available tomorrow.

Guru
ID: 33856128
Mon, Sep 12, 2005, 09:59

... and even when the claiming system is up, it's still somewhat confusing. I know it took awhile last year before I had it all figured out. I'll try to remember how it works once it is up, and post some instructions.

BoNkA
ID: 46744319
Mon, Sep 12, 2005, 10:11

Taking trade offers for Javon Walker. My already sub-par WR core is quickly going down the tubes and may make for a long season.

Ender
ID: 285713
Mon, Sep 12, 2005, 11:33

Someone hijacked my handle and made that ridiculous Boller post. Yeah, that's it...

It looks like I'm 0 - 2 as well this week, Yikes. My WR crew left a lot to be desired, though Ahman Green and the GB offense didn't help me any. Hopefully that will get better :(

BoNkA
ID: 4085130
Tue, Sep 13, 2005, 01:05

When do we have til to submit waiver requests? I need to figure out what I'm doing tomorrow and want to make sure I have stuff in on time.

kev
Donor
ID: 043111845
Tue, Sep 13, 2005, 04:47

Even with Keenan McCardell, the #4 player this week riding the pine on both my rosters, and starting Rod Gardner on one team, I came out 2-0.

That's a big sigh of relief.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Sep 13, 2005, 09:51

Free agent claims are processed at noon Wednesday, so you must submit any claims before then.

To submit a claim, go to the "Claims" link under the Transaction menu. You can submit multiple requests, and you can prioritize them, and you can rank order each claim. Hopefully, the instructions at the site are self explanatory.

Do not use the "Waiver Wire" link for this weekly free agent claiming process. The only players who go on waivers are dropped players. Although the mechanics of the free agent claiming process are similar to waivers, these players are technically not on waivers, and you can be easily confused if you do not remember that distinction.

Commissioners - if you are using Fanball or a related system, be aware that the claim priority lists for free agent claims and for waivers are not automatically synchronized. If a team is awarded a free agent claim, he moves to the back of that priority list, but his waiver priority is not correspondingly reordered. However, we want both claim priority lists to be in synch. Therefore, after free agent claims are processed on Wednesday, you will need to adjust the waiver priority list to correspond to the adjusted priorities coiming out of the free agent claiming process. It's a simple exercise, but one that you need to remember to do weekly. And, when we get to the point of the season that free agent claim priorities are not reset weekly (after week 6), then we'll have to "work backwards" prior to Wednesday each week, copying over the adjusted waiver priorities to the free agent claim priorities (if there have been any waiver claims in the past week).

Fortunately, the free agent claim process occurs only once per week, at noon on Wednesday (or whenever you have specified it to occur). Other than that, the waiver process is the operative one.

Clear as mud?

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Tue, Sep 13, 2005, 10:04

Well, I have been looking for almost an hour; and since I haven't found what I am looking for, I am just going to ask the question:

Do we not get INT return yards for IDP's? I wasn't sure if we did, and the rules don't show it as a "point giving" stat, but it would sure be nice to have 8.8 points for return yardage for Darren Sharper.

I bet we are not counting it, but I wasn't sure if this was one of those "manual adjustments" we had talked about earlier.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Sep 13, 2005, 10:36

Not counting it. Never have.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Sep 13, 2005, 10:39

I just put up a new page with 2005 RIFC standings, rosters, links. You can get to it by clicking on the RIFC icon on the blurb page, or via this URL: http://rotoguru1.com/foot/RIFC.html

I may try to get the standings displayed directly on that page, but for now, I simply linked to pdf copies of the Fanball standings and roster pages.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Sep 13, 2005, 10:46

It should go without saying, but if anyone has any questions about any aspect of their first week scoring, now is the time to raise it.

Post 189 deals with our guidelines for challenging any scoring results.

StLCards
ID: 2881469
Tue, Sep 13, 2005, 11:11

Does Fanball have the Monday night results added in already? I see final scores on AOL, but when I look at the weekly results I don't see the Monday night game even added in yet.

Just asking since AOL is a Fanball product.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Sep 13, 2005, 12:18

Monday Night results are included at Fanball.

Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Tue, Sep 13, 2005, 13:00

How do I view a list of "claimable" players and their week 1 stats? I've tried looking under the waiver wire, free agents, and claims menus, but no luck yet...

BoNkA
ID: 8841312
Tue, Sep 13, 2005, 13:05

Player listings and only show free agents.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Sep 13, 2005, 13:10

All free agents are claimable, so you can use the regular player listings, and select to see only free agents.

Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Tue, Sep 13, 2005, 13:19

LOL, and then, if I understand correctly, I have to manually select the players who I saw on the player listings page from the box of all players listed on the claims page (as opposed to just clicking on the player I want), right? Intuitive. =-p

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 41713300
Tue, Sep 13, 2005, 13:19

0-2 was a bitter pill to swallow last night, even considering that I managed to get Trotter out of my lineup last minute (yes I had another IDP I could use), but it certainly was an entertaining week. Learn't a lot I think from that 1st week... let's hope I can do something to improve my team now?

And just to confirm... their are NO players on waivers right now?

http://fbc4.fanball.com/commissioner.fbc?prg=waiver&action=list&47735
"Waiver Wire
There are no players currently on waivers."

So... correct me if I'm wrong... but those who need to, should only be putting in FA claim?

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Sep 13, 2005, 13:41

Doug - sounds like you understand correctly.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Sep 13, 2005, 13:45

IAC - correct as well. Only dropped players go on waivers, and if any players are on waivers at the end of the week, they are rolled into the next week's FA claiming pool. So at the beginng of the week, there should be no player on waivers.

Players will begin to populate the waiver pool coincident with any FA claims tomorrow. Waiver claims are processed 48 hours after a player goes on waivers, so that first waiver claim won't occur until at least Friday noon.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Sep 14, 2005, 12:08

Free agent claims have been processed. Starting at 1pm, you may add free agents directly.

All players dropped as part of the free agent claiming are now on waivers. You may claim any of them on the waiver wire page.

I adjusted the waiver priority list to conform to the free agent priorities, adjusted for today's claims.

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 3579513
Wed, Sep 14, 2005, 16:16

hehe... I just decided to get back the two players that I had originally drafted. Nothing like 2nd guessing myself eh?

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 41713300
Sun, Sep 18, 2005, 14:35

Guru... I need help... The Giants vs Saints game is tomorrow night, and yet Fanball is claiming (based on the old schedule) that their kickoff, is at 1PM. I want to process this FA move:

Ron Dayne -> Will Smith, DL, NO

but it's giving me this error msg:

1. Based on your league's regular season free agency rules, players are locked 5 minutes before kickoff of their game. Will Smith was locked on Sun 09/18 12:55p ET.

Since the Denver game doesn't start till 4:15, I should be able to process this move no?

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 41713300
Sun, Sep 18, 2005, 14:44

FYI - Posted on Fanball and got this ticket #117031.

Athletics Guy
ID: 148291615
Sun, Sep 18, 2005, 18:39

It looks like I'm going to go 0-2 this week.

Thanks a lot Braylon!

Athletics Guy
ID: 148291615
Sun, Sep 18, 2005, 19:05

Ok, Ferguson's TD makes it a blowout. I never had a chance. I feel better now...I guess.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Sep 18, 2005, 21:48

I_A_C[85] - I made the Dayne=>Smith swap for you.

Do you want Smith or Strahan as your starting DL?

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 41713300
Sun, Sep 18, 2005, 23:15

I'll make the matchup changes myself... for now... to be safe... just in case.

Smith.

Thx

Motley Crue
ID: 33741217
Mon, Sep 19, 2005, 23:01

In case they aren't awarded tomorrow, I am missing some punt return and kick return yards for DB Darrent Williams DEN.

BoNkA
ID: 198111923
Tue, Sep 20, 2005, 00:11

Man, why am I up against the top scoring team each week? I want new scheduling. I could have 2 or 3 wins :/

Sludge
ID: 14411118
Tue, Sep 20, 2005, 00:43

Bonka - you weren't playing me. *grin*

Sorry, I'm just rather happy with my team's performance this week. I just hope stat adjustments don't bring me down 7 points.

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Tue, Sep 20, 2005, 01:24

Doubt that.
Would be nice though :)

Cliff

Sludge
ID: 14411118
Tue, Sep 20, 2005, 01:28

Well, I wouldn't go that far... Either way, the loser of our game can cry tough luck.

BoNkA
ID: 11817208
Tue, Sep 20, 2005, 09:17

Ah, well, at the time of posting last night, Bandos was top score. But...close enough. I have the most points against so far anyways, haha.

holt
ID: 50829194
Tue, Sep 20, 2005, 16:40

guru - is there a specific process in place for review of player stats for the week?

I don't know when official stats are finalized each week, but I have a situation in AAA-2. I'm commish and it involves my team so I want to make sure it's handled correctly.

I'm down in a game by 0.88 points.
AOL is showing Roy Williams with 2 unassisted tackles last night. NFL.com shows him with 1, which is enough to change the outcome of the game.

so I guess I need to know when NFL stats become official and finalized each week, and what website do you use as your source.

also, I assume in a situation like this that all active players on both teams would have to have their stats reviewed, like a vote re-count?

thanks.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Sep 20, 2005, 20:30

My understanding is that the stats in the NFL gamebook are official. They show Williams with 2 tackles and 2 assists, plus a PD and a FF. This produces a total of 9 points.

That agrees with what Fanball has.

The stats on the "game stats" page at NFL.com are not as reliable.

holt
ID: 50829194
Tue, Sep 20, 2005, 21:51

ok - thanks. I've never noticed gamebook before.

100

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Sep 21, 2005, 12:12

MC[91]: I adjusted your week 2 scores to add 9.16 points for the missing return yardage. They should be reflected in your totals later today. Your adjusted point total should be 130.70 for each of the two games.

101

Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Wed, Sep 21, 2005, 12:32

Gur, Just sent you an email concerning the Waiver free agent claiming that was just processed.

102

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Sep 21, 2005, 12:39

Challenger has pointed out a glitch in claim processing. Until I sort it out, I have imposed a temporary moratorium on free agent pickups.

103

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Sep 21, 2005, 12:59

Ron Dayne should have been eligible for free agent claims. For some reason, the system treated him as ineligible. I assume the glitch resulted from fact that I had to use Commissioner powers to drop him after he was prematurely frozen.

Several managers submitted claims for Dayne. If the process were done properly, Oaktown Raiders should receive Dayne as the 2nd overall claim. Oaktown would still get the Rossum=>Griffin claim in the second round of claims, as Griffin would not have been claimed by anyone else in the meantime.

I believe that all other claim results should remain the same.

Thus, I'll drop Curry and add Dayne to Oaktown's roster. Once that's done, I'll open up free agent add/drop capabilities.

104

Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Wed, Sep 21, 2005, 13:11

Thanks Guru

105

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Sep 21, 2005, 13:15

I think everything is now fixed.

Apparently, I was confused by one of the rule settings.

There are two places to set up handling for dropped players.

For the dropped player setting, I selected that dropped players cannot be picked up until 48 hours after they were dropped.

For waivers, I said that dropped players must go on waivers for 48 hours. I also stipulated that any player who is on waivers at noon on Tuesday should immediately become a free agent.

I dropped Dayne from IACs roster on Sunday evening. He went on waivers at that time, but dutifully converted to free agent status at 12:02 on Tuesday. However, that is apparently when his free agent clock kicked in, setting up a new 48 hour moratorium.

I have now reset the settings to specify that dropped players can be added immediately. Of course, since we use a waiver system, the waiver period still kicks in, giving us the 48 hour waiver period we desired.

Other Fanball/AOL commissioners should review their rule settings. I believe the correct dropped player setting is actually:

"During the regular season, dropped player becomes available: Immediately"

The Waivers setting should continue to say:

"Players will immediately go to the waiver wire for 48 hours after player has been dropped."

106

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Wed, Sep 21, 2005, 13:59

Good to know that I would not have gotten Dayne no matter what. I thought about claiming him, and saw he was listed on the FA claiming list this morning. That was confusing because I checked his status all weekend and he was not on waivers either.

Thanks for fixing the Darrent Williams score, Guru.

If anyone needs a RB the Motley Crue Country Store is open for business. I will not laugh at any proposal, as long as you take a look at my roster and try to offer something that helps me.

107

Athletics Guy
ID: 148291615
Wed, Sep 21, 2005, 15:30

Thanks Guru

Glad to hear I have 3/4 of Denver's committee.

108

Athletics Guy
ID: 148291615
Wed, Sep 21, 2005, 15:41

Heh, as it turns out, the Motley Crue Country Store has the one Bronco I need to complete my set.

Do you guys have a return policy? :)

109

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Wed, Sep 21, 2005, 16:16

So you want Ventnor Avenue? Are you willing to part with North Carolina or a combination of Reading Railroad and Electric Factory?

110

kev
Donor
ID: 043111845
Sun, Sep 25, 2005, 18:19

At least no one can make fun of me picking up Adam "the pirate" Archuleta anymore!

111

Guru
ID: 32802310
Sun, Sep 25, 2005, 18:22

I think I've been starting the wrong Manning!

112

kev
Donor
ID: 043111845
Sun, Sep 25, 2005, 23:13

Last week I go against McNabb in one game, and the Bears D in another.

This week, I get Shaun Alexander in one game, and Steve Smith in the other.

I need some luck!

113

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 41713300
Sun, Sep 25, 2005, 23:32

Well... I don't think you've had Guru's luck in matchups so far... but I think teams like Bonka's have faced a pretty rough time of it so far.

114

BoNkA
ID: 488492523
Mon, Sep 26, 2005, 01:49

Yeah, nothing like being 1st in PA. Not sure if I'll keep that or not, but it definitely looks like I'll be playing in one of those AAA leagues next year. My guys can't score points no matter what the team I play scores.

I preferred last year's point leading :D

115

Sludge
ID: 14411118
Tue, Sep 27, 2005, 02:10

Thank you LT, and thank you replay!

Guru, when you posted the New England quote, were you aware of the extra 52 seconds added on the clock during the game? Either way, it's pretty funny in light of that.

116

Athletics Guy
ID: 378572512
Tue, Sep 27, 2005, 03:41

I guess Ender wins the Bonka Award this week.

117

Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Tue, Sep 27, 2005, 06:14

He got an award named after him after Week 2!?!? Seems a bit premature... =-p

Kev... the last 2 weeks he's been stellar... week 1 was more in line with my expectations... maybe 5-6 points tackles per week. Let's see what happens from here, I still think he'll wear down more heavily than most as the season progresses due to his back... but yeah, if he keeps playing the like the pirate of old, I'll respectfully admire your pick. =-)

118

Guru
ID: 32802310
Tue, Sep 27, 2005, 08:30

Sludge[115] - wasn't aware at the time. That is pretty funny.

For those who may not have seen the quote:
“There always seems to be time for us to come back." -- Patriots receiver David Givens

119

Ender
ID: 285713
Tue, Sep 27, 2005, 09:14

I thought I was going to pull it off last night. I'll take the split since I get to hang an L on Guru.

I'd like to give special thanks to Larry Johnson for contributing to my cause :)

120

Guru
ID: 32802310
Tue, Sep 27, 2005, 09:50

Yep, Larry was short of my needs by about 60 yards and 2 TDs. Close call!

121

BoNkA
ID: 488532710
Tue, Sep 27, 2005, 12:53

So when will people start to feel bad an give me a head start against them?

If my team were able to be bet on, my spreads would look something like: BoNkA +20.5

Oh well, what can you do. Someone has to stink and I guess it's my turn this year :D

122

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Tue, Sep 27, 2005, 13:08

Don't feel like the Lone Ranger.

Cliff

123

kev
Donor
ID: 043111845
Tue, Sep 27, 2005, 21:00

And I guess I win the "who will play Guru when Peyton finally goes off sweepstakes"

Sweet!

And tell me how much I would rather have Brian Westbrook than Curtis Martin with Brooks freaking Bollinger as his QB.

124

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Sep 28, 2005, 11:03

I just looked up last year's RIFC standings after week 3.

Three teams were tied at 5-1, and all of them made the playoffs. But then, Motley was 0-6, and he won it all.

Suffice it to say, there's still plenty of time...

125

Sludge
ID: 27751510
Wed, Sep 28, 2005, 11:25

Gee, thanks for reminding me that I was 5-1 with the second highest PF after three weeks last year, which is very similar to where I am now...

If history repeats, I guess this is where I start scraping by with a sub 0.500 record...

Don't let me down LT!

126

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 41713300
Mon, Oct 03, 2005, 02:47

Well well... normally I'd end up cursing myself for making these "questionable" waiver moves... but picking up Rackers this week in order to start over (not a bye week cover) the #1 drafted PK in the game, ended up getting me an extra 16 points?! Man this game is crazy sometimes!

Expecting 2W's outa my squad this week which was much needed. Even with that however, I'll still be sitting two games under .500

I'm open to trade talks right now, in case anyone is in the market to start considering some moves. My MSN Messenger: ben_sigmawave@hotmail.com

127

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Oct 03, 2005, 11:10

Without much thought in advance, I should probably entertain trade offers for one of my Mannings. It's nice to have a surprisingly strong QB on the bench, but if I could make a material upgrade to my RB or receiving corps, I would consider it.

128

Ender
ID: 285713
Mon, Oct 03, 2005, 11:14

I am also open to trade offers. Time to shake things up.

129

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Oct 05, 2005, 11:58

We have our first announced trade:

Beware of Doug has traded:
QB Byron Leftwich, JAC
TE Dallas Clark, IND
LB Brian Urlacher, CHI

And receives from I_AM_CANADIAN:
QB Aaron Brooks, NO
TE L.J. Smith, PHI
LB Andra R. Davis, CLE

To remind everyone of our trade approval process:
RIFC managers have 24 hours to object, either here or to me via email. If there are less than 3 objections in the next 24 hours, I will approve and process the trade. If there are at least 3 objections, then all managers have an additional 24 hours to vote, and a minimum of 7 negative votes would be required to overturn the trade.

130

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Oct 05, 2005, 12:08

Free agent claims have now been processed for the 4th week. Remember that we will only reset weekly priorities for two more weeks. After that, claim priorities will only adjust as claims (free agent or wiaver) are processed, with the claiming team moving to the bottom of the list.

131

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 3579513
Thu, Oct 06, 2005, 13:23

So we should be ok to get this trade procesed now right?

132

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 06, 2005, 15:49

Done.

133

kev
Donor
ID: 043111845
Fri, Oct 07, 2005, 00:27

Gotta love Kerry Collin's bye week.

My choices- Kyle Orton vs Josh McCown.

Sweet like candy!

134

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Fri, Oct 07, 2005, 08:37

I get to start the immaculate David Carr this week.

135

Ender
ID: 285713
Fri, Oct 07, 2005, 08:57

I gotta think the choice between Chris Perry and Duce Staley Trumps both of those. At least your choices start :(

136

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Fri, Oct 07, 2005, 09:05

See, wouldn't Mike Anderson look great in your lineup this week, Ender?

137

Ender
ID: 285713
Fri, Oct 07, 2005, 10:32

I looked your roster over pretty good. He there aer a couple guys (or more) that would help. Problem was, I was so depressed about my roster I couldn't come up with an offer that A)didn't seem patently ridiculous or B)didn't break at another roster spot.

If you have any ideas throw them my way.

138

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Fri, Oct 07, 2005, 10:39

I'll take a look, but I think I'm playing you this week, so that makes it more difficult to do something. I'm sitting at 2-6 now and I need some victories to get back into this thing. I can't be trading just to trade.

139

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Fri, Oct 07, 2005, 10:42

Where were you sitting at this point last year?

140

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Fri, Oct 07, 2005, 11:05

1-7

141

Ender
ID: 285713
Fri, Oct 07, 2005, 11:47

Understood on both counts. I see that I myself was sitting only 1 game better last year than this year, but I had more confidence in my team last year. Perhaps I can turn it around just as you did last year. I will certainly try. I have to admit the role of spoiler is fun if nothing else. I thoroughly enjoyed hanging that L on Guru :)

142

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Fri, Oct 07, 2005, 11:58

I can't say that I enjoyed being on the losing end of the 2 highest scores last week.

Some will probably say that's just a taste of my own medicine based on what happened last season.

143

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Fri, Oct 07, 2005, 12:01

I have started this year better than last year, but I am still not "sold" on my team. Of my 1st 5 picks, only one has performed, so, hopefully they will turn it around. I will probably be looking to make trade in the next few weeks to upgrade my WR corps. If anyone would like a Droughns+WR for a good WR (note: not stud, not even solid), I may be interested.

144

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Fri, Oct 07, 2005, 13:01

Ender, I looked and I thought I saw something we might be able to do, but then I noticed Hines Ward is questionable, so that made me back off.

legge, I think I have a very good team, much better than last season at this point. I have had some problems with my IDP's (Charles Grant sucking, Darrent Williams sitting last week) and Reggie Wayne hasn't lived up to potential yet. Once I figure out who my best starts are each week at RB, I should win a good number of games. That killed me in Week 1.

Excuses, excuses.

145

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Fri, Oct 07, 2005, 13:10

I think you have a very good team as well; hence your squad being in my top 4 in the Draft Recap. The other 3 I picked to be at the top were Sludge (2nd), Doug (3rd) and GoatLocker (12th). Goatlocker has really been hurt by underperforming WR's/RB's.

146

holt
ID: 4792072
Sun, Oct 09, 2005, 07:40

guru - have you run into this in your league? I just went to sign Jurevicius so I could start him today. I got this message:

1. Based on your league's regular season dropped player rules, previously dropped player Joe Jurevicius cannot be signed until 48 hours (Sun 10/09 5:21p ET) from when the player was dropped.

but here's the deal. he was actually dropped on wednesday:

ADAMS COLLEGE Waive WR J. Jurevicius Wed 10/05
5:19p ET

so after he came off waivers, it says he was "dropped" from the waiver pool:

Waiver Pool Drop WR J. Jurevicius Fri 10/07 5:21p ET

this "drop" from the waiver pool makes him unavailable an additional 48 hours.
I need to know how you have your league set up to handle this. I thought I set mine up exactly the same way you did.

_______________________

maybe this is the problem:

Dropped Player (when a dropped player becomes available for pickup)
During the preseason, dropped player becomes available: 48 hours after player is dropped.

During the regular season, dropped player becomes available: 48 hours after player is dropped.

should I change that to 0 hours?
to be fair I can't make any changes til this week's games are over. no one in my league has mentioned this problem, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm the first one to try to sign him. just have to get it fixed next week, assuming this is what the problem is.

147

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Oct 09, 2005, 07:46

Yes, it should be changed to zero hours. See post 105.

148

holt
ID: 4792072
Sun, Oct 09, 2005, 07:54

ok - thanks.
the best thing to do is for me to not fix it til tuesday. stinks - I could really use jurevicius. It's been in the back of my mind that he was available as a FA for a couple days now. now I go to get him and find out I can't because I've screwed up the rules settings. not really my fault though. I'd bet that most commissioners make the same mistake. there are a lot of tweaks that should be made to the fanball platform. some of it is really counter-intuitive.

149

Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Sun, Oct 09, 2005, 12:21

Guru, I'm having trouble getting into Fanball to change my starting lineup. I was in earlier this AM with no problem.

Trying to change Cadillac to the bench and start Thompson from Dallas.

150

Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Sun, Oct 09, 2005, 12:22

.......Both teams

151

leggestand
ID: 17744278
Sun, Oct 09, 2005, 12:30

I am having issues too on Fanball. I am pretty sure my starting lineup was set, just in case:

Carr
Droughns, Lewis
Chambers, Galloway, Jurevicus
Crumpler
Reed
TB
Berry
Sharper, Williams
Azumah

152

Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Sun, Oct 09, 2005, 13:08

Well, it's back up now...but the game has started so I receive this error message:

1. Your league's lineup rule locks players 5 minutes before kickoff of their game. Carnell Williams(r) was locked on Sun 10/09 12:55p ET. Selected player cannot be changed.

Your starting lineup has NOT been updated.
Please correct the roster error and resubmit your lineup.

153

Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Sun, Oct 09, 2005, 18:01

Fanball note on our league homepage:

Your league may have experienced downtime just before kickoff. If you were unable to make a lineup change, please contact your commissioner, who can make roster moves after the deadline. We apologize for the inconvenience, and will employ additional servers to alleviate the problem.

- Your Fanball Commissioner Team

Not that it will apparently matter to my score and W-L

154

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Oct 09, 2005, 19:12

I made the Cadillac=>Thompson switch.

155

Athletics Guy
ID: 179071
Sun, Oct 09, 2005, 20:08

I sure left a lot of points on the bench this week. Hopefully, it doesn't come back to bite me.

Go !

156

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Oct 09, 2005, 20:13

I made the brilliant move of dropping Jurevicius early in the week, not realizing the severity of D. Jackson's injury. Doh!

Then I took a zero today from Andre Johnson when he got injured in the 1st quarter. Looks like Jurevicius might have been pretty useful after all.

157

Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Oct 09, 2005, 20:19

So far, I have about 100 points today, and about 70 of them have come from my team defense and 3 IDPs. My QB, 2 RBs, and 2 WRs have combined for only 22. My kicker got the other 9.

After 5 weeks, Peyton Manning has about 65 points, while the Indy defense has 80. Go figure!

158

Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Sun, Oct 09, 2005, 21:05

Thanks Guru

159

Doug
ID: 12936321
Mon, Oct 10, 2005, 02:46

Peculiar... it seems that the "Minutes Remaining" on the Live Scoring page is caculating 45 mins. per player for the Monday night game. Did they shorten tomorrow night's game to three quarters or something? =-p

160

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Oct 10, 2005, 09:36

Good! I always thought that Monday Night games extend too late for those of us on the east coast.

161

BoNkA
ID: 329241022
Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 00:24

Dang, best week for me so far and I'm going to lose one of my games by a point. That's my luck...

162

Motley Crue
ID: 2192327
Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 07:27

Yes, well how hard do you think it was for me watching my former TE score a last second touchdown to pull you within actual range of victory in that game? I was hot when I saw that.

My team has been scoring too well to be under .500. I'll get to test one of the big boys this week. Ready for the rematch, Guru?

163

BoNkA
ID: 48935116
Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 08:35

I just wish I had started the same lineup as I did for game 2. Wouldn't definitely have changed the outcome. I blame San Diego for not converting for 2 points and forcing OT, allowing Farrior time for 2 or 3 more points. Sigh. And that's fantasy football in a nutshell sometimes, haha.

164

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 09:08

Yes, you certainly took a big gamble using 2 different QB's. And I thought I was a wildman using Jenkins on one squad and Eric Parker on the other.

I watched the first half last night and I kept hearing Farrior's name. That was annoying. I thought I was going down.

Peter King picked San Diego to win 33-13. What a bandwagoneer! I laughed when I read his prediction. I can't imagine any team beating Pittsburgh by 20 anywhere.

165

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 10:05

I found one adjustment to report on my team, and it won't change my outcomes, but I will take the 2 extra points:

Carr:
131 yds passing = 5.24
24 yds rushing = 2.40
TD + 2 pt conversion = 6
Int = -2
Total Points = 11.64 ( Hou vs. Ten )

Not sure how Fanball messed up the scoring, because they have all the stats correct.

166

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 10:12

legge, can you do my team, too? I'm too lazy.

167

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 10:20

Haha. The only reason I knew is because I had to start Carr in another league, and they were giving him 11.64.

I also saw that 3 of my offensive players got tackles on Sunday...too bad we don't count that.

168

Sludge
ID: 27751510
Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 11:56

Great. This week I get to play the #3 and #4 top scorers in the league without Owens, Favre, and probably Horn. Anybody wanna feel sorry for me? Anyone? No?

169

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 12:03

Not feeling sorry for you. You get to play Doug, who has no Deuce, Julius dinged up, and Boldin on bye.

I play Doug, too, and am counting it as the lock of the week ;)

170

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 12:30

leggestand - Carr is correct at 10.64. Passing for a 2-pt conversion is only worth 1 point, not 2.

171

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 12:45

MC[162] - Beware. Teams seem to be underperforming when they face me. I lead the league in PA.

I'm also 2nd in PF, so all it means is that many of my wins have been lopsided. If my opponents had been more "average", my record would probably be 8-2 or 7-3, so it hasn't been a big factor in my W/L record. On the other hand, if I'd have faced BoNkA's schedule, I'd be only 5-5.

My team has done well at staying balanced internally. Individual players have had a lot of weekly variability, but the team has always produced about the same total: 125, 126, 119, 138, and 127.

My biggest surprise so far is that the team has done this well with Peyton Manning ranking only #15 among all QBs. And the only week that he played up to his ranking, I didn't really need the points, winning by more than 30 in each game that weekend.

172

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 13:24

Shouldn't it be 2 points since it's David Carr?

173

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 14:51

It should be, but we forgot to vote on that before the season started.

Speaking of rules changes, I'm going to request that we begin to consider changes for the Team Defense position for RIFC 2006.

Basically what I don't like about it currently is that it doesn't take what I perceive to be the 3 major aspects of defensive fantasy scoring into account. I believe we should not only consider points allowed and "outstanding plays" (turnovers/sacks/TD's/safeties), but also yardage allowed.

Points allowed is a good but not great gauge of how well a defense played on a given Sunday. Who could forget the Texans 24-6 beatdown of a very good Pittsburgh team in 2002? Take away Green Bay's 2 defensive TD's this past week and the Saints gave up only 38 points on defense. In our league they wouldn't have scored any better for this, but it invariably happens often that a defense is penalized because their offense turns the ball over and the other defense scores. I don't have a problem with this so much, as long as we all know it's possible before we start playing.

My list of "outstanding plays" above includes defensive plays that are and should be awarded fantasy points. No argument there. A very good defensive performance usually includes several turnovers or sacks, etc.

But by ignoring yardage allowed, we are ignoring certain excellent defensive efforts that ought to be rewarded. Pittsburgh allowed Houston 47 total yards of offense in that game I linked to above. Yet in our scoring system they would have received a fantasy score of 6 (4 sacks and a FR). 6 fantasy points for thoroughly dominating your opponent to the tune of 47 yards? 21 of Houston's 24 points were from turnovers returned for TD's.

I'd be interested in adding yardage allowed as another measure of defensive performance next year. Another league I play in does this by giving 25 points to each defense each week and then for every 20 yards allowed, 1 point is lost. Maybe those numbers are too high, but it's a starting point. It keeps the defensive scoring in the teens for a middle of the road defense on average. But in that league we don't count points allowed at all, which I think is a detriment.

174

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 15:31

Certainly something we can consider next year.

Looking over the Fanball scoring setup page, it looks like we could have set up the "Points allowed" formula this year to reflect only "Defensive Points allowed". I don't think we had that option last season. I'm not sure how "Defensive Points" are defined, but I assume they exclude points not scored against the defense. If you look at the game results from last week, for example, the Cowboys gave up 10 points, but only 4 defensive points, so that seems to exclude the fumble return TD, but not the associated PAT.

The Patriots gave up 28 points, but only 25 defensive points. I wonder which FG was not included, and why?

Maybe this is something new that hasn't been fully tested. When I look at the results from week 4, the "defensive points" are all haywire.

175

Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 16:19

I agree on yardage allowed being an important component. I proposed it either last year or the year before for the 24-team league and we implemented it and I think it's working well. Your offense turns the ball over at your own 10 yard line and your opponent scores a TD is a very different case than your opponent drives 90 yards for a TD IMHO... without yardage, these sorts of things aren't captured at all.

176

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Oct 11, 2005, 16:28

Yes, I've watched Griese throw a few picks in the last 2 games and really hamstring Tampa's defense by giving first the Lions and then the Jets excellent field position--inside the 10. It's not terribly difficult to score from there. And I have Tampa's defense in one league so this has been of some significance to me.

Orton and Benson did the same thing to the Bears' defense this week.

Team Defense is really hard to score accurately because it is dependent on so many other factors. Anyone who plays Exit42 can tell you some ugly stories about the Ravens defense this season. Although the Ravens haven't played up to their usual standards, the Exit42 scoring system has them in the Bottom 3 I believe.

177

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Wed, Oct 12, 2005, 08:57

From the predraft discussion thread :

Playoffs
8 teams
Top 6 W/L records are seeded 1-6
Top remaining total points are seeded 7-8
Teams with equivalent W/L records are seeded based on head-to-head first, then total points
Bracket is fixed (no reseeding after each round)

Has this changed or is it still set up this way?

178

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Oct 12, 2005, 09:25

That's the way it is.

179

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Wed, Oct 12, 2005, 13:48

Ahhhh, the DL roulette wheel is a-spinnin' once again.

180

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Wed, Oct 12, 2005, 14:17

I was hoping to get Moulds back after dropping him last week...I dropped him for Jurevicius because I thought the Losman experiment would hurt him all season. Sure enough, Holcomb comes in and Moulds scores a TD. Should of just been safe and dropped Greg Lewis last week instead.

181

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Wed, Oct 12, 2005, 15:04

I was a little surprised to see him available. He was on my claim list.

182

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Wed, Oct 12, 2005, 15:11

Yep, mistake by me. Doubt it will kill me, but could be a good pickup for Bonka. Hopefully Losman will start again soon.

183

BoNkA
ID: 189591215
Wed, Oct 12, 2005, 17:59

I was actually surprised I got Moulds. Two teams infront of me on the list, figured at least one would put in a claim. I just hope he keeps getting thrown to, no matter who is starting at QB. I could use another solid WR since Edwards has his elbow problem, Clayton hasn't done anything yet, and Booker isn't exactly someone I'd want to start weekly.

Just hoping to reel off a few wins in a row and get back into this thing, especially after having a good week and only going 1-1.

184

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Wed, Oct 12, 2005, 18:07

I am still trying to talk myself out of thinking that drop was a bad move. I don't think Moulds gives me much more than Burress (bye passed), Chambers (bye passed), Jurevicius, and Galloway can give me, so, it was a justifiable drop...right?

Bonka, I'll trade you Greg Lewis for Moulds straight up if you accept by 10 pm est tomorrow. Done.

185

Motley Crue
ID: 2192327
Wed, Oct 12, 2005, 18:22

legge, it's not a horrible move. You have the guys to cover it. Now if Buress or Chambers wind up hurt, you'll regret it.

186

kev
Donor
ID: 043111845
Wed, Oct 12, 2005, 19:55

Guys, maybe I'm blind, but I can't find where to see the free agents available based on points- help a brother out?

187

Motley Crue
ID: 2192327
Wed, Oct 12, 2005, 20:16

Mwa ha ha ha ha!

Go to the league homepage and then to the "Players" link on the top row. Don't click on it, but hover over it. "Free Agents" is one of the choices.

188

Ender
ID: 406351010
Wed, Oct 12, 2005, 21:05

Groan...

I had a meeting this morning and had zero time to put my claims in :(

189

kev
Donor
ID: 043111845
Wed, Oct 12, 2005, 21:08

It was the hover thing. Im a clicker.

190

leggestand
ID: 17744278
Wed, Oct 12, 2005, 21:13

Now if Buress or Chambers wind up hurt, you'll regret it.

Come on MC, these are young, virile athletes. Burress certainly isn't an injury risk.

191

Doug @ parents
ID: 49112252
Wed, Oct 12, 2005, 21:34

Re: 188... I hear ya... personally I prefer waivers on Wednesday night... gives you a 48 hour window each week to assess the past week's carnage before you need to get your claims in. We do that in my 2 keeper leagues... G24 is the only league I play in that, like this one, runs waivers on Tuesday night. I even managed to get 2 claims submitted, but both were gone to higher priority.

On that note, I find this whole "resetting waivers every week" thing is pretty brutal for teams who got off to a decent start... especially since early-season results are skewed by small sample size. I understand wanting to keep things balanced and interesting, but it just seems we might be overdoing it here... just my .02... maybe only reset waivers every OTHER week... say after week 2, week 4, and week 6 (or 1/3/5). Or just reset after weeks 1-4 and that's it. But something. OR... reset it based on weekly results rather than cumulative results. I'd be ok with that approach as an alternative.

192

Motley Crue
ID: 2192327
Wed, Oct 12, 2005, 21:34

kev, the other day the page wasn't loading completely for me and hovering didn't pull down the menu. So I couldn't get into the free agents, either and it was pissing me off. Then I found a backdoor, which I don't think I remember now. The problem fixed itself a half hour later.

legge, that's true. I mean, it's not like they fall into the Kellen Winslow or Correll Buckhalter molds; i.e., they've played a down this season.

193

kev
Donor
ID: 043111845
Wed, Oct 12, 2005, 22:04

MC- That was my problem...it wasn't finished loading...I just hit stop on my browser, and I could get there.

194

kev
Donor
ID: 043111845
Wed, Oct 12, 2005, 23:12

Okay- I found the list of Free Agent WR's.

Can anyone help me find the list of Free Agent WR's that are decent?

Needle in a haystack!

195

BoNkA
ID: 209341310
Thu, Oct 13, 2005, 12:34

There's a stud in the WR list Kev. Actually I had dropped him a few weeks ago. Look for Javon Walker, he's there somewhere :D

196

Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Oct 13, 2005, 15:02

Does this trade qualify as a blockbuster?

Challenger has traded:
QB Jake Plummer, DEN
RB Priest Holmes, KC

And receives from RotoGuru.com:
QB Peyton Manning, IND
WR Donald Driver, GB

It's a straight swap of 1st and 5th round picks.

For me, Holmes was particularly attractive, since I already have Larry Johnson. I also have the Philly RB corps (Westbrook/Gordon/Moats), so I feel pretty well protected at RB, which used to be my weakest link.

I still think Peyton will end up producing better than his younger brother, but Eli was going to rot on the bench, and this gives me a chance to capitalize on his strong start. If he turns out to be a bust, then Plummer at least gives me a serviceable option.

My weakness is now at WR, where I have only 4, including Andre Johnson, who is injured now, and underperforming when healthy. I do, however, have some excess backup RBs now, so if anyone has an interest in Patrick Pass or Ladell Betts, my interest is primarily in a "plausible" WR. I have a couple of ideas for offers already.

197

Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Thu, Oct 13, 2005, 15:19

Well, Manning was my 2nd choice when I drafted Holmes. ;>)

198

leggestand
ID: 17744278
Thu, Oct 13, 2005, 15:46

Sludge, Sorry man...I just saw your "private message" from last week. I have responded and will check that screen more often if you are interested.

199

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Thu, Oct 13, 2005, 16:17

Damn, I was wondering who you were going to start at RB against me this week, Guru. I thought I might get a walkover. Looks like I'll have to work for it once again.

Here's to Thomas Jones and Torry Holt being healthy this week.

200

Sludge
ID: 27751510
Thu, Oct 13, 2005, 16:23

Sludge, Sorry man...I just saw your "private message" from last week. I have responded and will check that screen more often if you are interested.

I responded. I'm interested, but my hands are tied this week.

201

BoNkA
ID: 469461622
Mon, Oct 17, 2005, 00:46

Finally, my team is shaping up to what it should have been. Hopefully it isn't too late and it's not a 2 week fad.

202

kev
Donor
ID: 043111845
Mon, Oct 17, 2005, 01:19

I get to play Peyton again- 2nd time in 3 weeks I believe...thanks for pulling the trigger on that trade guys!

With a slim 10 point lead, I hope McDonald and the pirate outscore Peyton....could be tricky though.

A 2-0 week is almost a must for my team right now.

203

holt
ID: 4792072
Mon, Oct 17, 2005, 04:51

anyone in RIFC have demorrio williams?
I'm trying to figure out what his points should be according to our rule system.

here's what live scoring is showing:

LB Demorrio Williams, ATL @ NO
Tkl: 7 Ast: 3 Sack: 0 Final 8.50

earlier he had been credited with a 59 yd return and a TD.

here's how the play is recorded in NFL gamebook:

4-22-ATL 29 (:04) 3-J.Carney 47 yard field goal is BLOCKED (59-M.Boley), Center-47-K.Houser, Holder-4-T.Bouman, RECOVERED by ATL-51-D.Williams at ATL 41. 51-D.Williams for 59 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

i can understand the 59 return yards were removed, but shouldn't he still be credited 6 points for the TD under our scoring system?

204

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Mon, Oct 17, 2005, 08:37

I have him holt, and was wondering the same thing. They were crediting him with the TD last night, but he doesn't have it this morning. I am thinking that he should have at least an additional 6 points, but I don't think he gets credit for a fumble recovery (I think, officially, a blocked kicked recovery is not a turnover).

205

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 3579513
Mon, Oct 17, 2005, 13:16

FYI Another Trade to Announce (And a Fanball Error)

To: I_AM_CANADIAN
RB Fred Taylor, JAC
RB Alvin Pearman(r), JAC

To: Bandos
RB Marcel Shipp, ARI
Def Cowboys, Team Defense, DAL

Now... the only problem is... this MSG from Fanball:
"1. Your league's trade rule does not allow to trade a player after 12:55pm EST on Sunday. Fred Taylor cannot be traded."

I'm guessing that we should be able to process this trade after this evenings games. Just thought we'd announce the trade right away... in order to allow other managers to look it over.

206

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Oct 17, 2005, 13:53

[203/204] - he should get credit for the TD. I can't override this until after the final scores are posted tomorrow.

Regarding the trade, we should probably not start the "protest clock" until the trade can be processed at Fanball, since the email notification won't go out until then. I don't think we should rely on everyone checking here, and there is certainly plenty of time to get this processed before the next freeze!

207

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Oct 17, 2005, 15:56

I don't ever recall going into the Monday night game with a 42+ point lead and thinking I'm the underdog.

Motley has Bulger, Edgerrin James, Holt, Wayne, and Mathis (DL) going tonight, while I have only the Colts defense.

If the game is as high powered as it could be, I might lose by 40 points.

I'm rooting for a final score of 6-3. (I'd root for a shutout, but don't want to be too greedy. I don't even care which team scores the 6!)

208

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Mon, Oct 17, 2005, 16:03

I was looking at that earlier. I have to agree that you are the underdog.

209

Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Mon, Oct 17, 2005, 18:13

I'm kicking myself for putting in Finneran over Welker, but strangely I can still kick my way to victory if Wilkins gets enough FGs... I need 18 points. Doubtful, but remotely possible. That's four 40+ yd FGs and a pair of PATs. Hopefully the Rams O is good enough to move the ball into Colts territory, but the Colts D is strong enough to hold them to FGs. =-)

210

Doug @ parents
ID: 49112252
Mon, Oct 17, 2005, 21:42

Well, he's got 5 points with 3:31 to go in the first quarter... so I'm on pace for the win. Go Wilkins! =-p

211

Doug @ parents
ID: 49112252
Mon, Oct 17, 2005, 22:38

With 9 points at halftime... he's still on pace (not Orlando)! Go Wilkins! Kick that effing ball! LOL... with a 49 yarder near the end of the half, I sure hope that 1 yard doesn't come back to haunt me.

212

Doug @ parents
ID: 49112252
Tue, Oct 18, 2005, 01:54

Oh well... at least it kept me entertained through the first half. I switched over to the NLCS during the 3rd quarter anyway.

213

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Oct 18, 2005, 08:49

I just processed the extra 6 points for leggestand (Demorrio Williams TD - see post 203/204). It didn't change the outcome of either game - but it would have if Wilkins had managed to kick 18 points for Doug.

The points should be reflected in the league results later this morning. It usually takes an hour or so for them to percolate through the system.

214

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Oct 18, 2005, 08:50

Reminder - claiming/waiver priorities will be reset this week for the last time.

215

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Oct 18, 2005, 09:02

I went to bed thinking that GoatLocker had beaten me. The live scoring had him with a 3 point lead at the end of the game last night. I woke up to a .6 point victory.

Of course, my season could be nudging close to an end if Bulger is out for any significant amount of time. My backup is Joey Harrington. : ) Yay.

216

BoNkA
ID: 309451810
Tue, Oct 18, 2005, 12:45

Feels nice to be back in the running now. Only makes me wonder what my record could be if I didn't run into all those high scoring teams the first few weeks. Oh well, it might just make for a more exciting finish to my season!

217

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 41713300
Tue, Oct 18, 2005, 13:40

Fanball timed out that trade now... so I reproposed it to Bandos. (He was the original proposer)

Please accept it ASAP.

There is a going to be quite the competition for 6-8 spot with 8 teams within 2 wins of each other. As everything stands right now... think I'm just creeping into 8th spot based on PF.

Based on "Power Rank" me and Bonka are both sitting where we should be anyways, so I can only hope that my team turns up the quality of play a little.

218

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Oct 18, 2005, 14:20

Remember that the top 6 playoff seeds are based upon W/L record, but the 7th and 8th spots are based on total points. Fanball shows the standings only based upon W/L, so the 7th and 8th spots are not always shown in the correct order.

For example, if the regular season ended today, the 7th seed would be BoNkA and the 8th seed would be IAC. Motley wins the the 6th seed tiebreaker by virtue of his HTH win over Being Ron Mexico.

219

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Tue, Oct 18, 2005, 14:46

Ugh, if it wasn't for bad luck, I wouldn't have any.

Nedd to give a pep talk and get going.

Cliff

220

Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Tue, Oct 18, 2005, 18:21

Shouldn't leggestand and I have our positions swapped in the claim request list?

221

Bandos
Sustainer
ID: 279492419
Tue, Oct 18, 2005, 20:30

I was wondering why I hadnt gotten notification of the trade being accepted/rejected then got the offer from IAC. I accepted.

The NE pick in the 6th is looking worse every week. I guess in the interchangeable NE D, there was one unreplaceable part - Rodney Harrison. As I would have had to start W. Green with week, Shipp is definitely an upgrade (though how much I am unsure). Here to hoping Davis stays healthy and I end this skid soon. Randy M, Michael V. stay on the field! Hope Taylor stays just healthy enough to keep Perlman on the sidelines :)

222

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Oct 18, 2005, 21:27

Doug[220] - Yes, I just corrected it. That's probably due to the scoring correction I made this morning for leggestand, which pushed his point total above yours.

Good catch!

223

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Oct 19, 2005, 12:29

We have just passed our 6th reset for F/A and waiver claim priorities, so the only changes from this point forward will be to move teams to the end of the list as F/A claims or waivers are processed. Therefore, I just reset the claim and waiver priority rules to "Commissioner sets manually".

Now I just need to remember to keep these in synch from week to week. Once F/A claims are processed, I copy over the resulting priority rankings to the waiver list. Once waiver claims are done for the week, I must copy over the resulting priorities to the next week's F/A claim list.

224

BoNkA
ID: 569312023
Fri, Oct 21, 2005, 01:34

Think I might have to trade for a RB for next week since I lost out on the Patrick Pass sweepstakes. Unless of course one of my 2 backups actually starts to play enough or someone else pops up that I can grab. Basically I can get rid of either of my QBs, though I'd rather part with Bledsoe. I'll see what happens this weekend, but justed wanted to throw that out there incase anyone would be interested.

225

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Fri, Oct 21, 2005, 10:31

I think it says alot about the quality of this league that there even was a Patrick Pass sweeptstakes. I mean the Patriots are on bye this week.

226

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Oct 21, 2005, 10:42

I dropped Pass last week just before game time in order to get a backup WR without burning a waiver priority slot. With Dillon remaining active last week, and with the Pats going on a bye this week, I figured he would have no trade value (he certainly didn't have any last week!)

Of course, I didn't expect him to have the type of game that he had.

Regardless, I didn't have roster room to keep him given my healthy WR shortage.

227

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Fri, Oct 21, 2005, 10:59

I'll go on record and say that was the best game Pass will have this season. I'd even feel safe stating my belief that he will never again in his NFL career achieve the fantasy score he did last week.

BoNkA, I was looking at our teams and I see some angles we might want to discuss. I'm rolling it around in my head and I will try to get you and e-mail this weekend. I had something worked up, but I deleted it when a bye week check revealed incompatability.

228

Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Fri, Oct 21, 2005, 12:34

Well, Pass seems to be taking over some of the role that Kevin Faulk played before he was injured, and Faulk would sometimes put up decent games, but primary value is if Dillon goes down. Same thing with Pass.

So I'll go on record and say that was the best game Pass will have this season IF Dillon remains healthy the rest of the year. If Pass becomes the starter at some point, I think he could definitely match or pass last week's fantasy score.

229

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Fri, Oct 21, 2005, 13:16

Excellent points, and ones I hadn't considered.
On the other hand, Dillon has had only one game this season as good as the one Pass had last week (21.30 points). I feel pretty safe in assuming that, even if Dillon went down for a significant amount of time, Pass would not approach that level of performance again. And I still feel he won't surpass it. The odds are certainly against it. I guess we'll see.

230

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Oct 21, 2005, 22:47

So far, having Priest Holmes hasn't helped me much.

Last week, I'd have had Patrick Pass in the lineup if I hadn't traded for Priest. This week, I'd have started Larry Johnson.

Priest barely outscored Pass, but not by as much as Peyton outscored Eli. So far this week, Priest is ahead of Larry by only 3.7, with the QBs still waiting to contribute.

I still think it was the right move to make. But... perhaps no good move goes unpunished.

231

Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Sat, Oct 22, 2005, 01:24

Dang Guru, here I've been regretting the trade since the since you accepted. Almost want to offer a "refund". :>)

232

BoNkA
ID: 5694230
Sun, Oct 23, 2005, 02:04

Pass would be a better option for me on bye weeks than Benson or Sowell who will most likely put up 0's. Pass should put up at least a few points each game catching balls out of the backfield. That's why I had Kevin Faulk as a backup before he got hurt. At least I think that was this league, too many players to keep track of in 3...

233

BoNkA
ID: 189342321
Sun, Oct 23, 2005, 23:34

Ouch, this week hurt. Only 2 players in double digits! Why couldn't I have played Ender this week? :D

234

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Sun, Oct 23, 2005, 23:58

I really needed this week.
Gets me back into things and we need to keep going on from here.

Cliff

235

kev
Donor
ID: 043111845
Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 00:15

Just to confirm- if there is a tie for the 6th spot between lets say 3 teams, the team that wins the tiebreaker gets in, but the other 2 teams are out if there are lower teams that are higher scoring- seems fair.

Made a late roster change. With working so much, had a mental gaff until today, and forgot Peppers was on his bye. Had to make a late switch and pick up Hobson for extra insurance tomorrow.

236

Athletics Guy
ID: 539531515
Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 00:16

I'm looking at maybe 2 losses for me this week. My running backs didn't really contribute much. Even the 2 49ers backs on my bench would have helped my team more. Actually, if I had started those 2, I'd have a decent shot at winning both game! I guess Alexander was long due for a game like this. He's been carrying my team all season.

Hopefully, Coles comes through tomorrow night. I'd hate to lose to a Marion Barber/Jarrett Payton backfield...that's just embarrassing. ;)

237

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 08:24

Yeah, that was quite lucky that you had a scrub from one of the 2 teams playing tonight that you could drop, and then find a guy who should actually contribute tonight, kev.

238

Ender
ID: 285713
Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 08:46

It's not bad enough on the scoreboard? Now I have to endure cheap shots in this thread? :P\

This season has been absolutely brutal...

239

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 10:04

kev[235] - correct

240

Athletics Guy
ID: 539531515
Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 14:21

Ender, why did you start Delhomme(Bye) on one of your teams? And Drew Bennett too.

241

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 14:42

Looks like a failure to set both lineups. Would have won that game, too.

242

Ender
ID: 285713
Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 15:11

What?!?

I clicked the "Make changes for both lineups" button. I didn't check live scoring yesterday so I didn't realize it didn't go through.

I understand if it's too late to correct that, but I can tell you that I set my lineups the same every week by using that same button. You can go back and look at each week to verify that my lineups have been identical.

243

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 15:14

I've clicked it after clicking submit, in which case it doesn't register.

You have to be sure to check the box first, then click submit.

I am not presuming you didn't do that, but I've had my own mishaps with that feature before. I always double check after I put the lineup in to be sure.

244

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 15:40

A delicate issue.

If Ender had called attention to this earlier yesterday, I probably would have made the adjustment without second thought.

But now that it's more than 24 hours later, and given that it would make a difference in the outcome of that game, it's a tough call - even though I have no doubt that it was the "voter intent".

How does the rest of the league feel about this one? It seems pretty clear that Ender intended to set his game 2 lineup equal to his game 1 lineup. There is no reason he would have started a bye QB with Drew Brees on the bench.

However, does waiting more than 24 hours, especially when the outcome is essentially settled, exceed the statute of limitations on this? It seems that Ender must shoulder some responsibility for his apparent failure to click properly.

245

Sludge
ID: 27751510
Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 16:09

I personally feel that this should remain between Ender, his opponent, and the commish.

Earlier this year in another league, I was playing someone who was unable to turn in a lineup due to Rita. Being the commish and his opponent made the decision easy and I made a couple of obvious bye-week and injury substitutions in his lineup. I lost because of it. Oh well. But I didn't consult with anyone else prior to making the change. Had he been playing anyone else, I would have consulted with his opponent first (and only his opponent), and would have made a strong suggestion that he allow the substitutions. Obviously different situation here, but similar enough that I felt it might be of some use.

246

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 17:57

Challenger is not the only league manager (other than Ender) to have a vested interest in this. His record could easily impact the playoff chances and/or seeding of several other teams.

I'd like to hear how others think this should be handled, either here or (if you prefer) privately via email.

247

Sludge
ID: 27751510
Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 18:20

Challenger is not the only league manager (other than Ender) to have a vested interest in this.

Well, sure Guru. Apart from Challenger and Ender, everyone else is equally vested. I'd like to see Challenger lose (no offense, bud). The evidence points to Ender making the effort to change his lineup, so part of me wants to see that corrected. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to cast any kind of vote to award Ender the win, as that vote would likely be tainted by what I wish to see as the outcome of the game. (Of course, we could easily imagine having the two interests diverge where the team with the better record was the one who messed up and lost because of it. How would I want to vote or slant my feedback if a playoff spot depended on it?)

You asked for opinions, and that's fine. I gave mine: I think you should work to resolve this between Ender, Challenger, and yourself. The rest of us ought to butt out. I can't speak for the rest, but I trust you, as commish, to make a fair and unbiased decision.

248

Athletics Guy
ID: 539531515
Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 18:25

I don't have a problem with Ender getting Brees' points for this week. Just looking at his roster, it's pretty obvious that Brees would have been his guy. He had nobody else to fill in for the QB spot. Plus it was a 10am game. It's not like he could intentionally use Delhomme to protect a slim lead in that situation.

I can't say the same for his WR spot though. He has 2 guys that he could have played there, so we can't assume anything there.

249

BoNkA
ID: 539252416
Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 18:25

I'm ok with switching it to his other lineup. Obviously it seems like mistake because why would anyone leave a player on a bye in their lineup if they have a backup? I know I'd be upset if I were in his shoes and couldn't get it fixed. Now if both lineups were the same then it'd be different, but looking at the circumstances it's ok in my book.

250

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 18:28

Alright, I'll stick my neck out there...

The negative for this is that it sets precedent. We would be walking a fine line if we decide to change a score post game time when it comes to future instances where someone is played on bye, injury, and even a bad matchup.

Although I believe Ender and what he tried to do, can someone use this to their advantage for evil? For instance, I have Jamal Lewis and Droughns, if I set a lineup with each starting alongside Jordan, how difficult would it be for me to come back and say, "I started Lewis on both teams, but it must not have registered," if Lewis does better or Droughns is a last minute scratch?

Furthermore, what if Ender had taken a negative from Brees, and starting Delhomme as a 0 actually gave him the win? Would we even be discussing this, or be claiming "dumb luck!"

251

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 18:31

Furthermore, what if Ender had taken a negative from Brees, and starting Delhomme as a 0 actually gave him the win? Would we even be discussing this, or be claiming "dumb luck!"

I know I just put this, but that's really the point I want to hammer home...What would we do if Ender had won because of the 0?

252

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 19:12

Upon further review, there are four slots that are different between Ender's two rosters.

It's pretty obvious that he would have started Brees instead of Delhomme.

Subbing Calico for Bennett is actually the least favorable outcome at WR.

He also had the Vikings defense and Sam Cowart for game 2 (vs Washington and Al Wilson for game 1). Without the latter two substitutions, he might not have enough points to top Challenger.

But although we probably all would agree that Ender intended to use his game #1 lineup for game #2, I think it's too late now. If this had been noticed early yesterday, I probably would have allowed the switch. But I think it is simply too late.

We've probably all made careless errors in lineup setting at one time or another. Frankly, that's why I always doublecheck both lineups separately before each freeze.

It's unfortunate that Ender misses out on a win that he could have easily gotten. And (barring a ridiculous game from Kerry Rhodes tonight), Challenger benefits to a greater degree than anyone else.

Them's the breaks. I think that to make a retroactive linep adjustment now would be to set a precedent that might create even greater difficulties later on.

The fairest resolution is to have each manager be accountable for their own lineup. Thus, unless I hear compelling testimony to the contrary, I'm going to rule that the lineup stands.

253

holt
ID: 4792072
Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 19:13

can't believe there's discussion about this. changing your lineup properly is just part of fantasy sports. the only time a commish should change a lineup for someone is when that person directly asks the commish to make a change for them, BEFORE the game starts. for example, the game server is down and you can't make the change - tell the commish BEFORE the deadline. if you screw up a change and don't double-check to make sure your lineup is right then you deserve to suffer the consequences of that.

fantasy sports aren't only a test of the ability to judge talent. they're also a test of activity and management.

254

Motley Crue
ID: 2192327
Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 20:23

Well, there went holt's Christmas card from Ender.

255

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 21:43

It's been called to my attention that "Being Ron Mexico" has an invalid lineup today. He replaced Julius Peppers with a LB, leaving no DL in his lineup.

Whichever LB gets the most points tonight will be replaced by a zero.

256

kev
Donor
ID: 043111845
Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 22:15

My mistake- the website says "You may start a minimum of 0 DL's". Instead of digging through stuff, in my haste, I went with what the website said. My mistake.

I would rather just take the zero from the guy I picked up and take Brooking's points, but whatever.

Maybe it should be cleared up at the website though.

257

kev
Donor
ID: 043111845
Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 22:18

And just to show you what the website shows, in 2 places

"Select a minimum of 0 or up to a maximum of 2 Defensive Lines"

"The following minimum starters are allowed per position:
Quarterback 1
Running Back 2
Wide Receiver 3
Tight End 1
Place Kicker 1
Team Defense 1
Defensive Line 0
Linebacker 1
Defensive Back 1

I will take the "invalid" and my zero, as that is what the commish decided, but considering the website said I could start zero, I went with that, on a Sunday Night. Just realize, it's messed up, and I just went with what the site said was allowed.

258

Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 22:36

The website also says (immediately above the section that you cited):

For 2005, Demarcus Ware will be eligible as a DL only. Because Fanball changed his listing to LB after our draft was completed, grandfathering his DL status requires coding the roster rules to allow no DL and up to 3 LBs. However, our operative rule is still that each starting lineup must have four IDPs, of which there must be at least 1 DL, 1 LB, and 1 DB. Ware is simply considered as a DL for this purpose.

In the event that a team inadvertantly sets a lineup without a qualifying DL, the Commissioner will enforce an adjustment to bring the roster into conformance.

This was also discussed above in post 28.

259

kev
Donor
ID: 043111845
Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 22:38

Yes, as I said, I am fine with the choice, and realize I made a mistake by not on Sunday Night checking in again, and trusting the Fanball site.

260

Bandos
Sustainer
ID: 279492419
Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 23:17

What a huge swing in the ATL game. Dunn gets stopped with Bonka 4 points behind, then on 4th down, Vick walks it in - a swing of 12 points that probably decides the matter.

261

Ender
ID: 406351010
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 00:59

Whatever...

I'll admit to being pretty annoyed by this whole thing and not being given the benefit of the doubt when I clearly set my lineup as evidenced by the other game. I have been around here long enough to deserve a bit better, but my season being what it is already it won't make or break me. When I set my lineup I could see the top few slots and could tell the Brees switch had been made on the screen so I didn't scroll down to check everything. It stinks to have pretty much given other people the benefit of the doubt around here for my tenure and not being returned the favor when the opportunity presents itself.

If this was a normal Yahoo 1 lineup league then shame on me for not paying due diligence. However I think the doubleheader lineup structure of this league actually shows that lineup changes were made but for whatever reason weren't carried over to the other.

You know the more I sit here the angrier I get. It's just 1 stinking game in a rotten season for me so I don't really care about the loss. Some of the quotes above generally pi$$ me off. We're all in this league because we are supposedly of some caliber and character but I guess that's not the case. Apparently we should assume the worst case of someone and cast them aside. I'd hate to set a precedent of trust supported by an accepted valid lineup.

holt, I've got nothing more to say to you than kiss my arse. That last comment was uncalled for.

I'll stop now because I'm speaking out more out of anger and hurt feelings than anything else. I've been here too long and treated people far better than I feel I'm being tretaed in this situation.

Sludge was right IMO. This should have been left between Challenger, Guru, and I.

263

Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 01:26

Wow, post 261 caused me to delete post 262 as both Ender and I were working on our comments at the same time. I'm going to rethink this one overnight.

264

BoNkA
ID: 19322423
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 01:32

Darn Bandos...can't believe that. Usually it's Dunn losing TDs to Duckett, which I'd rather have happened at this point. Oh well, back to my team stinking it up!

By the way, still probably going to need to trade for a RB.

265

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 23916230
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 02:21

For the Ender situation... I just see it as, "what's fair is fair"... So if the commish thinks it's ok to play arround with the rules and make exceptions w/o a major excuse from the manager... that's his choice. It's up to him to what level he wants us to take this seriously. (It is his league and site after all)

Personally... (If you can't already tell from my tone) I say there's no need to change the lineups from the way they were set. That said however... I'm quite concerned about how we'll deal with KEV?

His roster is INVALID after all. We were very clear about how we were handling DLs early in the year, and there've never been any questions as to the fact that we DO have to have a valid roster every week.

266

kev
Donor
ID: 043111845
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 02:45

Here is my opinion on myself.

I really don't want to recieve zeroes for having an invalid roster. Until last night, when I realized I had goofed and forgot about Peppers, I had him in my lineup. I went to Fanball, selected Hobson, the highest ranked defender in tonight's game, and then set him in my lineup. I didn't think about the DL thing- totally my mistake, but I didn't get an error message saying my roster was invalid- I went to bed thinking all was well.

To me, I think a fair penalty would be just to take away Hobson's points, and go about it as Peppers was in.

It is not my choice, however- even though from Guru's above comment, and with Hobson outscoring Brooking, I think it will work out all the same- Hobson's points will be discarded.

I'm more upset at myself as any points from any DL I would have picked up probably would have had me go 2-0 instead of 0-2, if my math is correct.

267

holt
ID: 4792072
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 02:52

this isn't the only time that someone has made the double-header lineup mistake. look through the AAA and AA threads and you'll see where others have done it. I don't recall anyone bringing up the possibility of the commish fixing it though. Most of us probably double or triple check our lineups every week because we know that once the games start that's it and there's no way they will be changed.

I've never seen a commish fix a lineup in fantasy baseball or basketball. I understand the error is magnified in football but still, you can't set a precedent where a commish has to determine the lineup that someone intended to set.

268

Ender
ID: 406351010
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 08:14

From post 242:

"I understand if it's too late to correct that, but I can tell you that I set my lineups the same every week by using that same button. You can go back and look at each week to verify that my lineups have been identical."

I stand by that opinion. I still wish that this had been left up to Challenger and I. If it had it more than likely would have been resolved easily. It more than likely would be entirely up to Challenger and I wouldn't argue either way. I would be disappointed that I would have lost to what I believe was a good faith attempt to setting a lineup that was botched by Fanball's software, but I would understand and takew it in stride.

I won't delete my above comments in 261 because I still believe you were out of line, holt. I think you owe me an apology.

269

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 08:51

Re: 261

Ender, I saw you brought up my "precedent" comments in your 261, and I figured I would get a jab for that. Like I said, "I believe Ender and what he tried to do," I recently witnessed/comisshed a similar situation in another league where a guy played someone on bye instead of Brandon Jacobs (the week Jacobs took a -1.5) and the guy won by 0.7 points. It caused an uproar because both guys said Jacobs should/would of been in and it changed the outcome of the game. I didn't put Jacobs in for the guy, though, post fact, though, which would of changed the outcome.

So, sorry if it seemed I was tryng to piss you off, but I just wanted to make sure that we looked at it under different cicumstances (maybe not the right thing to do).

270

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 09:05

I don't buy the case that Kev should get a zero for the week. When we made the accommodation for Ware to be used as DL, I realized that it was possible someone would forget this rule, and that Fanball would not enforce a DL. That is the reason that I put this statement into the rules:

In the event that a team inadvertantly sets a lineup without a qualifying DL, the Commissioner will enforce an adjustment to bring the roster into conformance.

The only decision I needed to make was to invalidate the late substitution of Hobson for Peppers, or to invalidate the higher scoring of the two LBs, since both played last night. Althought I would have expected that Brookings would have been the one chosen for the lineup, I felt that choosing to invalidate the higher scoring LB was appropriate, since either one of those LBs could have legitimately filled the LB slot.

271

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 09:50

Regarding the Ender situation:

I have no doubt that Ender intended to set both lineups the same. That is what made this a difficult decision.

At first, I thought that the only discrepancies were for Delhomme and Bennett. Delhomme was on bye, and Bennett had been declared out well in advance. Those two players were replaced in the other lineup Brees and Calico. Brees and Calico scored 21.96 points combined.

Then I discovered that there were two other differences. The team defenses were different, and one of the IDPs was different.

Again, I am sure that Ender meant to switch those defenses. But I can't imagine going to a situation in which, after the fact, a manager is able to switch out one valid player for better scoring option that was on the bench.

As I think I said earlier, I'm sure we have all be victimized by a failure to make a roster move that we intended to make, or thought we had made. I know it has happened to me. It even happened at least once to me last season in the RIFC, when I apparently failed to make a switch in my second lineup.

Suppose that the other roster differences turned out to work in Ender's favor. They certainly could have. They could have even worked out favorably enough to compensate for the other zeros. And if that had been the case, I think we would not be discussing a roster reversion. As leggestand suggests, we'd all be marveling at Ender's "dumb luck".

I considered allowing a switch only for the Delhomme and Bennett slots. As it turned out, the extra 21.96 points would have made that game result very close, but Ender would still have lost. To get the win, Ender also needed to get the extra points for at least one of the two defensive slots.

I truly believe that a rational case could be made for any decision here. And, as I've said several times earlier, I would most likely have made the correction had it been detected before the points were settled. But bringing up the issue after the points are determined would effectively give Ender a free option. If the inadvertant lineup had done well, then there would be no cry for a switch.

I know that we can't (or don't) always double check our lineups just to be sure. I know that we can't always be online during games to follow the live scoring and make sure our lineups are as we intended. But failure to do so comes with a potential price, and in this case, the price was high.

I also know that this league is looked at carefully by the other qualifying leagues, and decisions made here have precedential value not only in this league, but in the others as well.

I hope this is (still) a "friendly" league. I think we all respect each other, and I think we all accept that Ender's mistake was unintentional. My guess is that when he clicked on the "set my second lineup" box, he was slightly off center, and the checkmark didn't register. That's unfortunate, but sometimes unfortunate things happen. To good people.

I also have no doubt that Ender is steaming about this. I would be too. I remember being steamed last year when I discovered my lineup gaffe. That's why I've taken care to double check my lineups since then.

Ender, please be sure that the decision in no way reflects on my respect for you or for your word. That was never in question.

272

Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 09:54

Ender, Let's take this discussion off the message board. If you would please send me a email specifying what you did to switch your lineup last week. Please copy Guru. (no rush, when you get the chance)

273

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 10:11

BTW Ender, I reread holt's comments in 253 and 267, and I can't find anything that he said that were "out of line" or that should require an apology. Unless there have been some edits made in the meantime, I suspect that you may have been reading something into them based on the heat of the moment.

You may not like his take on the situation, but I don't see that he has called you anything, other than perhaps careless (by inference).

Normally, I'd stay out of a personal dispute, but I thought you should at least know that at least one person's dispassionate reading found nothing inflammatory in his comments.

274

Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 10:11

I need to start typing faster. Guru's post above was posted while I was deciding on the wording of mine. Not meaning any offense to Guru, I'm still willing to hear Ender's account thru email if he wishes, I have questions running thru my head that hopefully will ease my mind.

275

Challenger
Donor
ID: 481126818
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 10:14

Guru did it to me again. :>) My post 274 is referring to post 271

276

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 10:31

I'm sorry if I threw gas on the fire with my silly@ss Christmas card comment. I have a hard time biting my tongue sometimes. It's not always easy being a goof.

The way I looked at the situation is it wouldn't be fair to Challenger to change anything after games are played. I hate that it has to be like that, because Ender is a very good manager. But someone will lose in this situation and since Challenger did nothing to deserve to be penalized, I think the correct course of action is the one Guru is advancing. As I said, I'm not happy that Ender loses, but either he loses or Challenger loses because we bend over backwards to interpret the intent of Ender when setting lineups. And that is clearly not the way we should do it if you go strictly by what the rules say.

Yeesh. Sorry, Ender, I don't want to come off like a hard@ss.

277

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 10:42

The always reliable Motely Crue winning streak has started...I pity the fools in his path.

278

Ender
ID: 34948258
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 10:48

I took exception to this comment:

"fantasy sports aren't only a test of the ability to judge talent. they're also a test of activity and management."

Even I'll admit it doesn't read quite the way I remember it reading last night. I do still take issue with the implication that I am no longer active. I have made roster moves when I could find someone I thought might be able to help me (which has been hard given the number of teams, size of our rosters, and caliber of our managers). I have changed my lineup every week to suit my fancy.

I also don't appreciate the overall quality of mymanaging being questioned for what apparently is a 1 week (half week?) gaffe on my part. Guru admittedly made a similar error and I don't see anyone questioning his skills.

As for an apology, perhaps it doesn't demand one, but I was insulted by the tone. If that's not what holt intended then it's one of those situations where text doesn't convey the intended message. I have never exchanged emails or stories with holt so he and I have no rapport or prior relationship. I can't say I would hold it against him long term. It just irked me.

Leggestand, no hard feelings. I think we just happened to have the same word choice. I don't recall intentionally referring to your post. I understand the issues you were discussing as well as Guru's situation as an example/precedent setter in these matters.

I'm really not asking for a mulligan. I didn't in my initial post and I wasn't trying to in any of my posts. I felt my skills and more importantly reputation were called into question and that's what ticked me off.

Challenger, I will take you up on the extended hand and email you. What is said from there will be between you and I.

Guru, thanks for the kind words and even-handedness required by your position both on the boards and as commish. I'll simply take the loss and be annoyed at myself as was the case initially. Though I reserve the right to transfer some of my angst at Fanball's interface :)

279

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 11:09

The always reliable Motely Crue winning streak has started...I pity the fools in his path.

Me too!

I hate to say it, but it has started a little early to be getting my playoff lineup in order. Let's see if it continues. I'd say 14 wins are needed to feel safe getting to the playoffs.

I got bit by injuries a little more so far this season than I did last year, and I'm hanging in. That makes me feel good.

I know some of you guys could use a RB. Quit being coy and ogle my roster.

280

Ender
ID: 11938259
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 11:38

MC, I hope to put together something for you in the near future, probably this evening. If you want to get the ball rolling early with an email or an offer feel free. Otherwise expect to hear from me soon.

281

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 11:47

I'll look into it. I'm madly hammering out waiver claims at the moment.

282

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 12:02

Guru, the Claim priority list looks like this right now:

1 Bandos
2 BoNkA
3 Being Ron Mexico
4 Beware of Doug
5 Oaktown Raiders
6 RotoGuru.com
7 GoatLockers Bruisers
8 Mötley Crüe
9 Sludge
10 Ender
11 Tax Returns
12 I_AM_CANADIAN
13 Leggestand
14 Challenger

Is this accurate?

283

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 12:28

That list looks accurate. It is the same priority list coming out of last week's free agent claims, and there were no waiver claims since then.

284

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 12:56

So if I make a waiver claim, does it affect my Free Agent claim standing? I thought those 2 lists were entirely independent of each other.

285

Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 13:52

I'm pretty sure they are not independent... Fanball is anomalous in that they use two different terms/processes for "weekly waivers" vs. "dropped player waivers"... but that doesn't mean we use two separate lists to accomodate their peculiarity. Correct me if I'm wrong.

286

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 13:55

That would answer alot of questions for me, if that were true. I've never completely understood the damn thing.

I suppose it's not fair to let the worst team have #1 FA priority, and then give him #1 on the WW, too. Makes sense.

287

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 13:59

Fanball does not link the two lists, but I do. The waiver list is always set to equal the claim priorities coming out of the claim process. And now, the claim list will be the waiver list as of the end of the prior week.

I've always had to maunally reset the waiver list after each claiming period. Now I just have to do the reverse processing as well. But we have always treated them as though they were the same, integrated priorities.

288

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Oct 25, 2005, 14:04

Funny how it took me halfway through my second season to get all of the intricacies of this format.

But I like where we are headed. With some tweaking on the TM DEF scoring next year, this will easily be the best format I've ever played.

289

BoNkA
ID: 119242610
Wed, Oct 26, 2005, 12:24

I'm saving that high priority for a miracle player that can turn my season around. Just hope it happens soon before it's too late!

In other news, I will avoid Packer WRs for the rest of my life. Draft Walker, he gets hurt. Pick up Fuergeson and now he's hurt. At least I didn't have Green to boot, I'd be going insane right now.

290

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Wed, Oct 26, 2005, 13:44

Guru swooped in and lifted Gaffney just as I was toying with picking him up. In other news, with Bandos' acquisition of Caldwell, former UF receivers are enjoying an all-time high rate of fantasy ownership. Go Gators!

291

BoNkA
ID: 449392612
Wed, Oct 26, 2005, 14:39

Bah. I had to go get things done and planned on grabbing Gaffney when I got back. I check here first and see he's gone. I would have had him if I didn't have to wait until after 1 to do it...what the crap.

292

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Oct 26, 2005, 15:01

You could have filed a claim if you wanted him that badly.

293

Ender
ID: 406351010
Wed, Oct 26, 2005, 20:55

I just wanted to let everyone know that Challenger and I have exchanged emails and we can close the door on the whole thing.

On to other matters... MC and I have agreed to a trade.

To MC:
Drew Brees
Kevin Curtis
Dominic Rhodes

To Ender:
Mike Anderson
Mewelde Moore
Nate Clement

294

Motley Crue
ID: 2192327
Wed, Oct 26, 2005, 22:00

Uhhh, I agreed to give up Anderson, Parker, and Clements. Not Mewelde. I think Ender just forgot what he agreed to earlier, but the trade is listed correctly in Fanball Commissioner.

//MC

295

Ender
ID: 406351010
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 00:13

Doh! I should have doublechecked the email. We kicked around several names. I should have.

As soon as I saw you as the most recent poster I knew I had screwed it up. I'm having a banner week ;)

296

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 23916230
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 02:09

Sent out a couple feeler offers...

If anyone's interested, I've got a few WR3's and I'm looking for a TEAM D.

297

Motley Crue
ID: 2192327
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 07:16

So we're good then, right, Ender? You aren't implying you want Mewelde instead of Willie, are you?

298

Ender
ID: 406351010
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 12:38

We're good :) It was just a typing error on my part. I'd offer up some witty entertaining excuse, but I'd probably botch that as well.

299

Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Thu, Oct 27, 2005, 12:59

Just don't "right" it up. That would be a mistake.

301

Taxman
SuperDude
ID: 029463114
Sun, Oct 30, 2005, 19:39

Trainwreck continues...Dillon has been down for several weeks...Culpepper, who has been a season long bust carted off field with knee sprain today, Burleson, DeFoster, Bruce and Houshmndzadh have all been injured for the past month or more. That would be 6 of my first 7 picks. LB Edwards of SD only Taxman draftee to avoid injury bug through 8 weeks.

As long as I am sniveling...the little box under setting lineups that indicates 2nd game line up to be updated also...is for real. I must have missed cking that box updating Dallas DB Henry picked up off waivers and thus losing his 16 point performance against Ariz.

A long...long...season gets longer :<(

302

I_AM_CANADIAN
ID: 3579513
Mon, Oct 31, 2005, 11:56

Good thing those 16 points wouldn't have been enough to make a difference in our game... then I woulda felt bad for not mentioning that I noticed your lineup problem the day before. :)

And for the 1st time this year... I should be sitting at .500 Woohoo!

303

BoNkA
ID: 3610618
Tue, Nov 01, 2005, 09:06

And things tighten up for those 7th and 8th playoff spots! Sadly I am sitting in 9th at the moment, but anything can happen, there's a lot of football to be played. I'm probably going to have to pull a playoff spot based off points and my RBs being on byes and having no real backup to throw in isn't helping. I blame Motley for taking all the RBs during the draft.

304

Motley Crue
ID: 2192327
Tue, Nov 01, 2005, 09:40

I'll take that as a compliment, BoNkA.

My favorite part about this week was that I was able to maintain a competitive score (138 points) with my first 4 draft picks out of the starting lineup (Edge, Holt, Wayne, Bulger).

In fairness, I have shot my waiver/FA claim position, likely for the remainder of the season. But I'll cross my fingers and muddle on, attempting to appease the injury gods at every conceivable turn.

Ender, I was sorry to see you lose this week. The trade we worked helped me quite a bit and I see that it helped you, too. Alas, at the end of last night's game, Jerome Bettis touched the ball a few too many times. Mike Anderson did achieve a season high in points. I'm still pulling for those guys, even though they're on your squad now.

305

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Nov 01, 2005, 09:56

Ender gets another chance to pin a loss on me this week. I'll bet he does. He did it the first time we met.

306

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Tue, Nov 01, 2005, 11:53

Still tight and still a long way to go.

Just got to keep pluggin.

Cliff

307

Ender
ID: 285713
Tue, Nov 01, 2005, 11:54

No worries, I did grab 1 win this week. The second was within reach, but it didn't happen. I still like the trade a lot and think it will net more than just the 1 win this week.

I'd love to have that distinction, Guru. Making the playoffs will be a tall order, but if I can have 2 of my victories against the top seed I can still smile a bit.

I am in the market for a WR and have a RB to give if anyone is in the market.

308

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Wed, Nov 02, 2005, 08:46

I just accepted a trade with Taxman, and then during my usual rounds of checking fantasy news, I saw a little nugget about Droughns getting a DUI yesterday.

As my trade with Taxman involved Droughns, if Taxman wishes to postpone the trade until there is more information about any ramifications, then I am fine with that.

Trade: Droughns/Greg Lewis for Crockett/Bruce

309

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Nov 02, 2005, 12:16

I see that Challenger dropped Demarcus Ware today.

This gives us an opportunity to eliminate his position eligibility exception. If we want to simply treat him as a LB now, we can reset the lineup parameters correctly.

Alternatively, if anyone has an interest in picking him up as a DL, then we can leave the exception in place.

310

leggestand
Leader
ID: 451036518
Wed, Nov 02, 2005, 13:03

I say treat him like an LB.

311

Ender
ID: 285713
Wed, Nov 02, 2005, 14:03

I agree.

I have had some offers sent my way. I am considering them. It's a busy week this week so give me a little time.

312

Motley Crue
ID: 2192327
Wed, Nov 02, 2005, 17:20

If Ware is that valuable, then let's not have any exceptions set up for him anymore. I vote to lock in the starting lineup configurations.

313

Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Nov 02, 2005, 21:45

I spoke to Challenger as well, who has no plans to pick him up after the bye week.

Therefore, I decree that Ware is now a LB.

314

Doug
Leader
ID: 02730280
Thu, Nov 03, 2005, 15:30

My TEs LJ Smith and Heath Miller are on the trading block... most likely looking to move one packaged with a QB (Brooks, McNair) or a RB in exchange for an upgrade at that corresponding position.

315

Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Nov 04, 2005, 11:08

Time to move to a new thread.

Discussion Thread #2

Forum: footPage 4329Subject: RIFC 2005: Regular season discussion #1

Forum: foot
Page 4329
Subject: RIFC 2005: Regular season discussion #1