PDA

View Full Version : We have a problem! FFL


Kurt Surber
09-04-2000, 07:38 PM
Guys after consideration of the facts and several other guys concern there are some issues with what we've done with colorado headhunters that isn't fair.

1. We did drop the players on his rosters that were wrong but did we not think that this would unduely punish the owners that didn't get his keepers that someone decided he would lose cause he messed up in the draft.

2. This has issues that will haunt whoever wins down the line cause their roster had someone else's keepers on it and it will be tainted.

I say give Colorado back his keepers. EVeryone else has their keepers. Correct the scores and let's move on with the season. Otherwise this season will be unfair for all who didn't get a chance at those extra quality players. Since this draft was based soley on pre-ranking.

Kurt Surber
09-04-2000, 07:39 PM
I know I'm not the only one that feels this way.

AustinChief
09-04-2000, 07:46 PM
Red - I am all for it, providing he trades from his current roster.

For example, I now have two top 10 QB's in a field of 10 thanks to Headhunter's error. However, if I just give him my 2nd QB, then I am stuck with #21 in the rankings instead of a higher number that I would have received.

For those who got WR from him, it is even worse as their substitutes will be considerably further down the list.

What you currently propose not only takes away a high pick, it penalizes me by giving me the very worst of the QB lot.

Kurt Surber
09-04-2000, 07:51 PM
Well let's work out a deal that fair for everyone and vote on it. Let's get this done. This taints the whole league this year if we don't do something quick so it don't effect anyone drastically. I do agree colorado is a dumba$$ for not getting his $hit done but that's not the point.

Luzap
09-04-2000, 08:46 PM
The league is tainted anyway. Better for it to be tainted against the person that is the catalyst for all this than the rest of us. IMHO.

Kurt Surber
09-04-2000, 08:51 PM
It's tainted for the rest of us that didn't get a chance to get his players. Period.

Kurt Surber
09-04-2000, 08:58 PM
It's unfair and you benefited from it and the rest of us didn't get a chance to. So if nothing is done and you win I say your wins don't count.

Kurt Surber
09-04-2000, 08:59 PM
I'ts simple 3 people got to take advantage of getting one extra top 10 player and 6 of us didn't cause one guy messed up. Doesn't look good and isn't the right way to run a league.

Luzap
09-04-2000, 09:02 PM
I'll do whatever the majority agrees upon or what the commissioner dictates. I don't care at this point because this league was RUINED by one person. That one person needs to suck it up. Now y'all want me to pay for his mistake? Just because I had the misfortune of picking up Jimmy Smith? Let's say I ranked Isaac Bruce one player ahead of Jimmy Smith and instead of Smith, I get Bruce. The only real solution here is to start all over. I threw that out 4 days ago when there was still time to re-draft but nobody wanted to do it at that time....

[This message has been edited by KPhobia (edited 09-04-2000).]

Kurt Surber
09-04-2000, 09:20 PM
Well the solution is there the people who got screwed get's his best receiver, RB and QB in exchange for his keepers. He don't get a choice of who he gives up.

Kurt Surber
09-04-2000, 09:24 PM
You got your keepers phobia you don't need to keep his.

Out of Keenan McCardell, Ed McCaffrey, Shawn Jefferson and yancey thigpen you can make a trade with him. The points can be corrected for the first week by the commissioner and your still going to kick everyone's butt.

You got to keep your keeper receiver it's not fair to the rest of us for you to have two.

Kurt Surber
09-04-2000, 09:30 PM
Tom Joad has two of his keepers which is extemely unfair. He nees to give him back his keepers and take emmitt smith or any running back he wants and chandler or any qb he wants. Colorado shouldn't have a choice.

But he should get his keepers back so it's fair for everyone.

AustinChief
09-04-2000, 10:52 PM
Red - If the majority agree, I will gladly trade Favre for Chandler. And in good faith I will sacrifice Ricky Williams for Emmit Smith.

Luzap
09-04-2000, 10:55 PM
See, Red - that's why your "solution" doesn't work. Russ gets to upgrade his QB & RB while I sacrifice by downgrading at WR. I doubt even headhunters will like your "solution". The whole league is all hosed up.

AustinChief
09-04-2000, 10:57 PM
I have proposed both as singular trades. However, I do want it known that I will accept only if both trades are agreeable.

AustinChief
09-04-2000, 10:58 PM
Phobia - I agree that Favre to Chandler is an upgrade, but I doubt that Williams to Smith is.

Kurt Surber
09-04-2000, 11:00 PM
He had curtis martin not ricky williams and emmitt smith is not an upgrade over curtis martin.

Farve is not an upgrade over chandler.

Kurt Surber
09-04-2000, 11:03 PM
Once again I'm going to check but colorado said Curtis Martain was his keeper not Ricky Williams. It's not an option either both of them go back to colorado headhunters for any RB and QB on his roster since those were his keepers. I can give a crap less if it upgrades you or downgrades you it's the only fair way for the rest of us.

Kurt Surber
09-04-2000, 11:05 PM
6 Rocky Mueller (Colorado headhunters):
QB: Brett Farve GB
RB: Curtis Martin NYJ
WR: Jimmy Smith JAC
LB: Chad Brown SET


These need to go back to him and points need to be adjusted or the people who have these keepers have an unfair advantage and it nullifies their results.

Luzap
09-04-2000, 11:07 PM
Red,

You've not addressed the advantage headhunters got by not ranking the defensive keeper 4th. While everyone else drafted defensive keepers in the 4th round, headhunters is still drafting the cream of the crop. He doesn't give a **** if he gets his defensive keeper or not. How do we balance THAT out?

AustinChief
09-04-2000, 11:09 PM
Red - My mistake.... I have cancelled the two previous trades and proposed:

Favre and Martin
for
Smith and Chandler

AustinChief
09-04-2000, 11:11 PM
Phob brings up an interesting point. And why hasn't anyone but the three of us chimed in on this yet?

Kurt Surber
09-04-2000, 11:12 PM
Russ, I just don't want to waste my time with this league and if something is going to be said then it needs to be said now. Thanks for proposing the trade.

Russ Bliss (?):
QB: Steve Buerline CAR
RB: Jerome Bettis PIT
WR: Randy Moss MN
DL: Jevon Kearse TEN

On top of that you get curtis martin and farve.....LOL wish I was that lucky.....I'm saying you get anybody on his roster at those positions and it's not his choice for approval. It whoever you want.



[This message has been edited by Dr. Red (edited 09-05-2000).]

Kurt Surber
09-04-2000, 11:16 PM
I'm looking at his team now.

Luzap
09-04-2000, 11:19 PM
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com/full/show?page=draftresults&lid=62793

Is the draft results page. If anything, I should exchange my 5th round pick for his 5th round pick.... That still isn't completely fair though. The whole thing is tainted, we might as well start over.

Luzap
09-04-2000, 11:23 PM
Russ, Bwana chimed in on the FFL board. Check what choice words headhunters has for me there. I don't feel too sorry for him.

Kurt Surber
09-04-2000, 11:28 PM
Phobia don't get mad and leave. We can fix it so it's fair with logic.

In the 5th, 6th and 7th rounds respectively you picked the following.

5- Jimmy Smith 6- Antonio Freeman 7- Mike Alsott

Colorada Picked three picks before and picked.

5- Wesley Walls 6- Mike Hollis? 7-Ed McCaffrey

I'm sorry but about everyone had a better draft than Colorado on the first three picks than him. You clearly had a better three picks and I can down the line and show that pretty much everyone else did to.

AustinChief
09-04-2000, 11:30 PM
Phil - WOW!!! Everyone is sling mud and worse over there.

I think the commish needs to make a decision or take a silent vote on this issue.

Kurt Surber
09-04-2000, 11:35 PM
phobia if you want to trade jimmy smith with him for wycheck that's fine but that's an upgrade in fantasy points for him. It's tougher to get a good tightend though and if you think you'd rather have a top 3 tight end than a top 3 receiver then I'm for it.

I got jamal anderson in that round and I wouldn't trade him for his pick.

This is the 1st round of picks and a tight end in my opinion shouldn't of even been in this round but I don't think anyone else will want to trade him.

Davis, Terrell (RB-Den) Johnson, Keyshawn (WR-TB) Smith, Robert (RB-Min) Anderson, Jamal (RB-Atl) Mare, Olindo (K-Mia) Walls, Wesley (TE-Car) Aikman, Troy (QB-Dal) Smith, Jimmy (WR-Jac) Culpepper, Daunte (QB-Min) Williams, Ricky (RB-NO) <P>

Luzap
09-04-2000, 11:40 PM
My point is that there is NO way to fix this league.

Another point of contention is that Bullseyes got Isaac Bruce in the 4th round. Isaac Bruce was protected by nobody. How did he get him? I guess Headhunters wasn't the only one to screw up.

The reason Headhunters 5,6,7 rounds looked worse than mine is that I went to the trouble to rank my first 150 choices. He went with default and ended up with what he got. I shouldn't have to pay for that.

FWIW, I posted that "I'm outa here" crap on the FFL board after reading Headhunter's comments to me and after several beers. If we can work this out in a way that works for everyone, I'm all for it. I just don't want to look back 16 weeks from now and say, "what if I had a legitimate 5th round pick instead of having to trade Jimmy Smith for Headhunters 9th round WR?"

Kurt Surber
09-04-2000, 11:40 PM
What do you think about that olino mare pick.....that guy might want to trade him to. That guy must not of ranked his guys right cause you got jimmy smith after he picked Mare......LOL.....that wasn't a mistake on anyone else's part but bullseyes.<BR>

AustinChief
09-04-2000, 11:43 PM
Kphob is right about the later picks. I ranked 175 players total. If other people didn't, shouldn't that be taken into consideration as well?

Kurt Surber
09-04-2000, 11:49 PM
I see your point phobia I think that everyone has to pay a little since these guys didn't do it right. Bullseyes having bruce and connell on the same team when it should of been a defensive player is unacceptable.

How about this? You get bruce. Colorado gets his keeper back and bullseys get biekart. Then you just give up martin for smith.

Wesley walls can go to first guy on the waiver wire.

Luzap
09-04-2000, 11:53 PM
I'm all over that idea, Red.

[This message has been edited by KPhobia (edited 09-05-2000).]

Kurt Surber
09-05-2000, 12:05 AM
That's the only solution I see that will work......but for this to be fair everyone that picked before you besides bullseyes and colorado headhunters have to agree so there is no more hard feelings.

Kurt Surber
09-05-2000, 12:07 AM
Other players from other teams might enter the picture in the 5th round. After that round the rest is a crap shoot and everyone looks better than bullseyes or colorado.

Luzap
09-05-2000, 12:12 AM
Who were Bullseyes keepers supposed to be?

Kurt Surber
09-05-2000, 12:14 AM
Pack has got to send an e-mail on this and have a response back by thursday at noon from anyone who objects.

If anyone objects colorado has to have his keepers back so we aren't penalized and it sucks but I'd rather play the game where it's fair then not respect the results of the league and at a bare minimum.....wolfman and phobia you both got good No 1 Receivers and No1 Running backs and it's unfair to the other players that didn't mess up that you got a chance at their keepers and we didn't. You shouldn't of even had anybody's players ranked in your system that were keepers. You had the choice to rank players that were keepers and the only way that you could of got jimmy smith is if you ranked him physically. I would of got him before you if I would of ranked him but I didn't since I knew he was a team's keeper.

Kurt Surber
09-05-2000, 12:16 AM
5 Bob Sherman (K.C. Bullseyes):
QB: Mark Brunell JAC
RB: Marshall Faulk STL
WR: Albert Connell WAS
LB: Greg Biekert OAK<BR>

Luzap
09-05-2000, 12:21 AM
In my own defense, I didn't have a list of everyone else's keepers. I tried to remember the obvious keepers that were listed in that FFL topic a couple of weeks ago but I didn't remember Smith being listed. That's the only reason I ranked him.

[This message has been edited by KPhobia (edited 09-05-2000).]

AustinChief
09-05-2000, 12:35 AM
Red - I disagree with the quote that I should have had no one ranked that was a keeper.

This is my first year on the FFL. I specifically asked 2 parties, including the commissioner (Bob) how this should be done. They were both emphatic that as long as I listed my top 4 keepers that I could rank the rest of the players as I saw fit.

I did what was asked according to the instructions I was given.

Luzap
09-05-2000, 12:50 AM
That was something we were kinda supposed to figure out on our own, Russ. And had everyone ranked their keepers as they were supposed to, we wouldn't be having these "debates"....

G_Man
09-05-2000, 07:06 AM
I told Russ that, I remember saying that. I was going to do the same, but decided against it. Of course I lost badly last night, ouch.

G_Man
09-05-2000, 07:11 AM
Kphob - The headhunters were the only ones that screwed up. The reason that the Bullseyes got Bruce, who was unprotected, was because the headhunter took one of his keepers. If headhunter takes bullseye's player in the first round and bullseye didn't have him ranked till the 2-4th pick, then then headhunter gets the player and bullseye ends up with drafting his 5th ranked player in the 4th round. Understand?

chiefs2034
09-05-2000, 07:29 AM
The reason I got Bruce was because headhunters got one of my keepers and we all know why that happened. I think the only real solution here is to start over. Make sure that everyone pre-ranks their keepers before the draft takes place. I don't think there is any other fair way to do it.

G_Man
09-05-2000, 07:42 AM
Dartgod - how do you want to do the redraft if you want to do it. This could be VERY painful. The draft on that site is sucks on so many diff levels.

chiefs2034
09-05-2000, 07:49 AM
I agree, I don't think Yahoo is so great afterall. Their ranking system sucks. We could move it to CBS Sportsline. I heard they have a good FF site. Or we could go back to Sandbox. I don't have a problem with getting to their site anymore, which was why we moved in the first place. We could start over and make the 3rd week our first week in league. Just have a short 14 week season. This should give everyone time to get their pre-draft rankings set. I think we would be pushing it to get it going for this weeks games. What does everyone else think? We need to have a vote I guess.

chiefs2034
09-05-2000, 07:50 AM
I have some work to do now, I'll check back in a couple of hours to see what's up.

Luzap
09-05-2000, 07:57 AM
re: 43

Yeah, once red posted those keepers, I saw what happened with Bruce.

I think the only way to fix it is to redraft. However, I don't like CBS - their site is NOT user friendly at all. I get lost all the time there and I'm a 'puter geek. I know my way around now but I'm scared for the rest of you. Sandbox is ok and I'm fine w/ Yahoo now. Why not just stay @ Yahoo?

G_Man
09-05-2000, 08:00 AM
Kphobia - I agree about CBS, they suck completly. It takes me about 15 minutes to get to a point where I can add and drop players. Very frustrating.

chiefs2034
09-05-2000, 08:32 AM
I'm back now. If we do a re-draft do we stay with yahoo? It is sad that one person could have screwed this up so bad. And instead of admitting that he screwed up and apologize for it, he makes excuses starts taking shots at other people. That is what pisses me off more than anything. I almost feel that when we do a re-draft we have someone else take over his team.

G_Man
09-05-2000, 08:41 AM
Dartgod - Do you know anyone to take his place? I didn't read any of his flaming topics, so I don't know anything about it. The good things about Yahoo are the fact that you as owner can do a lot with it. The only real bad thing is the draft. I'm still just in dismay of the whole thing.

chiefs2034
09-05-2000, 08:54 AM
I don't know anyone offhand. I'm sure if we asked someone would volunteer. We should put the whole thing to a vote as to what we should do and if we should turn his team over to someone else. i don't see how we can get it done before this weeks games though.

Luzap
09-05-2000, 09:07 AM
I think we could possibly get it done prior to this week but that would need to be "voted" on as well. It would require a committment of time prior to Friday.

I'm not opposed to booting the idiot. I can kinda understand the initial mistake but then lashing out at me and others for HIS mistake is inexcusable.

Kurt Surber
09-05-2000, 12:27 PM
No we need to stay with yahoo. 8 of the 10 people did this draft correctly. Sandbox sucks. We can start over.

Luzap
09-05-2000, 12:29 PM
Red,

9 of 10 drafted correctly. Read the explanation on Yahoo.

G_Man
09-05-2000, 12:30 PM
Red - 9 of 10 did, the others were caused by one guy drafting the other 2 players before they did.

Just for clearification.

Kurt Surber
09-05-2000, 12:31 PM
Bullseye's correction 9 of 10 people did it correctly.

I understand now why your picks were messed up. Sorry for getting on your case.