CheeseAndWhine

One of the few good substantive comments in this thread, even including the words "tripping balls."

Someone clearly doesn't understand the definition of "hypocrisy."

I'm totally taking the over on o/u 247.

False.

Because in the trade-back scenario, the guy is basically on loan to the other team. There's no way that is legit.

These teams secretly agreed to make a second trade at the time they made the first. They're acting in concert, rather than each trying to take get the best deal possible (as competitors must, by definition). It's collusion. I'm tired of listening to people who think this is legit. I'm done with this thread and all others like it.

This is way too confusing.

I'm unclear on this. Can you clarify? Teams X and Y. Players A, B, C, and D. Right now, Team X gets players A and B. Right now, Team Y gets player C. In two weeks, Team Y gets player D. Does he send back player C? Or does Team Y then have BOTH C and D? If he gets both, I'd actually probably let it through. If he has to send player C back, then I don't like it.

As I said in the other thread on this topic, that is complete and utter garbage. I would post on the board about it, and not even for the purposes of "changing" the rule, because this is already prohibited by rules against collusion. There already is a rule against it, and the two owners should have their rosters frozen.

After 2 weeks, I was 2-0 with the 2nd fewest points scored in my 12 team league. Now I'll be 3-0, having scored 13 fewer points in week 3 than in the first two weeks combined. My team is hitting its stride, baby!

I need Warrick Dunn held to under 840 yards, or under 240 yards and 10 touchdowns.

I loved Javon's performance last night, as I subbed him in at flex in place of Deuce at the last minute. I was well rewarded for my faith in him. However, there will be a number of weeks where I am deciding between Javon and Antonio Bryant at flex. I have a feeling, like someone posted above, that they will have a lot of feast or famine weeks, and it's going to drive me nuts trying to figure out which one to play in a given week.

I think it's kind of hard to drop anyone you have there for anyone you are looking at picking up, other than maybe Branch. I'm not a big Branch fan at all, and I might try Keyshawn, Deuce, or Maroney in place of him. But after seeing Seattle throwing the ball so much this week, I might stick with Branch for another week or two. Tough to say. Maroney is the most upside pickup, but for present value, he doesn't have much, so it's hard to drop a solid WR for him.

Javon Walker or Deuce McAllister for my flex spot? Leave a link. Need answers ASAP.

I'm so pissed at this thread. Is this actual news or just a bunch of bored office workers getting their rocks off on torturing other owners?

What are the Giants going to be playing catch-up to? The 15 points per game that the SheHawks are putting up? The last thing you want to see is Eli in a hurry-up offense at the end of the game with a chance to beat you. Because he will.

I'd take Atlanta. Stay away from Philly.

Damn. I'd say that's pretty even. I might rather have the Warner side, but then I convince myself the other way. If you need a solid WR, I like the Smith side. If not, the other, I suppose.

Great deal for you. I'd try Cooley for this week. Having Portis back should help that offense a bit.

I have Bledsoe on a bye, and have Johnson currently, who plays Chicago. Kitna plays GB. In theory I don't need either once Bledsoe is back. Should I pick up and play Kitna? Leave a link and I'll respond.

Seriously, if there was any truth to this, wouldn't it be all over espn?

So you take it upon yourself to disregard the rules because it's not convenient for you? The rule doesn't say, "If you don't get enough responses in the other forum, post here." It says post all team management questions in the other forum. Start your topic and then respond to others' questions and leave a link. Maybe it takes a while to get responses, but that's not our problem, it's yours.

Well collusion obviously violates the integrity of the league. What I was saying is that even if somene doesn't accept that an open agreement of this sort is collusion, it should STILL be disallowed under the theory that it violates the integrity of the league. I stated clearly that I still think it's collusion to have an open agreement of this sort. What I was providing was a way for those who don't agree with that premise to still recognize that there is no way this type of deal should be allowed.

We need a username and password to enter it. Can you cut and paste some excerpts?

Starting Portis and Deuce, and Boldin and A. Bryant. Need to choose between Javon and Caddy for my flex spot. The choice is Caddy, right? Leave a link and I'll answer yours.