TBayXXXVII

That's why I said "define many". When you said "A lot", that doesn't fit either. "A few" or "some" is a better adjective as this is probably less than 25% of the workforce... willing to bet its under 15%.

Sorry, didn't see your response. I get that, but I don't think that's "Many". I think that qualifies as "some" or "a few". I work for a company similar to yours, but we're capped at 5 days. After 5 days, we need to take vacation time. If we don't have any, we don't get paid. That's an outlier though. If I had to guess, I'd say 75% (minimum), of people get paid unless they take heir own time.

Outside of government employees (including teachers, police, etc), I've literally never met a person who got paid by their employer, unless they took paid time off. In NJ, employers are required to allow people to take off for jury duty, but the employer does not have to pay them. If you had 1 week of vacation and you were on jury duty for 3 weeks, you didn't get paid for two of those weeks. Correction, for 2 of those weeks, you got $25 each.

Define "many". Or are you including people being forced to take personal or vacation time in that?

I actually wouldn't be surprised if this were true.

I thought that didn't matter. Trump supposedly hates Jews even though his son-in-law is Jewish and his daughter converted. Curious. Is your stance a "Yeah but" or "It's (D)ifferent"?

I didn't either. My son had to tell me.

"Yeah but..." is your go to? LOL

Dak Prescott is one of many examples of why I always say that teams pay QB's too much money. The NFL has brainwashed people into thinking that "decent" QB's are "franchise QB's" who need to be paid. The fear is always, "but who else are we going to get". It's all b.s. There is literally only 1,2, or 3 (maybe as many as 4 or 5 at one time), legitimate "Franchise QB's" in league at any one point in time. Right now, there's 1, Mahomes. A "Franchise" QB is someone who can carry your team over better teams the majority of the time, or be the reason your team is better than everyone else. THAT's a franchise QB. There are maybe 5 QB's that I think are better than everyone else... off the top of my head, it's Mahomes, Jackson, Allen, Burrow, and (maybe Herbert). There's like 2 or 3 (maybe?), that completely suck... Watson, Young and (maybe someone else). After that, there's a few unknowns and like 15 to 20 guys that are the virtually the same guy. You put literally any one of 25 starters on the say, Minnesota, odds are that teams is no worse than 4-2 and possibly 6-0. Yet, there's teams will spend tons of money on "guys", because "who else are they going to get?". Well, look around. I mean, it's practically anyone who's competent. If Tampa offered Mayfield a 3 yr/$45M deal and he said "no thanks", then they went out and signed Sam Darnold for 3 years $30M... are they worse than 4-2 right now? The answer is "No". Instead, moron's will tell you that the 3 yr/$110M investment was great... just like the same moron's who said that about Daniel Jones, Tua, and Trevor Lawrence. The Dolphins are 2-4 right now. If I had a time machine and went back in time and convinced the Dolphins to no-resign Tua just yet, but give Andy Dalton or Joe Flacco $10M this year and hit "play" and jump back to today, I'd be willing to bet a years salary that the Dolphins would at worst, be 3-3 (probably 4-2), right now and feel better about their QB situation. But, because "who else are they going to get" was a fear they had, their backup heading into the season, was Skylar Thompson. With Tua's medical history, the Dolphins felt that Skylar Thompson was a viable option to keep their season afloat if anything were to happen to Tua, for some unknown reason. My guess is that the reason was that they had too much money wrapped up in the QB room already, that they couldn't find money elsewhere and just gambled with it. I think that if teams took a more judicial approach to the QB position like they do all other positions, they'd find themselves less dependent on the individual QB. Outside of Brady and Mahomes (actual "Franchise QB's"), the majority of the QB's represented in the final four/Super Bowl in the last 10+/15 years, have been QB's on either rookie or cheaper contracts. You'll find that teams have less success after "paying" With the league being more passer friendly, a more ideal move would be to build your team like an 80's/90's team would. Stock up on the trenches. Protect your QB to give him time and give him weapons, "decent" QB's look a lot better... see Mayfield, Darnold, and Tua. Don't give them any help and look what happens... see D. Jones and Lawrence.

I don't think ANYONE would believe that Trump wrote any of those jokes or that speech. Just like no one (with a brain), believes Kamala or Joe writes/wrote theirs.

Yeah, because the Bills didn't give up that much. They only gave up a 3rd and a 7th for Cooper and a 6th. The point I was making had to do with someone saying that the price would be high. There's no way anyone was paying a lot to get Cooper.

Yeah, that's how I started dealing with him and even do it back to him. So in the scenario above I'd say, "that's not a bad offer, but I'd like Lamb AND..... for Robinson". Sometimes he'd stick with the deal as originally presented or he backs off completely.

Hope he's not like a guy in my league, lol. Here's how things go with that guy.... Him: Hey, I'll trade you Lamb for Robinson. Me: Ok, deal. Him: Well, wait.... Him: How about Lamb for Robinson AND.....

Hope you can get that. I'd be little surprised if you could. These days, WR's are more valuable than RB's.

Yeah, QB's would be the only position where a lot of points could be adjusted. Other than that, it's like 1 point because they changed a reception to a rush or vice versa for any other position. I guess a sack could be credited mistakenly for a tackle (or vice versa). Depending on your league scoring, that could be 1 or 2 points... maybe more if you use IDP's and the wrong guy was credited. Also, that ball was behind the line, so it should've been a run. They got that right.

Correction.... my bad. I meant Punters. Don't know what I was thinking with Kickers. In your league, Shaheed got the TD and so did the New Orleans Defense and Special teams (to note, I'm using ESPN and Shaheed did not get a TD for the punt return [nor is it an option in our settings]), is that the same for a Punter? Does the punter and the special teams get credit for a TD on a fake punt?

What website do you use?

Find me ONE league where a kicker has EVER gotten credit for a TD. Willing to bet neither of yours do. I've played in a bunch of leagues that used different websites and I've never seen that happen. Though, I haven't played on any site in the last 10 years, other than ESPN or Yahoo... to this day, neither give credit to a kicker for a TD.

Ok, let's put your system to the test. Tyler Bass is about to kick a FG. The snap comes and it's fumbled by the holder. Bass picks the ball up and runs it in for a TD. Who gets the points?

When is a "WR" on the field? True or False: It's when the "offense" is on the field.

I think what you put is the exact opposite of sportsmanship. Herm Edwards said it perfectly, "You play to win the game". If changing your lineup to ensure your lead and guarantee your win, that's playing to win the game, which is the objective in fantasy football... score the most points. Purposefully starting a player who's either out or on a bye because you don't want to drop someone is douchey because you're playing a man (or two), down on purpose and willing to accept a loss. That's a lack of integrity to the league. You're willing to hand over a win to someone at the expense of other teams. THAT's unsportsmanlike.

It is, if you ignore the purpose of special teams to make your argument.

I explained the answer to both of your questions in my post. When teams run the trick play, who's on the field? The offense right... not the special teams? When Taysom Hill lines up at RB or QB, he's doing that while on offense, right? Or is he doing that on special teams. If your league is set up that way fine. It's your league and you can set it up however you like, but like I said, it's to appease the crybabies.

What do you think his value is? What would you expect in return?

I think it makes no sense to give a wide receiver points when he's on the field in another role. When a player is on the punt or kick return team, he's on the field as a special teams player... hence, anything he gets, is as a special teamer. If you draft a "Wide Receiver", he's not a "Wide Receiver" when he's fielding kicks or punts. Making a rule for this is simply catering to crybabies. The fallacy here is that 1 person can get points twice, for the same score. That makes no sense. Either the special teams gets the points or the return man gets the points.