- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Intentionally Starting Bye Players
Posted on 11/6/14 at 3:45 pm
Posted on 11/6/14 at 3:45 pm
In one of my money leagues with friends a guy's team is facing a ton of bye weeks. Instead of going to the waivers, he wants to start two players on bye (Desean Jackson and Stephen Gotowski, the NE kicker).
This league is still way up in the air as to who will make the playoffs and all 12 teams are still in the running.
We made a rule before the season that anyone who started a player on bye is banned due to team neglect, but this guy is claiming it's different because he's intentionally doing it so he doesn't have t drop anyone.
I am wholeheartedly against this practice but surprisingly a lot of other people support him. It screws over the rest of the league by potentially handing out a win.
Anyone of y'all have to deal with this BS in your leagues?
This league is still way up in the air as to who will make the playoffs and all 12 teams are still in the running.
We made a rule before the season that anyone who started a player on bye is banned due to team neglect, but this guy is claiming it's different because he's intentionally doing it so he doesn't have t drop anyone.
I am wholeheartedly against this practice but surprisingly a lot of other people support him. It screws over the rest of the league by potentially handing out a win.
Anyone of y'all have to deal with this BS in your leagues?
15
Posted on 11/6/14 at 3:46 pm to ShreveportSteamer
its his team....he should be able to do whatever the frick he wants with it
Posted on 11/6/14 at 3:46 pm to ShreveportSteamer
If he is still in the running, I don't see why it matters. He doesn't want to drop someone. I've had to do that before.
Posted on 11/6/14 at 3:50 pm to ShreveportSteamer
You cannot force someone to drop a player. I agree with the guy. If my bench players were that valuable to where I was willing to take a Loss to keep them, then I should be able to.
Posted on 11/6/14 at 3:52 pm to ShreveportSteamer
Team staaaacked, yall fricked
Posted on 11/6/14 at 3:52 pm to TigerTatorTots
Yall need to quit trying to tell people how to coach. You want me to drop Andrew Luck to grab a defense?
Posted on 11/6/14 at 3:58 pm to ShreveportSteamer
I think it's legit if he doesn't want to drop someone.
It's different if he's intentially setting a bad lineup or starting injured players to give someone else an advantage.
Sounds like he's playing for the longterm and he has that right imo.
It's different if he's intentially setting a bad lineup or starting injured players to give someone else an advantage.
Sounds like he's playing for the longterm and he has that right imo.
Posted on 11/6/14 at 3:59 pm to ShreveportSteamer
Can't hate on it if he doesn't have someone to drop. Now if he had someone who's out for the season say CJ Spiller on his bench that could easily be dropped then you may have a gripe.
Posted on 11/6/14 at 4:00 pm to ShreveportSteamer
Is everyone ignoring the rule against starting players on bye?
Posted on 11/6/14 at 4:07 pm to WB504
He has Romo and Fitzpatrick and refused to drop Fitz to get another WR or K. I'm positive no one else would be running to pick up Fitzmagick and Romo is likely getting a start on Sunday anyway.
While I understand the argument about letting people manage teams as they see fit, we had issues with someone starting bye players last year and kicked that person out and created the blanket rule "no starting players on bye." Some people, myself included, have gone out of our ways to stay in compliance. Now this dude is weaseling his way out on an intent test.
I'm crying foul. Looks like my faction has lost though.
While I understand the argument about letting people manage teams as they see fit, we had issues with someone starting bye players last year and kicked that person out and created the blanket rule "no starting players on bye." Some people, myself included, have gone out of our ways to stay in compliance. Now this dude is weaseling his way out on an intent test.
I'm crying foul. Looks like my faction has lost though.
Posted on 11/6/14 at 4:08 pm to boom roasted
(no message)
This post was edited on 10/20/21 at 2:41 pm
Posted on 11/6/14 at 4:13 pm to ShreveportSteamer
Fitzpatrick lost his starting job so something tells me you are full of shite.
Posted on 11/6/14 at 4:17 pm to ShreveportSteamer
op sounds like a whiny bitch
Posted on 11/6/14 at 4:20 pm to ShreveportSteamer
He should definitely be allowed. It has valid strategic purpose. Banning for this goes directly against the intention of the no bye week rule. The intention of that rule is to encourage participation. He is participating.
ETA Also this.
ETA Also this.
quote:
op sounds like a whiny bitch
This post was edited on 11/6/14 at 4:21 pm
Posted on 11/6/14 at 4:35 pm to Peazey
If he is still in contention and is refusing to drop Fitzpatrick who is no longer starting, then that's him being a dumbass and advantage to you.
Quit being a bitch...it's his team
Quit being a bitch...it's his team
Posted on 11/6/14 at 4:36 pm to ShreveportSteamer
What is the buy in?
Posted on 11/6/14 at 4:41 pm to boom roasted
quote:
Is everyone ignoring the rule against starting players on bye?
I think everyone is looking at the intent of the rule. And I think the intent is to make sure owners are actively managing their teams.
I'd bet money that the rule was initially enacted because an owner gave up and stopped setting a lineup each week. Completely different circumstances IMO.
Posted on 11/6/14 at 4:47 pm to ShreveportSteamer
If everyone agreed to the rule prior to drafting, then you need to adhere to the rule. Plain and simple.
Posted on 11/6/14 at 4:49 pm to auisssa
quote:
enacted because an owner gave up and stopped setting a lineup each week. Completely different circumst
Then this should have been made clear prior to drafting. If there weren't exceptions to this rule, then everyone should have to follow it.
This post was edited on 11/6/14 at 4:53 pm
Posted on 11/6/14 at 5:22 pm to Gtothemoney
I'm doing the same thing. Not starting a kicker and a flex. This is what my bench looks like this week.
Brady
Foster
Hopkins
Gates
Jennings
Gordon
Peterson
Gotskowski
None of them can play this week but you think I'm dropping anyone to start a kicker? I'm already missing half my team due to byes so I'm just going to take my potential L this week and still possibly be in first place next week with a loss. Anyone who would have a problem with it could kick rocks.
Brady
Foster
Hopkins
Gates
Jennings
Gordon
Peterson
Gotskowski
None of them can play this week but you think I'm dropping anyone to start a kicker? I'm already missing half my team due to byes so I'm just going to take my potential L this week and still possibly be in first place next week with a loss. Anyone who would have a problem with it could kick rocks.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News