Boards Division 4 Thread

Tristram · 14-10-2014 2:25pm

I am very disappointed by some of the recent posts in this thread. I would have thought that I have been in boards leagues and actively trading with members for long enough now that people would know what I am like as a player.

With a team at 1-5 I am scrambling to make trades and pick-ups to help my roster. Zac Stacy is a player I like but who isn't performing well and seems to have become the back-up RB with the Rams. So I proposed a trade of: Ridley - unknown injury, probably going to miss some time but much greater upside when fit, for, Stacy - much lower ranked RB and not the main man currently with some upside if Cunningham fecks off. At the time I considered this a reasonable proposal. I did NOT know that Ridley was gone for the season. NOONE knew. That was first confirmed by Ian Rapoport yesterday.

As with all trade proposals there are two owners making decisions. Unless they both agree trades don't happen. When you don't like trade proposals you reject or counter. I think this is the first time I've seen someone reject a trade and then come on boards and act like this. I don't ask other members to explain their trade proposals to me on boards, nor do I think it is right to do so. I simply accept, reject, or negotiate.

I don't know why Rule 10 of the charter was quoted as it is not applicable in this case, and I really don't understand being threatened with a ban by the GM when I did nothing wrong. To my mind this absolute non-event is made even more ridiculous given how the recent inactive was handled/not handled. I play in boards leagues because they are competitive and fun. Please believe me when I say reading and responding to this has been anything but fun.

TO. · 14-10-2014 3:53pm

I don't see the problem here with Tristram proposal. I don't believe either the rule should be used against him. That rule is to prevent those purposely trying to ruin the league not someone with genuine reasons. Come on lads Tristram has been a solid poster on here and seems like a top bloke. To accuse him of trying to make a trade to ruin the league is nonsense. I agree with him if you don't like the trade just reject it. Are we now going to witch hunt folk who propose silly trades in our own eyes? There is a difference between those ruining the league and those who are not.

Johnny_Fontane · 14-10-2014 4:07pm

TO. wrote: »

I don't see the problem here with Tristram proposal. I don't believe either the rule should be used against him. That rule is to prevent those purposely trying to ruin the league not someone with genuine reasons. Come on lads Tristram has been a solid poster on here and seems like a top bloke. To accuse him of trying to make a trade to ruin the league is nonsense. I agree with him if you don't like the trade just reject it. Are we now going to witch hunt folk who propose silly trades in our own eyes? There is a difference between those ruining the league and those who are not.

Look, he's not ruining the league, it would have been vetoed I imagine anyways. I felt the move was sly, but as stated yesterday, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I would have let it slide if I hadn't seen his post last night, which I felt was ignorant.

D3PO · 14-10-2014 4:14pm

Wouldnt be ruining the league but defo sly.

Even if you dont know the extent of the injury its questionable as to why at 11pm shortly after an unknown injury you would pull the trigger on the proposal. Perception is reality and I think even Tristam would have to admit that from the outside looking in it appears to be questionable behaviour.

I dont think you can argue that the trade wasnt influenced in someway by the injury even if the extent of it was unclear which certainly makes it dubious.

Dont get me wrong Tristam seems like a decent bloke Ive traded with him in the past and will do so again, but at best the trade proposal was ill advised and badly timed.

Johnny_Fontane · 14-10-2014 4:17pm

Tristram wrote: »

Zac Stacy is a player I like but who isn't performing well and seems to have become the back-up RB with the Rams. So I proposed a trade of: Ridley - unknown injury, probably going to miss some time but much greater upside when fit, for, Stacy - much lower ranked RB and not the main man currently with some upside if Cunningham fecks off. At the time I considered this a reasonable proposal.

Stacy was drafted 14th as opposed to Ridley's 33rd. I'm not sure that stacy was ever a 'much lower ranked rb' at any stage before or during this season to be fair.

TO. · 14-10-2014 5:51pm

Johnny_Fontane wrote: »

10. Anyone who sets out to deliberately mess up a league by signing up and dropping all their players after drafting or offering very obviously one sided trades to make another team too strong will be banned from both the Fantasy Football Forum and the American Football forum as a whole permanently.

Any more of this and you're getting banned.:cool:

This right here is why I used the word "ruin" or "ruined"

This rule is to stop muppets wrecking our leagues by deliberately making bogus trades with the intent to cheat guys out or disrupt the balance.

In this case Tristram made a trade to what he thought was fair. I honestly think if someone accepted that trade it would be worse as it would tell me the person accepting the trade isn't paying attention to their team or the NFL.

I could spend hours posting up laughable trades that guys have offered me. They are part of the game and lets try not confuse them and those trade attempts by guys clearly looking to con folk.

poldebruin · 16-10-2014 11:21pm

I face off against the 1-5 Blaque Power this week. I'm 3-3 and riding a 3 game winning streak. That said, I have only scored 20 points more the BP over 6 weeks, so I consider them unlucky thus far and it should be a good matchup.

Regarding the NFL projection figures. I don't know where they get them from but they are so way off every week it's laughable.
My WR corp of Quick (v Seattle), Sanders (v SF) and Jeffrey are predicted to go for 33 while BP's corp of Royal, Torrey Smith and Welker are down for 19.

I don't want to dredge it up again or anything, but I just wanted to say that I don't see anything wrong with Tristan's proposal, and in fact did something quite similar myself in another boards league this week. I also was completely unaware of Ridley's injury status. Bad timing, as someone mentioned. I would agree with Tristan's assertion that trades should just be rejected or accepted when there is no intent to distort the league. Up to receiving GM to do their due diligence on any trade imo.

Tristram · 17-10-2014 12:00am

I don't know if this is true or not but I was told the projections are based off Madden game simulations.

Johnny_Fontane · 17-10-2014 12:04pm

poldebruin wrote: »

I face off against the 1-5 Blaque Power this week. I'm 3-3 and riding a 3 game winning streak. That said, I have only scored 20 points more the BP over 6 weeks, so I consider them unlucky thus far and it should be a good matchup.

Regarding the NFL projection figures. I don't know where they get them from but they are so way off every week it's laughable.
My WR corp of Quick (v Seattle), Sanders (v SF) and Jeffrey are predicted to go for 33 while BP's corp of Royal, Torrey Smith and Welker are down for 19.

I don't want to dredge it up again or anything, but I just wanted to say that I don't see anything wrong with Tristan's proposal, and in fact did something quite similar myself in another boards league this week. I also was completely unaware of Ridley's injury status. Bad timing, as someone mentioned. I would agree with Tristan's assertion that trades should just be rejected or accepted when there is no intent to distort the league. Up to receiving GM to do their due diligence on any trade imo.

ha ha, you're playing me so that means your kicker gets 18 points and brian quick has a 30 point week. Congratulations on your win.

The key stat is that I have conceeded nearly 40 points more than any other team and 140 points more than you in 6 games. #matchupfail

BizzyC · 20-10-2014 8:06am

Great week to bench Watkins and White!
At least I'm still likely to win my game...

My coach rating at the end of this season is going to be terrible.

Johnny_Fontane · 20-10-2014 9:52am

and 1-6!

Jesus!

Its gone beyond help, but in a desperation play, everyone is on the draft block. That includes Gronk and Shady McCoy. Make me offers!

Johnny_Fontane · 20-10-2014 10:36am

offer for shady mccoy from allie cows noted....he offered jordy nelson in return. thinking about it.....

If anyone else wants shady, send me the trade. my RB core is jonathan stewart and zac stacy, so if someone can offer me a RB (of any sort), you can take a look at my wr's and maybe we can a double swap.

my rb core is so low that I would probably need someone there.

poldebruin · 23-10-2014 11:58am

Bray Broncos are putting Reggie Bush, Tre Mason and Darren Sproles on the block if anyone is looking for RB help.
I could package a WR (Quick) or TE (Owen Daniels/Vernon Davis) as that is what I'm looking for in return.

BizzyC · 27-10-2014 8:40am

Phew... Brady is getting back on track now and my season is starting to turn with him.
Going to be 4-4 after starting 1-4.

Going to be tough over next 2 weeks though, all my receivers on bye next week when I face Godfavre, Brady on bye the following week.

poldebruin · 27-10-2014 3:22pm

Wow, watching the games on delay last night so couldn't check fantasy but kept thinking... Please don't let me be up against big ben this week.... 522 yards and 6tds , 44pts later....Yep.

But just clung on to win, 128 - 126!

Johnny_Fontane · 28-10-2014 10:57am

I traded gronk for julius thomas this week, but fortunately larry fitz was part of the deal and he came up big (bit of a surprise to be fair).

you're 1-6 and you trade gronk the week he blows up for 32 points. you couldnt write this stuff.

2-6 now though. :rolleyes:

Johnny_Fontane · 28-10-2014 12:52pm

Also Cutlering the mustard started a player on a bye this week.

As per the original deal, I will take over their team this week.

We have given him every opportunity and there has been no response to messages i have sent to him on boards.

Everyone happy with that?

Tristram · 28-10-2014 1:06pm

Johnny_Fontane wrote: »

Also Cutlering the mustard started a player on a bye this week.

As per the original deal, I will take over their team this week.

We have given him every opportunity and there has been no response to messages i have sent to him on boards.

Everyone happy with that?

No, I have to say I'm not happy with this. In fact I am extremely confused about it and would like some kind of clarification. The "original deal" is the set of rules that were agreed upon and clearly laid out for all boards league. In this case they have been completely ignored for no good reason.

gufc21 initially pointed out the inactive on the 26th of September.

Below are all the many posts relating to the inactive.

gufc21 wrote: »

Just to raise the point my opponent this week, Cutlering the mustard, has been inactive the start of the season. He hasn't logged in since the season started.

BigBadRob83 wrote: »

Same team was booted out of the Dynasty league for being inactive.
Think may have had similar issues in Div 5 last year, not 100 % sure on that

poldebruin wrote: »

Can we message him and let the GM of the league take over the team by Saturday? He has 3 bye players and 1 on IR this week. I think it's fair to say this qualifies as an abandoned team.

gufc21 wrote: »

I know it will end up biting me in ass but ya gm should take control. It's no add drops and best team using projected nfl.com totals right?

poldebruin wrote: »

That's the gist. No backup qb, and by seasons end it will be the bare bones of a team gm controlled or not.

I really don't understand abandoning a team, if you bother to show for a draft you would think the interest would be there.

gufc21 wrote: »

He was auto draft. Hasn't logged in this season at all

Johnny_Fontane wrote: »

sorry guys only seeing this now. I will contact him today.

JF (GM)

Johnny_Fontane wrote: »

Have contacted him via boards. They have been very active in the last few weeks on other threads, so seems that they are around.

will update as I get it.

in other news, unless gronk breaks out tonight, I'm going 0-4!! Shady McCoy is really trying my patience. 17 yards last night....

Johnny_Fontane wrote: »

in other news cutlering the mustard is back in the game.

they made some lineup changes last week. After contacting the guy, I never heard anything back.

Their progress will be monitored carefully. They were inactive for what looks like 4 weeks, so any further periods of inactivity will result in the GM taking over their team.

D3PO wrote: »

Isnt that the same guy that got kicked from the Dynasty league last season due to inactivity ?

Tristram wrote: »

Yes.

D3PO wrote: »

bad form. So the guy has previous. Id be very vigilant if Im the gms of div4 so.

gufc21 wrote: »

Well tbh its clear cut, he missed draft and was inactive for first 4 weeks (3 is limit) if he doesn't log in before ko thurs gm should take over team

D3PO wrote: »

why is he even getting a chance then ? the rules were the rules we had a hell of a lot of back and forth agreeing them.

Tristram wrote: »

This was posted a page or two back.

Tristram wrote: »

What are the rules on this again?

gufc21 wrote: »

3 weeks inactive and you're out

Johnny_Fontane wrote: »

Lads, I think its better to have him in there rather than not in there. If he starts an inactive again, he's gone.

I will tell him as much.

Does this make sense?

Tristram wrote: »

Id actually prefer for him not to be here and for the GM to take over, as per the rules. Maybe that's just me through.

BigBadRob83 wrote: »

Would second that.
Has had his chance, and has prior form

Johnny_Fontane wrote: »

tricky one though, as he did change his team last week, so is now (technically) active again.

D3PO wrote: »

the problem you have with the starting an inactive / player on a bye rule is if you ahve most of your guys have a bye in the same week or weeks an inactive can get by due to that technicality.

if your not active as per the rules then personally I think there should be zero tollerence. Thats why I thought we had a collective rule system made up by the majorities feedback here on boards ?

Look its your league so the GMs shoudl do what the league wants I jsut think a guy who has form, doesnt turn up to draft, has had 4 weeks of playing inactives / bye players doesnt deserve any leeway.

I dont have anythign personal against the guy, I dont even know who he is here on boards, my views are purely from the point of wanting all fantasy players to get enjoyment out of the game and thats best servers without inactives.

Johnny_Fontane · 28-10-2014 3:23pm

Tristram wrote: »

No, I have to say I'm not happy with this. In fact I am extremely confused about it and would like some kind of clarification. The "original deal" is the set of rules that were agreed upon and clearly laid out for all boards league. In this case they have been completely ignored for no good reason.

gufc21 initially pointed out the inactive on the 26th of September.

Below are all the many posts relating to the inactive.

Thanks for that Tristram. The problem here is that I should have immediately banned him as per rules but instead of banning him straight away, I contacted him to say he was going to be banned if he didnt update his team. He has been active right up until this week.

You seem to be going after me in all this for some reason. I've been crystal clear the whole way along in relation to this. As per the original message, if he was inactive at any stage again, his team would be taken over. This happened this week.

Rules are rules I suppose, so should have taken over at that stage, but it didn't happen and we gave him until thursday when he did in fact log in and change his lineup.

gufc21 wrote: »

Well tbh its clear cut, he missed draft and was inactive for first 4 weeks (3 is limit) if he doesn't log in before ko thurs gm should take over team

And again, lads, this is a voluntary free league, where I voluntarily give up my time for absolutely no gain. The guy is now banned and we have taken his team over.

I know Tristram has a problem with that but he's seems to have a personal issue with me. Anyone else got a problem with the gm taking over cutlering the mustards team?

Tristram · 28-10-2014 4:20pm

Just to clarify, my issue is with the mishandling of this inactive situation, not the rules. The rules are crystal clear and leave no doubt as to what the correct procedure is should such a situation arise. My confusion is a direct result of the rules not being followed a month ago only to be implemented later on now. This kind of inconsistency doesn't sit well with me.

Also, I don't have a "personal issue" with any posters here and I don't think my pattern of posting would lend any credence to that theory. I actually think it's pretty bad form to even float something like that out there. I don't believe that kind of posting is what this forum is about. All my posts have been issue-based. I don't understand how I find myself in the situation of "defending" myself here yet again.

Johnny_Fontane · 28-10-2014 4:38pm

Cmon Tristram, I know that you are a very respected poster. But you are being hyper pernickety in this respect.

The decision was made to give him until thursday to change his team. By the rules, he shouldnt have been given any more time. But how do you know what his personal situation was? He may have had a personal tragedy or something happen, so I think its reasonable and fair to give the guy a chance (as it was the very first bye week) to respond. Which we did.

Apparently this guy had previously gone inactive in a dynasty league. I had absolutely no knowledge of this, nor was it ever mentioned to me.

So thats it. Thats all there is to it. I'll take over his team and the league will roll on.

BizzyC · 28-10-2014 4:42pm

That's not in line with rules though.

Rule is 3 weeks of inactivity.
He broke it once, fair enough he came back.

Has he broken it again or have you followed a new rule that you've made up?
From what I can see he logged in 7 days ago, and the only bye player he played was a kicker.

My opponent this week had a bye player in their line up, why not take over that team as well?

Johnny_Fontane · 28-10-2014 4:52pm

BizzyC wrote: »

That's not in line with rules though.

Rule is 3 weeks of inactivity.
He broke it once, fair enough he came back.

Has he broken it again or have you followed a new rule that you've made up?
From what I can see he logged in 7 days ago, and the only bye player he played was a kicker.

My opponent this week had a bye player in their line up, why not take over that team as well?

so what do you propose we do?

Guffy · 28-10-2014 9:00pm

There are two positions that I wouldn't take into count when considering activity.... Kicker and Defence. Not because of their imprtance or perceived lack of but rather because of their position in the my team squad. I have done it myself, picked up a D on waivers but forgotten to put them into lineup due to not scrolling down to see them. Every other position is viewable when you first open the page and these are easy to forget.

However, This team should have been taken over in week 4, going by the rules. I did suggest giving him until the Thursday alright but I guess that was wrong. In saying that two wrongs don't make a right. There is a history of inactivity here and therefore the team should be taken over immediately. I know some teams will of had an easier ride or whatever but it doesn't matter and I did raise the issue before I played him so I can't be called for seeking an unfair advantage or anything

Tristram · 28-10-2014 9:22pm

I am looking to trade Aaron Rodgers now. I would like QB+WR in return I think but will listen to all offers. Shoot me a message if interested.

poldebruin · 29-10-2014 12:57am

Johnny_Fontane wrote: »

So thats it. Thats all there is to it. I'll take over his team and the league will roll on.

I think this is bad form. I have been in a position to either drop one of my players to pick up a Kicker or defence to cover a bye week and decided not to do it. I don't think it's evidence of an abandoned team. He may not have wanted to send Dawson to waivers.

This isn't enough evidence to suggest abandoned. Not everyone is logging into FF every day looking at and changing their team. You do have a responsibility to set a line up, but leaving a kicker in that's on a bye is not egregious in my opinion.

I'm playing a player that has 4 on byes this week, I have 4 myself, I'm pretty sure I might have to leave a spot open.

I'd suggest monitoring the team, and if it gets ridiculous the GM should jump in.

poldebruin · 29-10-2014 1:04am

gufc21 wrote: »

because of their position in the my team squad. I have done it myself, picked up a D on waivers but forgotten to put them into lineup due to not scrolling down to see them. Every other position is viewable when you first open the page and these are easy to forget.

I've done this so many times - or you forget to click submit and you think you have changed the line up only to discover to your chagrin that you've played an empty DEF and left your newly waiver acquired one on the bench

gufc21 wrote: »

There is a history of inactivity here and therefore the team should be taken over immediately.

I don't think it was anything major. It seems like a an owner that is only vaguely interested. But vaguely interested should be enough if they are setting (for the most part) a lineup every week.

gufc21 wrote: »

I know some teams will of had an easier ride or whatever but it doesn't matter and I did raise the issue before I played him so I can't be called for seeking an unfair advantage or anything

I don't think anyone had any particular advantage, and for the most part, Cutlering had a viable team every week. Once, in week 4 he failed to start a QB and a DEF and once in week 8 he fielded a kicker on a bye. That's it.

Johnny_Fontane · 29-10-2014 8:22am

interesting replies. I didn't think that anyone would give the guy a chance. I have contacted him a number of times, including again this week and he has never once come back to me. I know there was a mistake in week 4 by me but he was warned then (even if he didn't acknowledge it).

we need to make a call on this by tomorrow.

I vote we take it over, but I'm easy either way.

we just need to bring it to a head.

BizzyC · 29-10-2014 9:28am

I say no, the rules say no.

The activity log on the league only shows changes made, not logins.
He last made a change on the 21st, well within the 3 week period.

You cant talk about the last bout of inactivity all you want, just because that didn't get handled according to the rules doesn't mean we throw the rulebook out now.
2 wrongs dont make a right.

His lineup looks fine for this week, he has 2 byes next week.
If he plays those two bye players in next week's game, then we can boot him as he'll be past 3 weeks and clearly not managing his team.
Until then anything else goes beyond the rules laid out for a GM.

BaronVon · 29-10-2014 1:36pm

BizzyC wrote: »

I say no, the rules say no.

The activity log on the league only shows changes made, not logins.
He last made a change on the 21st, well within the 3 week period.

You cant talk about the last bout of inactivity all you want, just because that didn't get handled according to the rules doesn't mean we throw the rulebook out now.
2 wrongs dont make a right.

His lineup looks fine for this week, he has 2 byes next week.
If he plays those two bye players in next week's game, then we can boot him as he'll be past 3 weeks and clearly not managing his team.
Until then anything else goes beyond the rules laid out for a GM.

I concur

Tristram · 29-10-2014 1:39pm

BizzyC is spot on.

As he isn't currently inactive I'm not sure why this cropped up now?

BizzyC · 29-10-2014 2:08pm

Tristram wrote: »

BizzyC is spot on.

As he isn't currently inactive I'm not sure why this cropped up now?

He didn't bench out a kicker who was on a bye.

Tristram · 29-10-2014 2:16pm

BizzyC wrote: »

He didn't bench out a kicker who was on a bye.

Think I'll have to do the same this week

edit: although not a kicker

Johnny_Fontane · 29-10-2014 3:48pm

Ok lads, cheers for the replies. I'm happy enough to let him work away.

Lets see what happens.

Tristram · 29-10-2014 3:50pm

Tristram wrote: »

I am looking to trade Aaron Rodgers now. I would like QB+WR in return I think but will listen to all offers. Shoot me a message if interested.

Just want to make this gets noticed.

Johnny_Fontane · 29-10-2014 4:07pm

Tristram wrote: »

Just want to make this gets noticed.

cutler and mike evans for rodgers?

mayordenis · 29-10-2014 6:41pm

Hey all, sorry about not giving the league as much time as possible,
I'm in a few leagues so sometimes inactives get lost in the shuffle, I'll make sure to keep my roster up to date for the rest of the season.
And equally I should have replied to messages but I'm a lazy bollocks.

poldebruin · 29-10-2014 6:54pm

mayordenis wrote: »

And equally I should have replied to messages but I'm a lazy bollocks.

Love the honesty! This is actually the main reason for me not getting things done too.

Johnny_Fontane · 31-10-2014 2:00pm

Who would have thought that when I drafted Shady McCoy and Zac Stacy for my RB lineup that I would have 2 total TD's from my RB core in WEEK 9.

:eek::eek:

Johnny_Fontane · 03-11-2014 12:47am

Everybody should trade with me.

Week 8, I trade Gronk and he goes for 32pts
Week 9, I trade Evans and he goes for 24pts

poldebruin · 03-11-2014 11:59am

Well Philip Rivers finally put paid to my hopes of squeaking (undeservedly) into the playoffs last night.

While Big Ben was putting up 6TD's for the 2nd week running, Rivers posted a -2.18 effort (yes, that is a minus), the final nail in the Broncos coffin this year, although, waiver wire pickup Brandon Lloyd did chip in with a single point.

Tristram · 03-11-2014 1:52pm

Weird to feel so pleased with picking up win ＃3, but dammit I am.

My roster is irrecognisable from what I drafted.

Week 1:
QB Aaron Rodgers
RB Steven Ridley
RB Fred Jackson
WR Michael Crabtree
WR Larry Fitzgerald
WR Jarret Boykin
TE Julius Thomas
K Mason Crosby
DEF Panthers
Bench: Stevie Johnson, Ray Rice, Josh McCown, Kenny Stills, James White

Week 9:
QB Ryan Tannehill
RB LeSean McCoy
RB Lorenzo Talifaero
WR Michael Crabtree
WR Mike Evans
WR Kenny Stills
TE Rob Gronkowski
K Shayne Graham
DEF Dolphins
Bench: Fred Jackson, Jay Cutler, Alfred Blue, Josh Gordon, Bills

Really thought I was doomed to relegation at the start of the season but optimistic now that I will survive.

In hindsight I wish I had tried to deal Josh Gordon earlier in the season. It would have made more sense hanging on to him this long if I was going to make the play-offs and hopefully go on a championship run. If there is an owner out there in that position, confident of making the play-offs and looking to light it up throughout, I'm up for trading him. I am still in a situation where I need help now, not later.

BigBadRob83 · 03-11-2014 5:10pm

Unbelievably forgetful move by me, after putting in waiver request for Brian Hoyer I then forget to put him for Stafford's bye, just really busy few days.

Need to get lucky tonight to pull out a win

swoody · 04-11-2014 6:10pm

my playoffs spot is confirmed.

poldebruin · 04-11-2014 7:51pm

swoody wrote: »

my playoffs spot is confirmed.

my playoff elimination was confirmed weeks ago.

But we're not giving up on the year. My players will be playing hard for their jobs next year. I don't want to see them quit on their coach.

Johnny_Fontane · 05-11-2014 10:20am

Jerry Jones just brought me upstairs and fired my ass

BizzyC · 05-11-2014 12:06pm

I have an outside chance of a playoff spot, need to pick up 2 games vs boccy's in the last 4 weeks to do it though.

I doubt my chances of going 4-0 to end the season for an automatic spot, there's a lot of 4-5 teams in the running for the wildcard though.

Tristram · 05-11-2014 6:48pm

Trade block:

Ryan Tannehill and the Miami Dolphins DEF.

Send me a PM if interested!

BizzyC · 07-11-2014 9:23am

Really happy my waiver request for Andy Dalton didn't go through now....

Hopefully Sanchez will do a better job covering for Brady this week.

poldebruin · 09-11-2014 11:40am

BizzyC wrote: »

Really happy my waiver request for Andy Dalton didn't go through now.....

Me too.....had a last minute change of heart. Thanks god.

BizzyC wrote: »

Hopefully Sanchez will do a better job covering for Brady this week.

oh.......pinning your hopes on Mark Sanchez??! I'm in the same boat with Kyle Orton starting in my win or go home game.

I see Division 2 (in Division 4 if you know what I mean) is starting to look like the NFC South. At least they, along with Division 4 are competitive. Runaway leaders in 1 and 3. I wonder if it's possible to rename the divisions within a division. North, East, West and South to avoid confusion.

Boards Division 4 Thread

Comments