Help Center
|
| Guest (Login) Help Center |
|
Daily Football League |
| Green River Killers | 
Date Wed Dec 7 4:51:03 p.m. PT 2005
|
| Are there special rules governing waivers for participants of the Toilet Bowl? If not, there should be -- and we ought to pass legislation on it for next year. Here's why: What is to stop me or Rob from cutting every player on our roster who isn't going to start this week in order to ensure that we get who we want/need off the waiver wire? That could really affect the playoff teams as top-line players suddenly will be available on waivers starting next week. Oh wait. Rob and I don't have any top-line players. That's why we are in the Toilet Bowl. Never mind. -Stuart The GRK: Bottom feeders. |
| Lewiston Cattle Prods |
Date Wed Dec 7 9:23:15 p.m. PT 2005
|
| That's a good point. Toilet Bowl participants, I would hope, would try to avoid releasing players that might be of value to the remaining teams. Also, it's not officially written down as a rule (but perhaps it should be). For the championship game, it's poor etiquette to sign three or four free agents (or maybe just one high-priced one) and then not release players immediately to get under the league limits of 16 players and $100. In my opinion "counter punch" free agent signings should be legal when there are only two players left. That is, if one team releases a player of some nominal value two days before the Krohn Bowl, the other finalist has the option to pick that player up. |
| Crawford Dodgers |
Date Thu Dec 8 6:37:09 a.m. PT 2005
|
| Why not just lock out the Toilet Bowl teams, or limit them to replacing questionable, doubtful or out players only? |
| Lewiston Cattle Prods |
Date Thu Dec 8 9:35:27 a.m. PT 2005
|
|
| It's a big game for them too. They're trying to avoid getting hit with an extra $15 charge. We've had many Toilet Bowls before, and we've never had a problem with teams dropping players of value. Rob and Stuart are two of our classier, showcase owners. I'm sure they'll both "do the right thing" |
| Green River Killers |
Date Thu Dec 8 10:02:29 a.m. PT 2005
|
|
| Well, I will do the right thing. I can't vouch for the other guy. -Stuart The GRK: We had never before been called "classy." |
| Crawford Dodgers |
Date Thu Dec 8 8:08:46 p.m. PT 2005
|
|
| Does picking up four different quarterbacks for one game count as 'doing the right thing'? |
| Green River Killers |
Date Fri Dec 9 8:29:28 a.m. PT 2005
|
|
| Five. I'm not done. -Stuart The GRK: Pro-choice. |
| Lewiston Cattle Prods |
Date Fri Dec 9 10:04:09 a.m. PT 2005
|
|
| This is all very entertaining. But I don't see the point. Is there a team that is looking for a quarterback (or will be looking for one)? Not that I see. |
| Green River Killers |
Date Fri Dec 9 10:40:23 a.m. PT 2005
|
|
| I didn't mean it to be entertaining. Or to be an asshole. Believe me, you'll know when I'm trying to be an asshole. Here's the deal: I got shut out in obtaining the QB I wanted (Tui), so I quickly picked up any starting QB on the waiver wire that my roster could absorb in case Rob tried to shut me down. The only QB on my roster was Kerry Collins, who isn't starting. I didn't have time to analyze which QB I would start this week, so I grabbed four contenders (later, five, after I realized I didn't pick up the guy, Carr, who probably should start). Sorry to offend. Oh, by the way, I think it's absolutely priceless (and confirmation of my status as the DFL's most powerful owner) that the DFL message board this week has been DOMINATED with discussion about the Toilet Bowl and its participants (GRK, in particular) as opposed to the playoffs. Don't think that wasn't intentional on my part. BTW, who's playing in the playoffs? -Stuart The GRK: OK, I was trying to be an asshole in that last part. |
| Crawford Dodgers |
Date Fri Dec 9 4:03:47 p.m. PT 2005
|
|
| I'm done after this week anyway, so it's not like I care. I just think it would be unfortunate for some good playoff team if, say, their QB(s) got injured this week and the only servicable free agents were all sitting on one Toilet Bowl squad. I understand that the Toilet Bowlers have a stake in this too (I've been there). Still, letting the sidebet booby-prize interfere with the big game just seems kind of weak to me. I don't know much. I'm just an unfrozen caveman lawyer. But it seems to me that the Toilet Bowl is supposed to be a deterrent against 'checking out' for the season. If so, the following two changes seem reasonable to me... 1) Make the teams slug it out with whatever turdbags are left on their roster at the end of the regular season 2) Give Belltown a permanent bid (like Dallas on Thanksgiving). |
| Spokane Pandas |
Date Sat Dec 10 12:46:48 p.m. PT 2005
|
| Am I the only person who wonders why waiver moves are allowed at all during the playoffs? IMO they should be illegal unless you have a player listed as doubtful or out. In the past Ian suggested that owners might pick up players in week 12/13/14 who are likely to be doubtful or out during weeks 15/16, in order to give themselves the option to have a free pickup during the DFL playoffs. If an owner is willing to hamstring himself during the regular season in order to be a dick in the postseason, that's better than a guy having free reign to be a dick during the postseason. |
| Crawford Dodgers |
Date Sat Dec 10 6:13:11 p.m. PT 2005
|
|
| I agree, as always, with BT. |
| Lewiston Cattle Prods |
Date Sun Dec 11 9:56:18 a.m. PT 2005
|
|
| I think you're more likely to be bitten by some unfortunate scenario if you outlaw waiver moves in the offseason. Perhaps some guy is clearly hurt but is listied as questionable. Perhaps some guy isn't hurt at all but is going to be rested. Or perhaps some guy (Eric Moulds this week) gets suspended but isn't listed on the injury report. My biggest concern would be that one of the remaining six teams has a guy listed as doubtful, and it ends up being a huge advantage because he's the only team allowed to make a pickup and there's some plum player that shakes free on the waiver wire. Unless it can be worded more carefully, I'll again vote against this if it's proposed in the offseason. |
| Spokane Pandas |
Date Mon Dec 12 9:48:08 a.m. PT 2005
|
|
| I'll take my chances. Those "ifs" are relatively unlikely, at least compared to what happens under our current rules, where at least one playoff team seems to get ratfucked -- er, "jammed" -- by an opponent every year. |
| Lewiston Cattle Prods |
Date Mon Dec 12 12:11:25 p.m. PT 2005
|
|
| We've been playing for 20 years. Have we had a postseason waiver problem yet? Not one that I've noticed (I don't consider Stuart picking up Chris Simms, Jeff Garcia and Marques Tuiasosopopopo to be a problem). |
| Green River Killers |
Date Mon Dec 12 4:15:47 p.m. PT 2005
|
|
| Now that the DFL season is over, we can concentrate on important things like rules for next year. If Bruce can figure out language, I'm with him on a rule that would limit, if not outlaw waiver moves in da postseason. One possibility: each team is limited to three waiver moves during the ENTIRE postseason. Got to be careful not to use up those moves in early rounds; you may need them for the Krohn Bowl. Toilet Bowl teams would be limited to one waiver move. I'm also in favor of returning to a 14-week season next year and shrinking the number of playoff teams from six to four. The regular season should mean something. I reserve the right to change my mind on both rule initiatives between now and the time we vote, however. And, of course, everything depends on whether Tony Schenk returns to the DFL next season. Stuart The GRK: Who says we can't win a championship? |
| Crawford Dodgers |
Date Mon Dec 12 5:13:59 p.m. PT 2005
|
|
| Screwart, You proposed the six team format, right? As someone who made 118 individual roster moves this year, platooning, I think, 46 different guys, I'm leery about limiting myself to just 3 moves in the postseason. That gives me precious few opportunities to make my team substantially worse. I know, I know... I'll find a way. To be fair, my trepidation is mitigated by the prospect of returning to a 4 playoff team format, in which case I won't have to worry about postseason roster moves. And who is this Tony Schenk fella you guys keep talking about? |
| Lewiston Cattle Prods |
Date Mon Dec 12 9:27:52 p.m. PT 2005
|
|
| I motion that we table discussions on any possible rules changes. We can't move forward on any of this stuff, particularly the bill placing a 10 percent tax on former Pac-10 players, until we find out if Rep. Schenk (Briar) is going to be in the league in 2006. |
| Hutton Headhunters |
Date Tue Dec 13 8:01:55 p.m. PT 2005
|
| When did the DFL start allowing in-season roster moves? |