Boards Division 4 Thread

jester1980

The above sounds a good idea.

Who is our league GM by the way, apologies on the ignorance. Wasn't bothered chekcing through 28 pages either

Jimmy Iovine

jester1980 wrote: »

The above sounds a good idea.

Who is our league GM by the way, apologies on the ignorance. Wasn't bothered chekcing through 28 pages either

You should really change your settings so you can view 40 posts per page. 28 pages becomes a vastly more manageable 8 by doing that.

After being projected to lose my match up last week by 20 points I was delighted to find that I actually won by 57 points in the end.

I'm hoping that they have me down to lose this week as well. My guys play better when they're the underdogs I think :P.

poldebruin

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

You should really change your settings so you can view 40 posts per page. 28 pages becomes a vastly more manageable 8 by doing that.

After being projected to lose my match up last week by 30 points I was delighted to find that I actually won by 57 points in the end.

I'm hoping that they have me down to lose this week as well. My guys play better when they're the underdogs I think :P.

I take it you scored the 140 or so points!! Nice way to start the year. Looking at your team page I think every single one of your starters had a blinder!!

No more underdog for you I'm afraid. Early season favourite.

Thanks for the 40 posts tip - i hadn't realised that.

EveAlex

this trade is just out of frustration

i proposed it to the other lad and told him to accept until we saw how quickly it was rejected

its disappoiinting to see so much objection to two teams conducting a trade

this is fantasy after all and if one man doesnt like a certain 'personality' in their team and wants to replace him with players from the team that he supports, well it should be allowed

i think rejection of this trade is purely based on jealousy

ill be staying away from this thread from now on

Jimmy Iovine

poldebruin wrote: »

I take it you scored the 140 or so points!! Nice way to start the year. Looking at your team page I think every single one of your starters had a blinder!!

No more underdog for you I'm afraid. Early season favourite.

Thanks for the 40 posts tip - i hadn't realised that.

Yea that was me. Everyone had a great game. Janikowski was the only one that scored less than 10 points but even he made a 50 yard kick.

The whole team managed 10 TDs, and that wasn't even counting Morris on my bench with 2 more.

Still a really long way to go though. The next few weeks are fine. Most people manage high scores now. It's the bye weeks that are a killer.

I managed 9/10 +100 games last year I think, winning them all. Almost all the ones that I lost were bye weeks where I was missing Brees or McCoy and my team took a major hit points wise.

I think I might be okay this year. RG3, Foster, Gore and Marshall are all on different weeks. A few of the other players match up but hopefully I'll be able to cope with it. And hopefully I'll be well positioned for getting into the playoffs at that stage.

Benimar

EveAlex wrote: »

this trade is just out of frustration

i proposed it to the other lad and told him to accept until we saw how quickly it was rejected

its disappoiinting to see so much objection to two teams conducting a trade

this is fantasy after all and if one man doesnt like a certain 'personality' in their team and wants to replace him with players from the team that he supports, well it should be allowed

i think rejection of this trade is purely based on jealousy

ill be staying away from this thread from now on

So, you are willing to mess up the balance of the league because you were 'frustrated'? I think its fair to say that this trade will now be vetoed.

The objection isn't to you, or anyone else, conducting a trade. The 1st veto was as a result of most players seeing it as being an extremely lopsided trade. The 2nd veto was probably for two reasons - it was nearly as lopsided as the first trade and there probably was an element of players being annoyed at an attempt to 'force' through the trade of Ray Rice and others.

If you want to take players off your team because you don't 'like' them and pick players from the team you support thats your prerogative. You will never make a good 'fantasy' manager like that and if this was the Premier League I'd have no problem with leaving you crash and burn as you refused to have ManCity/United/Chelsea players etc.

However in this format, by you offloading top end players for 'weaker' players, you are affecting the competitive balance of the league by strengthening another team. By doing that you are making a mockery of the league.

This is a competitive league so if you just joined up to have a laugh and wind others up, you have succeeded, but I'd also suggest you might want to reconsider if this is the competition for you.

As for the accusation of jealousy, the only reason I won't comment on that is due to the terms ond conditions of Boards.ie :cool:

CoachTO

EveAlex wrote: »

this trade is just out of frustration

i proposed it to the other lad and told him to accept until we saw how quickly it was rejected

its disappoiinting to see so much objection to two teams conducting a trade

this is fantasy after all and if one man doesnt like a certain 'personality' in their team and wants to replace him with players from the team that he supports, well it should be allowed

i think rejection of this trade is purely based on jealousy

ill be staying away from this thread from now on

I defended you from day 1 giving you the benefit of the doubt and have no reason to be jealous as I am not in this division but merely an outsider with interest in making sure ALL Boards leagues run fair. But you have now taken the p1ss and you can moan all you want you have left a sour taste in my mouth after giving you a fair shot and the benefit of the doubt.

You have clearly admitted taking the p1ss of the whole league and its baffling especially when Rule 10 was clearly pointed out in this thread many times.

Also I did say fair play to you for at least making the effort to be active on Boards and explain yourself but your fellow trading partner has stayed quiet on this and I can now see why.

As for the second line in bold when the season is over I really do think you should be banned from the AF forum for even making this statement as you are admitting to not wanting to be active here and take part in the community.

Matthew8 as GM you should veto the trade and ban both of them from trading. If out of anger they then try dump their good players block them from doing so and intervene. They will be dealt with once the season is over. Talk about wrecking a competitive league out of sheer pettiness.

matthew8

Alright I've heard enough, the trade will be vetoed. Any further attempts at trading by the Golf Bravos or Blue Bloods will result in a kicking from the league.

Molly

So now that's resolved. Who wants gronkowski

Jimmy Iovine

Molly wrote: »

So now that's resolved. Who wants gronkowski

I do.

If you're being serious have a look through my team (Team of Rivals) and see who ya want. I might be able to put something together.

Molly

I will swap you for hanker son because I love the skins and hate the pats.

Made an offer there, feel free to negotiate on it.

CoachTO

Molly wrote: »

I will swap you for hanker son because I love the skins and hate the pats.

Made an offer there, feel free to negotiate on it.

Gronkowski for Hankerson?:eek: I smell another sh1t storm

Jimmy Iovine

CoachTO wrote: »

Gronkowski for Hankerson?:eek: I smell another sh1t storm

I wish it was that. I'd have pressed accept straight away.

Unfortunately it's a more difficult choice than that.

Steve Smith (Car) and Frank Gore for Gronk and Mark Ingram.

EveAlex

matthew8 wrote: »

Alright I've heard enough, the trade will be vetoed. Any further attempts at trading by the Golf Bravos or Blue Bloods will result in a kicking from the league.

thats rediculous

my whole annoyance was originally being prevented from trading who i wanted now im being prevented from who i want to trade TO!?

FANTASY COMMUNISM at its worst

thats 4 for 4 trade would never have went through, i would have cancelled it

CoachTO

EveAlex wrote: »

thats rediculous

my whole annoyance was originally being prevented from trading who i wanted now im being prevented from who i want to trade TO!?

FANTASY COMMUNISM at its worst

thats 4 for 4 trade would never have went through, i would have cancelled it

You broke the charter and you admitted breaking the charter. And not only that you broke the charter after being told about it for the last few pages you admitted breaking the rules. Baffling really that you expect no consequences for your actions.

this trade is just out of frustration

i proposed it to the other lad and told him to accept until we saw how quickly it was rejected

Oh and don't use the word communism in this instance as you are using it wrong.

EveAlex

also the current trade between the tribesmen and the slackers, in my opinion, is lopsided

however

if both teams propose and accept the trade based on their own council - i wont veto the trade

Molly

thats 4 for 4 trade would never have went through, i would have cancelled it

you can't once it's been accepted. Sorry Jimmy, looks like I can't trade with you unless the trade gets vetoed. Forgot I had made that offer

poldebruin

Hi Eve Alex,

I was vocal about the earlier trades as they were going to significantly alter the balance of the league. There was no more to it than that. There was no jealousy at all. I would have liked to made an offer to you for Ray Rice for MJD (I gather you like the Jags), but felt it wouldn't be proper as result of all the controversy that went on.

Now that you are on the thread, you can see that most want to engage and explain - I think if you're not as active (and I'm by no means as active as some here) you might get the feeling that everyone is conspiring or being petty, which they are not. I assume you read the thread and could see you had some vocal supporters also.

EveAlex wrote: »

its disappoiinting to see so much objection to two teams conducting a trade

This is not generally the case - and this is the first straight up trade I have seen vetoed.

EveAlex wrote: »

this is fantasy after all and if one man doesnt like a certain 'personality' in their team and wants to replace him with players from the team that he supports, well it should be allowed

I actually agree with you here to some extent. If that's the way you want to play, that's up to you, but surely you had your chance to implement this strategy in the draft. If you had drafted all some of the players you wanted at that time, I don't think anyone would have cared in the slightest. Trying to move pieces after the draft has caused an issue, that's all.

I was actually considering trying to pick up as many Denver players and I do make an effort not to pick players from Denvers division as I don't like the conflict it gives me to be cheering for rivals. A good thing about fanatasy football, is that it gives you an interest in nearly any and every game that is on that week, rather than constraining you to supporting one.

EveAlex wrote: »

ill be staying away from this thread from now on

Now that you're here and talking, I hope you don't leave the thread, or the league for that matter. it just needed some clearing up imo. It is a boards.ie league that you signed up for and FF is a lot more fun with the interaction with other managers.

Johnny_Fontane

ha ha.....some craic.

bet all you lads who were bumped up to division four are loving this now!!!!

As for Jimmy Feckin Iovine, he is the luckiest son of a b**ch, I have ever come across.....wipes the board clean in div 5 last year with an autopick draft, (a 7th round gronk or something) looks like he has done the same this year. 140 points in the first week!!! :D:D

JF (Div 5 GM)

Jimmy Iovine

Johnny_Fontane wrote: »

As for Jimmy Feckin Iovine, he is the luckiest son of a b**ch, I have ever come across.....wipes the board clean in div 5 last year with an autopick draft, (a 7th round gronk or something) looks like he has done the same this year. 140 points in the first week!!! :D:D

JF (Div 5 GM)

Haha you should see my team this week.

I was projected to get 110 last week and managed 140.

This time I'm projected to get 150 points. That's the highest in the league by 30 points and the highest that I've ever seen.

I'll either finish with something ridiculous like 160 or 170 or my lads will completely bomb it. There is no middle ground when it comes to my team it seems.

I would play the Lotto tonight but I think all my luck may well have been used on this draft.

Early days yet. One injury and it could be curtains for me. My main aim is just to get promoted again. Hopefully things aren't messed up again which results in the playoff places meaning zilch come next season.

EveAlex

i picked based on value and fantasy potential

the golf bravos want personalities - but he drafted fro value on teh day in order to use them as trade bait (thats how i see it)

he was very vocal on the day day about dealing ray rice - to ANYONE in the league

im sure hes still approachable about trading him

he fancies luck, i fancy rice

he wants luck so much that he'll give up rice

i wont lose luck as i dont have a starting QB

he threw in Eli and the basis that i gave him RB cover and some jags players


thats how it came about

but it seems to be a massive issue on here and i still believe it to be unfair that weve been vetoed and 'banned' from trading. i think people are being childish and spiteful. this is a game, a fun game, and if two teams want to make it even more fun, to have their fav players on their roster, then it should be allowed

i personally have lost alot of interest in the league already due to what has gone on and i will be keeping interaction on here to a minimum if at all. i will coach from afar

Benny Cake

EveAlex wrote: »

but it seems to be a massive issue on here and i still believe it to be unfair that weve been vetoed and 'banned' from trading. i think people are being childish and spiteful. this is a game, a fun game, and if two teams want to make it even more fun, to have their fav players on their roster, then it should be allowed

i personally have lost alot of interest in the league already due to what has gone on and i will be keeping interaction on here to a minimum if at all. i will coach from afar

Point is though, this league is about 16 teams, not just the two who are trading... I accept there was no malice involved but surely you can see the trade would have unfairly strengthened one team giving it a significant advantage over the rest of the league. It was for that reason the trade was vetoed three times.

EveAlex

its all based on opinions

whos to say andrw luck doesnt outscore the whole lot of em? golf bravos feel he will - hence why he wants to swap rice for him. the add ons are based on me wanting balance in my team and him wanting RB cover plus jags players. he wants a straight swap - luck for rice. he feels hes robbing me! i feel im doing great out of him. and you all dont want either of us to do anything!

its a trade

both teams feel theyre gaining from the trade, thats enough in my opinion

vetoing it is based on jealousy i feel - jelousy that they cant have/make the trade

Benny Cake

EveAlex wrote: »

its all based on opinions

whos to say andrw luck doesnt outscore the whole lot of em? golf bravos feel he will - hence why he wants to swap rice for him. the add ons are based on me wanting balance in my team and him wanting RB cover plus jags players. he wants a straight swap - luck for rice. he feels hes robbing me! i feel im doing great out of him. and you all dont want either of us to do anything!

its a trade

both teams feel theyre gaining from the trade, thats enough in my opinion

vetoing it is based on jealousy i feel - jelousy that they cant have/make the trade

I give up Eve, you obviously just don't get it... Good luck with the rest of the season.

EveAlex

i do get it

i just dont have to accept your opinion

you dont see to accept mine

why should you hold sway over what i do with my lineup just because you have one opinion and I another?

you obviously believe that rice is a better player than luck - as do i

but the golf bravos dont. why should you hold away over what he wants and what i want

he values luck and i value rice

the trade is acceptable to me and him, why not allow it?

CoachTO

EveAlex wrote: »

i do get it

i just dont have to accept your opinion

you dont see to accept mine

why should you hold sway over what i do with my lineup just because you have one opinion and I another?

you obviously believe that rice is a better player than luck - as do i

but the golf bravos dont. why should you hold away over what he wants and what i want

he values luck and i value rice

the trade is acceptable to me and him, why not allow it?

Simple fact is the Veto is an option NFL.com have and all the other member didnt agree with your trade and as a community they all discussed it and vetoed both first two trades.

Now the problem here now is you both put up a 3rd trade and you clearly admitted to breaking the rules and clearly said you put up the trade in frustration and clearly admitted putting a trade taking the piss with the league and breaking the league and Boards charter.

EveAlex wrote: »

this trade is just out of frustration

i proposed it to the other lad and told him to accept until we saw how quickly it was rejected

At the end of it all these league are built around the members and as sh1t as the veto is to some, the members have the right as a community to make sure the league is run fairly in their eyes as a group. You failed to accept that and then broke the rules simple as.

eagle eye

EveAlex wrote: »

i do get it

i just dont have to accept your opinion

you dont see to accept mine

why should you hold sway over what i do with my lineup just because you have one opinion and I another?

you obviously believe that rice is a better player than luck - as do i

but the golf bravos dont. why should you hold away over what he wants and what i want

he values luck and i value rice

the trade is acceptable to me and him, why not allow it?

You really have no grasp of reality it seems. People take this seriously as there is a chance to win and/or promotion.
You and somebody else making a mockery of the league and the rules just because you feel like it is exactly why we have rules.

The trade was a complete joke. All trades have to be fair. The reason NFL.com have the veto option is to make sure all leagues are run fairly. What you've done by putting up a 3rd trade is disrespect your fellow FF players and the boards.ie FF community.

EveAlex

get of your high horse about the third trade

the issue is the first one

the trade was perfectly fair - between us both as coaches

you vetoed it because in your opinion it was unfair

unfair to what or who? it was unfair in your OPINION

the veto shoves an opinion down someones neck. the original trade was made based on needs and wants and was FAIR to both parties, hence the reason we haggled and teased it out. then we BOTH ACCEPTED the trade. there is no need to veto in that case other than through jelousy. fact

i know theres chance of promotion etc

whos to say ray rice doesnt blow his knee next week and andrew luck has 50TDS and 6000yards by the end of the season? its all based on projections and how we each individually value a player


ill say it again, i wanted rice - he wanted luck

i needed a QB - threw in eli

he wanted cover at RB and a jags player. so i threw in hillis and blackmon. he rejected

i countered with lewis - he accepted

be bargained and haggled until we found a FAIR outcome.

we didnt swap rodgers for scobee or brady for bryant

CoachTO

EveAlex wrote: »

get of your high horse about the third trade

the issue is the first one

the trade was perfectly fair - between us both as coaches

you vetoed it because in your opinion it was unfair

unfair to what or who? it was unfair in your OPINION

the veto shoves an opinion down someones neck. the original trade was made based on needs and wants and was FAIR to both parties, hence the reason we haggled and teased it out. then we BOTH ACCEPTED the trade. there is no need to veto in that case other than through jelousy. fact

i know theres chance of promotion etc

whos to say ray rice doesnt blow his knee next week and andrew luck has 50TDS and 6000yards by the end of the season? its all based on projections and how we each individually value a player


ill say it again, i wanted rice - he wanted luck

i needed a QB - threw in eli

he wanted cover at RB and a jags player. so i threw in hillis and blackmon. he rejected

i countered with lewis - he accepted

be bargained and haggled until we found a FAIR outcome.

we didnt swap rodgers for scobee or brady for bryant

The first trade became irrelevant when you decided to take the piss with the league by admitting the third trade was doing that. You automatically broke the Charter in doing so. You can give all the excuses in the world for the 1st and 2nd trades you want but the other league members voted so they are done and dusted. But the 3rd trade your most recent is now relevant.

you vetoed it because in your opinion it was unfair

unfair to what or who? it was unfair in your OPINION

But like it or not that is how the veto works. The other members in the league thought the trade was unfair and by right clicked the veto button. As I said to you we all have to go by what the power of the community says. If the majority discuss the trade and dont agree and click the veto button tough sh1t really.

poldebruin

EveAlex wrote: »

get of your high horse about the third trade

I don't see any one on a high horse about the third trade. i do see that you might regret proposing it or admitting that it was never supposed to be a serious trade.

EveAlex wrote: »

the trade was perfectly fair - between us both as coaches

you vetoed it because in your opinion it was unfair

unfair to what or who? it was unfair in your OPINION

This is essentially the crux of the matter. 9 or more people in the league thought the trade was unfair and stopped it.

EveAlex wrote: »

the veto shoves an opinion down someones neck. the original trade was made based on needs and wants and was FAIR to both parties, hence the reason we haggled and teased it out. then we BOTH ACCEPTED the trade. there is no need to veto in that case other than through jelousy. fact

I suppose it does shove a (collective) opinion down your neck. I won't get into the minutiae of the trade, but what you arrived at was very one sided.

EveAlex wrote: »

whos to say ray rice doesnt blow his knee next week and andrew luck has 50TDS and 6000yards by the end of the season? its all based on projections and how we each individually value a player

Correct. But who is to say Rice doesn't blow out his knee and Luck does? Injuries can happen both ways to players in a trade, so pretty much cancel each other out in the scheme of things.

EveAlex wrote: »

ill say it again, i wanted rice - he wanted luck

i needed a QB - threw in eli

Damn. I know I didn't want to get into the details, but he threw in Eli - an elite qb in the league....so at one stage the trade was Rice and Eli for Andrew Luck?

EveAlex wrote: »

he wanted cover at RB and a jags player. so i threw in hillis and blackmon. he rejected

of course he needed cover at RB, he had just given away one of the 2 best running backs in the league!

EveAlex wrote: »

we didnt swap rodgers for scobee or brady for bryant

well according to your logic, brady could throw out his knee and scobee could set an nfl record for field goals. Also, i might love josh scobee so much, and get such joy in watching him kick PATs that i think this trade would be acceptable, but even you can see this doesn't stack up. The same logic applies to your and Golfs trade.

I still appreciate you coming along to explain things.