Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

One Guy not playing


PntherPryd

How should commish handle inactive player?  

14 members have voted

  1. 1. How should commish handle inactive player?

    • do nothing
    • submit lineup based on league "coach" feature one time only
      0
    • submit lineup based on coach every week
      0


Recommended Posts

It's complicated by the fact that he has LT who is out this week, so if the vote goes toward setting lineup for him for one week only LT would be on bench rest of season.

Two guys already have blowout wins so I'm leaning toward doing nothing. The guy did pay so maybe he'll show up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You pay to play, you pay to lose. It's up to you to submit your lineup and do the work to make sure you have the best chance to win.

If this continues to be his operation - I might see this stacking up the playoffs for that conference a bit based on point differentials and possibly creating some matchup problems then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

or conference rather.

Four guys from each conference get into playoffs (Minter, Topcats, etc.) This makes a total of 16 teams out of 48 that advance to postseason play and they are re-seeded based on record.

Of the four, three are automatic and they are the division winners. The four guys in each division play each other twice, btw.

The fourth conference playoff team is the wildcard team chosen via best record with a long list of tie-breakers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • lol, that second part is quite literally one of the dumbest things ever. Having or not having guaranteed contracts has absolutely nothing to do with how much these billionaires have to pay.  Because there is a hard cap and a minimum cap spend requirement, and teams either use their cap or roll it over to use it all the next year, so the owners have to pay the same amount of money in the end no matter what. Having fully guaranteed contracts in the NFL would only hurt salary cap management, and thus would end up screwing over the team and its fan base when teams kiss on signings as they take up cap room that is needed to improve the roster. Look at the Browns with Watson, they gave him the fully guaranteed deal and all it’s doing is sucking up massive cap space now.  If they hadn’t done that, the owner would still be paying the same amount of money each year as that cap space would still be used elsewhere. If you want to argue for fully guaranteed contracts because the players deserve it, that’s an entirely different argument and a fair one to discuss.  But anyone against fully guaranteed deals isn’t doing it to argue for the billionaire owners.
    • Start posting in threads in the other forums instead of just creating threads. No one comes over here so you aren't starting conversations.  Get your ass up to 100 posts. It's not that hard. Don't create 100 posts. Contribute to conversations. 
    • Ryabkin could be the steal of the draft, he was a Top 10 pick heading into last season and had a rough year.  Lots of GMs passed on him because of that and his workouts. Pick has really high upside and Svech should be able to translate Rod tearing his arse a new one for making dumb plays since Svech has had several years of it.  🤣😂
×
×
  • Create New...