NFL 2014 Season - Page 172

On October 22 2014 15:35 LeeDawg wrote:
I'm just happy to be at a point where in week 8 I don't feel the need to make too many waiver moves. Granted, my friend who dropped Cam Newton (for Kirk Cousins!) and the Cardinals D make that easier.

Speaking of this borderline clueless friend, I've been thinking of trying to get him to trade me Alfred Morris. His team is pretty decrepit top to bottom, so it may be easy to sway him, but I don't know if it will be worth trading for Morris, considering how he's played recently, and the way the offense is trending in D.C. I already have McCoy, the last thing I need is another back who gives me headaches each week...

On October 22 2014 21:07 c0ldfusion wrote:

Trade raping a friend who has no chance of going anywhere with his team is basically collusion.

The rest of your league will shun you if you do this.

On October 22 2014 21:29 AgentW wrote:

What? It's only collusion if he willingly agrees to help LeeDawg at something below market price. Stupidity does not equate to collusion.

Rip him off, LeeDawg, rip him off.

On October 22 2014 22:39 c0ldfusion wrote:


Whether the other party is willing or not is irrelevant. The result is the same. You're trying to gain an unfair advantage and reducing the level of competitiveness in the league.

If you attempted that in my league, it'd get vetoed to oblivion and you'd be subsequently shunned.

On October 22 2014 23:09 AgentW wrote:

That's why the veto system is dumb. Just because one guy's a dope and is fleeced because of it isn't a valid reason to shoot down a trade.

On October 22 2014 23:53 c0ldfusion wrote:


On a related topic, it's no fun to play in a casual league anyway.

It's pretty discouraging when I see people not trying in my leagues. We started adding punitive measures on teams that finish at the bottom in one league but I'm starting to think it's not enough. I may need to shuffle up membership next year.

On October 22 2014 23:56 ZasZ. wrote:


Punitive measures for finishing at the bottom? Doesn't someone have to finish at the bottom? If someone has checked out, I get not bringing them back for the next year, but that seems a little weird.

On October 22 2014 21:07 c0ldfusion wrote:

Trade raping a friend who has no chance of going anywhere with his team is basically collusion.

The rest of your league will shun you if you do this.

On October 23 2014 00:33 DannyJ wrote:
If a trade isn't nonsenseically unbalanced or clear collusion, which is usually easy to see, trades should go through. I guess it might be harder if your league is filled with people who you don't really know or might have terrible FF IQ.

On October 22 2014 22:39 c0ldfusion wrote:


Whether the other party is willing or not is irrelevant. The result is the same. You're trying to gain an unfair advantage and reducing the level of competitiveness in the league.

If you attempted that in my league, it'd get vetoed to oblivion and you'd be subsequently shunned.

On October 23 2014 01:19 QuanticHawk wrote:
It would have to be something similar to getting megatron and giving deangello Williams for that kind of stupidity needing to be blocked. It would have to be way beyond a normal fleecing to deserve a veto

On October 23 2014 02:28 Jibba wrote:

Your league still has vetos and therefore sucks.

Collusion is about the process, not the outcome. Everyone should be encouraged to rip each other to shreds. This is goddamn 'Murka, not Soviet Finland.

On October 23 2014 05:28 c0ldfusion wrote:
I think you guys think I'm taking a more extreme stance than I actually am. Believer or not when this actually comes up, I'm usually the guy who thinks the questionable trade should go through.

So in general I agree, let trades happen. We don't know the exact trade being proposed here by LeeDawg. And it might very well be fair enough to not be considered collusion.

All I'm saying is, intent should be taken out of the equation. Extremely one-sided trades should not be allowed. Otherwise, it's fine.

Burkholder said Wednesday that he checked Charles after the hit and that the running back showed no signs of a concussion, although Charles said in an ESPN Radio interview Tuesday on The Dan Le Batard Show that he wasn't checked for a concussion Sunday.

...

"It definitely hurt," Charles said. "A couple plays later, I just [saw] this light buzz around my eyes and I was trying to catch 'em. But I was like, 'Let's get the ball and run again.'"

...

He went on to describe other symptoms that could be consistent with those of a concussion. He said he had flashbacks to scenes from his childhood. But he indicated he was never checked for a concussion because, he said, he didn't have one. Charles finished the game.

...

"I didn't have a concussion," he said. "It was definitely a hit that shocked me. I didn't think I had to go through the concussion protocol and all that because I didn't want to go through that again. That's what happened in the playoffs. I was definitely fine. I think I came out pretty good.

"I could definitely play through stuff like that. It wasn't a concussion. If it was a concussion, I wouldn't remember the plays or remember none of my teammates' names or remember what sideline to go to. I definitely remember everything. It was just a huge hit."