Charcandrick West

[Showboat 248]

So the player that gets the most work of the two would be the better one to own ? Thank you for clearing that up .

It's actually pretty insightful for a dog.

[FeelingMN 273]

JC owner who missed out on West. The Davis owner spent all his FAAB dollars ($100) on West.

 

Not that upset though. Probably looking at a committee. Reid has said so himself. The players have indicated they think they'll both play. So a crowded backfield on a bad team. Yuck.

 

JC was the KC offense. Everything funneled through him. No way either of the other two backs approximate that kind of production.

[Einstein's Dog 24]

So the player that gets the most work of the two would be the better one to own ? Thank you for clearing that up .

No, that's not the takeaway. Let me spell it out for you slowly.

 

Rallo said his value can only go up. I disagree. West has commanded a lot of people's FAAB and waiver priority. As mentioned in this thread, you could get at least Coleman for him now, probably more like Yeldon or Stewart.

 

The point is West has value now.

 

Try to keep up.

[c.hammer 6]

Spent my #1 waiver on West, then picked up Davis after.

 

Starting both due to byes (rb2 and flex)

[brotherbock 349]

Maybe for you his value can only go up. That's because it sounds like you made one of those d*ick moves where you picked up a guy's hurt players backup and tried to trade it to him. He probably would never trade with you in a million years. That's considered a d*ck move. Don't you know that?

 

 

So...you're supposed to just let the Charles owner grab him off waivers instead? Marquess of Queensbury FF Rules, that's the gentlemanly thing to do? "Oh no, you first! You need a running back more than I do. It would be *unthinkable* of me to select a player you had your heart set on."

 

Why wouldn't you A) try to grab a player you think has value, and then B ) try to trade that player if you think you can get someone more valuable? That's called 'playing the game'.

 

Would you have been open to trading your waiver priority to the Charles owner so *he* could grab the backup? Same thing. It's considered a move of someone who's competing with other people by the rules to win a contest.

[Einstein's Dog 24]

 

So...you're supposed to just let the Charles owner grab him off waivers instead? Marquess of Queensbury FF Rules, that's the gentlemanly thing to do? "Oh no, you first! You need a running back more than I do. It would be *unthinkable* of me to select a player you had your heart set on."

 

Why wouldn't you A) try to grab a player you think has value, and then B ) try to trade that player if you think you can get someone more valuable? That's called 'playing the game'.

 

Would you have been open to trading your waiver priority to the Charles owner so *he* could grab the backup? Same thing. It's considered a move of someone who's competing with other people by the rules to win a contest.

First off, the point rallo was trying to make was that West didn't have much value because he couldn't trade him to the JC owner. That is wrong on many levels.

 

Secondly, of course you can pick up a player. The poor form was trying to initiate a trade with the JC owner. What a surprise that that didn't work out.

[brotherbock 349]

First off, the point rallo was trying to make was that West didn't have much value because he couldn't trade him to the JC owner. That is wrong on many levels.

 

Secondly, of course you can pick up a player. The poor form was trying to initiate a trade with the JC owner. What a surprise that that didn't work out.

 

Why is that poor form? That's what you're not explaining...at all.

 

First, while I sometimes don't agree with it, the 'handcuff' theory is that the backup player is worth more to the owner who owns the starter. This is assumed because that guy just lost a starter, and another owner did not. This doesn't change after the starter actually goes down--the Charles owner lost a starter, Rollo didn't. So West is in theory worth more to the guy who now has a hole in his lineup.

 

And you haven't explained the 'poor form' thing at all. What are all the unwritten rules of FF that you think people are jerks if they don't abide by?

 

Here's a test case: this last weekend, two guys in my league are in a tight matchup. One guy (for excusable, job-related reasons) wasn't able to get to his lineup, and hadn't benched his bye week kicker by Sunday evening. The other owner, with a narrow lead Sunday night, dropped a scrub from his bench to pick up Chargers kicker Lambo, preventing the first guy from slotting in a last minute kicker on Monday. Lambo-grabber won the matchup, then dumped Lambo the next morning.

 

'Bad form'? Or just playing the game? You can say "it wasn't a move that benefited his team"...but it clearly was. Got him the game. Rollo grabbing West as trade bait is using his waiver priority to try to benefit his team by taking advantage of another team's weakness.

 

I'm positive you wouldn't have thought it was poor form to make the trade offer if he'd already owned West, right? Even if he thought West was crap and was thinking about dumping him previously. Still legit in that case, right? Still acceptable to take advantage of another team's problem, right?

 

But somehow it's not legit if he had to pickup West first in order to try that strategy? Makes no sense.

[BTL99 34]

Had Charles. Couldn't get west. Got knile hoping west fails.

I expect this to turn out like McKinnon and asiata last year. Knile will be a goal line back, west will get more yards and therefore be the safer play.

Got west. Hope knile fails badly.

[DrG 102]

Andy Reid teams traditionally have a feature back. West is getting his chance. I think many of us here have long memories of KC backs being fantasy producers. Both backs see an opportunity to be 'the man', perhaps Davis most of all because he doesn't see himself as a career backup.

[IMMensaMind 462]

First off, the point rallo was trying to make was that West didn't have much value because he couldn't trade him to the JC owner. That is wrong on many levels.

 

Secondly, of course you can pick up a player. The poor form was trying to initiate a trade with the JC owner. What a surprise that that didn't work out.

 

You play FF like Obama negotiates with Putin.

[nobody 2,469]

I spent my entire remaining budget on West (92 out of 100). Someone else bid 77. Another guy bid 68. If he turns out to be an RB2, I'll consider it money well spent. Even a flex. If he happens to go off, hurray. This type of opportunity is why you save your money. What are people waiting for? Jeremy Langford if Forte goes down in week 10? I'd rather take my chance on the guy I can have for 8 weeks, and miss out on the flavors of the week.

[Einstein's Dog 24]

You play FF like Obama negotiates with Putin.

I think a lot of people here need to learn some trade etiquette. You hear constantly "people don't trade in my league" and then cite examples of reasonable trades that have gone unresponded. What they leave out it is having done poor things like this in the past. These moves are the type of thing that can get people in the "Do not trade with ever" category. Aren't you the one having trouble moving Luck?....hmmmm.

 

As for West all indications are he gets the first crack. And he gets to make his case against the fluid Minny D. Here's to hoping West explodes.

[redsrback 30]

I spent my entire remaining budget on West (92 out of 100). Someone else bid 77. Another guy bid 68. If he turns out to be an RB2, I'll consider it money well spent. Even a flex. If he happens to go off, hurray. This type of opportunity is why you save your money. What are people waiting for? Jeremy Langford if Forte goes down in week 10? I'd rather take my chance on the guy I can have for 8 weeks, and miss out on the flavors of the week.

Your theory only makes sense if you need a guy now. If your winning your games and aren't being affected by injuries you can afford to hold your money in case you lose your stud back or to block an opponent for the playoffs. Losing a few games from wars fought throughout the season is not a big deal when 5 or 6 people out of 12 make the playoffs.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I think a lot of people here need to learn some trade etiquette. You hear constantly "people don't trade in my league" and then cite examples of reasonable trades that have gone unresponded. What they leave out it is having done poor things like this in the past. These moves are the type of thing that can get people in the "Do not trade with ever" category. Aren't you the one having trouble moving Luck?....hmmmm.

There is no 'trade etiquette' of the manner you're demanding. If I have higher waiver priority than you - or if I bid more FAAB than you - I deserve the player, and you do not. If you want the player subsequently, you'll have to trade for him, and there's nothing whatsoever wrong about then offering the player you just won with a higher bid in trade to improve your - and the other - team.

 

As for Luck: that's just you exhibiting confirmation bias. I have never made a trade in the league before, nor have I been in the position to win a player with a waiver priority, and cause imaginary butt-hurt in the process.

 

As for West all indications are he gets the first crack. And he gets to make his case against the fluid Minny D. Here's to hoping West explodes.

[brotherbock 349]

I think a lot of people here need to learn some trade etiquette. You hear constantly "people don't trade in my league" and then cite examples of reasonable trades that have gone unresponded. What they leave out it is having done poor things like this in the past. These moves are the type of thing that can get people in the "Do not trade with ever" category.

 

 

The leagues I play in wouldn't be batting an eye at this. And the only people who make Do Not Trade With Ever lists for me are the people who don't ever respond to trade offers.

 

Seriously, if an owner offers me a trade that will help my team, why in the world would I turn it down because he got the drop on me in waivers in the past and tried to turn it to his advantage? So I'd turn down helping my team because he tried to help his own team in the past? That kind of thinking is a quick ticket to the bottom of the league.

 

I notice you didn't address my questions from before:

 

If he had the player on his roster already, then offering the trade wouldn't have been bad form, right? Even if he had been thinking about dropping the player previously? In other words, an owner having a player he thinks has no value to him on his roster does not make trying to trade that player 'bad form', right? I'm assuming you would agree*. If so, and if it's not wrong to beat someone to the punch on waivers, then why would beating someone to the punch + offering that player for trade be bad form? Why would two things that aren't bad form be bad form when you combine them?

 

Are you trying to turn someone else's unfortunate situation to your own benefit? Yes, you are. But you're not forcing their hand. If they don't like the trade, they turn it down. If they're ridiculous enough to hold against you that they didn't like the trade, then they'll miss out on improving their team in the future. But in fifteen years of this game you're the first person I've met who thinks that an owner playing by the rules in this way is something that 'shouldn't be done'. You may have peculiar codes of etiquette, but don't push them on others by calling them diks.

 

 

(*Oddly, I guess you may believe that I have to believe a player has value to me before I offer him in trade. That would be even more strange, as it would ignore the fact that some players will have more value to some teams than others--like handcuffs.)

[kilroy69 1,162]

Maybe for you his value can only go up. That's because it sounds like you made one of those d*ick moves where you picked up a guy's hurt players backup and tried to trade it to him. He probably would never trade with you in a million years. That's considered a d*ck move. Don't you know that?

 

For others West's value is very much tentative. A lot of people, myself included, put a significant portion of FAAB in the hopes of grabbing the big WW acquisition. If he takes over 65% of the production, it could be a great move. If Kniles takes over, the big investment in West takes a hit.

if this is considered a d!ck move move you play in a pusssy league. hth

[brotherbock 349]

Made the move! Forsett is iffy tonight, so in goes the Charcnado! Let's see what KC's got.

[brotherbock 349]

LOL, Chiefs are really 'eager' to see what the Charcnado can do, huh beat reporters? One rushing *attempt* in two drives so far, and it went to Thomas.

[BTL99 34]

if this is considered a d!ck move move you play in a pusssy league. hth

^^this X 100

[brotherbock 349]

These announcers are clueless. "The Chiefs can't get a running game going." They've run the ball 6 times and thrown it 12. It's not that they 'can't' get it going, they are refusing to try.

[cbfalcon 825]

I THINK West stayed up on that play and will have a TD...I think?

[Masterminds 5]

He got robbed of a TD

[rallo 136]

First off, the point rallo was trying to make was that West didn't have much value because he couldn't trade him to the JC owner. That is wrong on many levels.

 

Secondly, of course you can pick up a player. The poor form was trying to initiate a trade with the JC owner. What a surprise that that didn't work out.

 

you are making assumptions on my meaning...

 

i'll clear it up. He has to perform for his value to go up... right now his price is "unproven, hot WW add that everyone is guessing to be Charles replacement" So If you are trying to trade him, you will not get much. You either wait, and hope he is effective (he is playing some tough D's early... so I doubt that it will happen) Or you try to unload him, and get face value.... right now, his trade value is not much... he is a hold in see which is why I think his value can only go up... (or stay where it is... not much)

 

Secondly... it's not poor form to pick up the #1 guy on waivers... ever... that is why you hold your waiver position... for a top RB to go down... or someone to emerge...

[cbfalcon 825]

I can't fathom why Reid didn't challenge it.

[Masterminds 5]

I can't fathom why Reid didn't challenge it.

I believe it was unchallengeable since the refs called him down by contact thus ending the play.

[R8RMick 242]

So KC splits up 15 rushes among 4 different RBs against a Vikes defense which hasn't stopped the run.

 

Reid is a sheer genius. Hey fat guy, Jamaal's gone and the undrafted scrub doesn't have his talent. Think you may want to change the game plan?

 

Looks like 2nd place in that division is safe for my Raiders, who gain ground on BOTH KC and the Bolts while not even playing lol...

[R8RMick 242]

Yep... I'd say he doesn't have Jamaal's talent.

[R8RMick 242]

Four minutes left in the game and no timeouts???? WTF?

[Reality 3,045]

This dude can safely go back to the wire.

[Texas10 15]

This dude or all of them? Don't see any good options there.

[brotherbock 349]

I kinda liked what I saw...the incredibly few touches they gave him. Give the kid some confidence and actually RUN HIM through the whole game. Terrible play calling.

 

Well, I have Knile in another league, maybe that'll hit next week

[boilerddd 62]

Charles is just so great he gets his numbers DESPITE the game management of Reid. Replace him with anyone else and you realize what a talent he really is.

[brotherbock 349]

Charles is just so great he gets his numbers DESPITE the game management of Reid. Replace him with anyone else and you realize what a talent he really is.

 

Fair point.

[DrG 102]

Nfl coaches have overdone the rbbc

Sometimes you got to let the guy play through and let the rest of the team know he's the guy

[brotherbock 349]

Nfl coaches have overdone the rbbc

Sometimes you got to let the guy play through and let the rest of the team know he's the guy

 

And let the guy know he's the guy. Exactly.

[rallo 136]

Nfl coaches have overdone the rbbc

Sometimes you got to let the guy play through and let the rest of the team know he's the guy

 

I will agree with the coaches, that sometimes you need to keep guys fresh for a playoff push... and RBBC can help that to an extent...

 

but let's face it... KC isn't sniffing the playoffs this year

[weepaws 3,010]

The rb situation in KC is whatt we all thought it would be once Charles went down , it's going to be a very poor choice the rest of this season going forward .

[American Chewy 98]

bad offensive line, bad qb play, an unproven player, a team that is often playing from behind=a running game to be avoided.

[brotherbock 349]

bad offensive line, bad qb play, an unproven player, a team that is often playing from behind=a running game to be avoided.

 

I don't disagree, but I'll add that playing from behind was no excuse for not even attempting to establish a running game yesterday. Look at the plays--one running play in the first two drives, I believe, none in the first.

 

That's just dumb on so many levels.

 

1) Your all-world RB goes down. You know that the opp's DC is thinking "Oh man, they're gonna put this on Smith's back, turn to the passing game." I mean everyone was saying it--look for Maclin and Kelce, Maclin and Kelse. You as a coach don't maybe stop to think that, with them game-planning heavily for the pass, you might think to RUN?

 

2) You've got a guy stepping up to try to fill as big a set of shoes (metaphorically) as you can find in the NFL. Think maybe he needs some confidence boosting to do that well? Think maybe not letting him touch the ball until you've tried throwing is a dozen times is going to hurt him there?

 

3) If you don't like West in the matchup, you've got a talented bruiser behind him who has proven to be able to play when Charles has gone down in the past. Run him. Come out and punch them in the mouth.

 

Nope, nope, and nope. Alex Smith 4 yard dumpoffs ftw. That's gonna get the D reeling.

 

Man.

[American Chewy 98]

I almost added bad play calling in there too.