Is this Collussion? - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Is this Collussion?

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby cards05 » Tue Oct 04, 2005 1:15 am

I agree with lmcjaho when he says that accusing someone of cheating is not something that should be taken lightly. I also agree with the poster who thinks these guys are colluding (based on the evidence given by the original poster, particulary the contradictory "need RB help and then trade back my best RB" comment).

Because of this, and because neither team poses a serious threat (as of yet), I would simply raise your level of scrutiny based on what you have seen and act accordingly in the future (a middle-ground of sorts). Don't risk league turmoil to keep a guy in dead last when he will finish close to there anyhow. However, if these moves continue, it may have a legitimate effect on the outcome and it must be stopped.
cards05
Water Boy
Water Boy


Posts: 53
Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby RocketsDWM » Tue Oct 04, 2005 1:18 am

lmcjaho wrote:
Matthias wrote:alright. based on your reaction, i'm also accusing you of roid-rage.

christ. can't someone have an opinion without some back-alley bozo saying they'd, "knock your teeth out the back of your head"? you have to get back to class. recess is over. now, be quiet while the grown-ups talk.


Maybe you should go back and try reading what I wrote:

If someone accused me of cheating to my face - which is essentially what Rockets is saying when he says Collusion - I would punch that person in the head. You can have whatever opinion you want but if you insult my honor to my face you better be ready to accept the consequences.

Are you going to sit there and tell me you would accept some back-alley bozo accusing you of cheating? You seem to be the one that needs to grow up - or at least grow a sense of personal pride...


I see enough evidence to believe it was collusion. If u read the rest of my original post, I said I wanted an explaination from both of the owners. From first glance, it is collusion. It would have to be an incredible explaination for me to change my mind.

It seems to me that u take my post as a personal attack on you. Are u one of these owners? Relax.
Image
RocketsDWM
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicGraphics ExpertEagle EyeCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 3457
Joined: 9 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby maddog60 » Tue Oct 04, 2005 1:28 am

RocketsDWM wrote:I say collusion. Portis has a lot more value than Martin right now and Clayton has more potential than Stallworth.


You think Mark Clayton (the Baltimore one) has more upside than Stallworth? By defacto of their respective offenses Stallworth has more upside, with Joe Horn's injury the difference is even bigger. Derrick Mason is struggling to put up points in that offense, I can't see how any rookie has more upside playing 2nd fiddle to him, and Heap.
maddog60
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 9758
Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby RocketsDWM » Tue Oct 04, 2005 1:34 am

Thought it was Mike. My bad. The first trade still seems off in my view though:

Frank Gore - backup to Barlow (how often do the 49ers score on the ground?)

Faulk - again a backup

Pollard - About the only decent player in this trade

Kevin Faulk - ?? Out 8-12 wks I believe

Basically it boils down to Pollard for Hines and PHI D...If that seems fair to someone hear I would like to hear their reasoning

(Pollard had negative pts I believe in the first wk and had negative pts this wk)

Still I consider Clayton and Stallworth to be a wash with a slight edge to Stallworth.

Portis has A LOT more potential than Martin for the rest of the season. Martin dealing with a banged up O-Line and a third string QB. :-?
Image
RocketsDWM
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicGraphics ExpertEagle EyeCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 3457
Joined: 9 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby RocketsDWM » Tue Oct 04, 2005 1:36 am

I really only have an issue about the second mentioned trade. The first one is questionable, but should be allowed.
Image
RocketsDWM
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicGraphics ExpertEagle EyeCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 3457
Joined: 9 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Is this Collussion?

Postby RocketsDWM » Tue Oct 04, 2005 1:38 am

ChyBoy wrote:Their is a trade up for approval now and it seems a little shady.

Team A trades Clinton Portis and Mark Clayton to
Team B for Curtis Martin and Donte Stallworth.

The problems is not totally with this trade. There was a trade last week between the exact same teams.

Team A traded Hines Ward and PHI DEF
Team B traded Marshall Faulk, Kevin Faulk, Frank Gore and Marcus Pollard. I thought this was a very uneven trade but allowed it. Team A was 0-3 and Team B is 1-2.

Both guys are new members in the league and they know each other. This is a money league. The trades are not obviously collussion, but they are a little suspicious. Team A told me that team B told him that he was giving up a good WR to get some RB help, but then a week later he trades his best RB to get a upgrade in WR. Something just doesn't add up.

Team A Roster

Frerotte, Gus
Griese, Brian
Bell, Tatum
Duckett, T.J.
Fason, Ciatrick
Faulk, Kevin
Faulk, Marshall
Gore, Frank SFO
Portis, Clinton
Bennett, Drew
Clayton, Mark
Gaffney, Jabar
Johnson, Andre
Parker, Samie
Pollard, Marcus
Putzier, Jeb
Elam, Jason
Hanson, Jason
Falcons, Atlanta

Team B

Brooks, Aaron
Dilfer, Trent
Leftwich, Byron
Davenport, Najeh
Droughns, Reuben
Green, Ahman
Griffin, Quentin
Martin, Curtis
Zereoue, Amos
Boldin, Anquan
Chatman, Antonio
Horn, Joe NOS
Randle El, Antwaan
Stallworth, Donte'
Ward, Hines
Gates, Antonio
Kaeding, Nate
Eagles, Philadelphia
Steelers, Pittsburgh


Is there a problem with this trade in which I should not allow it.


Those statements in bold jump out at me. The second trade is even more suspicious with these statements in mind. Money changes everything.
Image
RocketsDWM
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicGraphics ExpertEagle EyeCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 3457
Joined: 9 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Vixtor » Tue Oct 04, 2005 1:40 am

It's very suspicious given that team A has been willing in the past two weeks to give up Portis, Ward and Philly for a bunch of backups, Curtis Martin and Stallworth. But since you accepted the first trade I think you have to here also.
The facts have no meaning.
Vixtor
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1328
Joined: 15 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby cards05 » Tue Oct 04, 2005 1:53 am

With all due respect, I do not agree that if you accept one questionable trade, you must accept the other. I think that the scrutiny should build with each questionable trade (between the same owners that is). When attempting to identify collusion, you should look to more than face value of the trade.
cards05
Water Boy
Water Boy


Posts: 53
Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby lmcjaho » Tue Oct 04, 2005 2:30 am

I re-iterate that the Team A owner is most likely just stupid and not a cheater - look at the rest of his roster guys, it's not like he has anybody on there that is very good - he probably honestly thinks he is improving his team with the changes he made...

And Rockets - I am not one of the teams involved and I don't take personal umbrage to your comments - I was merely pointing out that people who are quick to throw out the word collusion need to be aware that they are accusing someone of cheating and that there are consequences to be considered in such a case and one had best be aware of those consequences and be willing to accept them if one is willing to throw such an accusation out there...
Image
Sig courtesy of Soty - muchos gracias amigo!
lmcjaho
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe RankerEagle Eye
Posts: 3441
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Montreal

Postby Vixtor » Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:03 am

cards05 wrote:With all due respect, I do not agree that if you accept one questionable trade, you must accept the other.

I meant that more in this exact instance because the second trade doesn't look very bad. By itself there is nothing objectionable and the only reason it raises an eyebrow is because of the first trade which was hideous. If you have one questionable trade followed by another sure but this second one isn't all that unreasonable.
The facts have no meaning.
Vixtor
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1328
Joined: 15 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 0:38 hours
(and 35 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact