The Student Room Group

The Official TSR Fantasy NFL Thread 2016/17

Scroll to see replies

There's no bloody backs in the market
Reply 321
Original post by Kenan and Kel
There's no bloody backs in the market


This is the usual state of play on the fantasy waiver wire but I think this year it has been particularly bad.
Original post by Kenan and Kel
There's no bloody backs in the market


I have dropped a few viable RBs in the last week or so, one is probably getting picked up in waivers tomorrow morning...

It is all about anticipation. Booker was FA until Monday evening. Anyone could have picked him up and have an RB1 now
Original post by Wattsy
I've now voted against the trade because apparently CJ Anderson is done for the season (@RapSheet.) Even if that's not accurate the uncertainty tilts the trade equity too firmly in the favour of the person trading CJ away.


That's cool. I wasn't planning on starting Graham or Snead anyway.

Luckily I picked up Booker last week before Anderson got injured so it's not the end of the world. Got Morris on my bench just in case the worst happens to Zeke...

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Kenan and Kel
There's no bloody backs in the market


I dropped another starting RB if you wanna check the waivers :smile:
Original post by Wattsy
I've now voted against the trade because apparently CJ Anderson is done for the season (@RapSheet.) Even if that's not accurate the uncertainty tilts the trade equity too firmly in the favour of the person trading CJ away.


I have voted against the trade on this occasion because Motorbiker did not deliberately accept it. However, i strongly feel that voting against it because it became unfair, is in itself unfair. The trade was offered after news broke that CJ Anderson was injured, clearly hoping that the injury would be minor, but taking into account the risk that it could be season ending. The person trying to obtain CJ Anderson was taking the risk, which then backfired against them. Had the subsequent news came out that Anderson would be healthy and playing 100% in two weeks, they then would have significantly benefited from the trade.

From what i have read the trade veto should only be used to stop collusion or someone dumping good players after giving up hope for rest of the season
Reply 326
Original post by Monkey_Pete
I have voted against the trade on this occasion because Motorbiker did not deliberately accept it. However, i strongly feel that voting against it because it became unfair, is in itself unfair. The trade was offered after news broke that CJ Anderson was injured, clearly hoping that the injury would be minor, but taking into account the risk that it could be season ending. The person trying to obtain CJ Anderson was taking the risk, which then backfired against them. Had the subsequent news came out that Anderson would be healthy and playing 100% in two weeks, they then would have significantly benefited from the trade.

From what i have read the trade veto should only be used to stop collusion or someone dumping good players after giving up hope for rest of the season


I've never thought of it that way. Food for thought certainly, I suppose I saw it as like a 'cooling off period' when the trade is up for vote and maybe it shouldn't function in that manner. Thankfully it's a pretty niche situation and is quite unlikely to come about year after year.
Trade processed. I guess not enough people vetoed it.

I immediately dropped both players I got Graham and Snead so they'll be available on waivers next week alongside Anderson on IR...

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Wattsy
I've never thought of it that way. Food for thought certainly, I suppose I saw it as like a 'cooling off period' when the trade is up for vote and maybe it shouldn't function in that manner. Thankfully it's a pretty niche situation and is quite unlikely to come about year after year.


Looks like the trade processed despite at least three votes against. There goes the "cooling off" period theory
Tyler Eifert chilling on my bench :frown:
My team has found the ability to score again.
Don't know what I'm gonna do next week without Brady and Gronk
Original post by Kenan and Kel
Don't know what I'm gonna do next week without Brady and Gronk


Damn, that's gonna hurt but there are random QBs blowing up on noones team every week.

I need Bailey to score me 4 points in the late game it seems... I'll be pissed if he doesn't manage that tbh.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 333
The division leader matchup has sort of passed me by due to being really busy this weekend. I'm just pleased to have the win, hopefully I can get another streak going.
I offered the trade immediately after the broncos game when CJ just came off his best rushing performance of the week, but before the news broke that he was going to miss extended time. Running backs as good as CJ was in fantasy because they are a valuable source of 15+ points per week guarenteed are more valueable than a TE whom I picked off waivers as one week cover for Greg olsen, and a talented slot receiver in a crowed receiving corps.

None of this collusion baloney. I offered the trade to make my team better.

I thought there would be an option where I would have to agree to it, if Motorbiker accepted it, but there was no options.

Obviously with two running backs down to meniscus tears in their knees, I am still in need of running back help though.Don't make the mistake of thinking I've given up on this fantasy season.
Original post by Motorbiker
Damn, that's gonna hurt but there are random QBs blowing up on noones team every week.

I need Bailey to score me 4 points in the late game it seems... I'll be pissed if he doesn't manage that tbh.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Congrats. My 3 WRs, ranked in the top 10 by basically every site for this week, combined for exactly the same number of fantasy points (9.3) as Vernon Davis, who I forgot to get rid of when Reed was declared active. Absolutely brutal.
Original post by jammy4041
I offered the trade immediately after the broncos game when CJ just came off his best rushing performance of the week, but before the news broke that he was going to miss extended time. Running backs as good as CJ was in fantasy because they are a valuable source of 15+ points per week guarenteed are more valueable than a TE whom I picked off waivers as one week cover for Greg olsen, and a talented slot receiver in a crowed receiving corps.

None of this collusion baloney. I offered the trade to make my team better.

I thought there would be an option where I would have to agree to it, if Motorbiker accepted it, but there was no options.

Obviously with two running backs down to meniscus tears in their knees, I am still in need of running back help though.Don't make the mistake of thinking I've given up on this fantasy season.


I was not suggesting you were colluding at all.

I am glad to hear you are not giving up

Maybe before next year we need to look at how the trading rules are set up and see if they can be improved to avoid similar situations and long delays after offers are accepted
Original post by Monkey_Pete
I was not suggesting you were colluding at all.

I am glad to hear you are not giving up

Maybe before next year we need to look at how the trading rules are set up and see if they can be improved to avoid similar situations and long delays after offers are accepted


To be honest...the best way to avoid ridiculous trades (and yes, they can and do kill leagues) is to have all of them on Commissioner's review. I have only once seen a trade overturned when the league reviews, simply because it needs a majority to vote against and you can't trust that everyone will be active. I have also been working long hours and having intermittent internet, but I try to make sure that my fantasy team is in at least a position to compete.

Not helped that, in two leagues, I played myself by drafting Adrian Peterson, instead of David Johnson, and Julio Jones in another league when both options were on the table. Among other deplorables...Mark Ingram and Jamaal Charles. I'm basically the Chargers at fantasy, right now. :/
Original post by jammy4041
To be honest...the best way to avoid ridiculous trades (and yes, they can and do kill leagues) is to have all of them on Commissioner's review. I have only once seen a trade overturned when the league reviews, simply because it needs a majority to vote against and you can't trust that everyone will be active. I have also been working long hours and having intermittent internet, but I try to make sure that my fantasy team is in at least a position to compete.

Not helped that, in two leagues, I played myself by drafting Adrian Peterson, instead of David Johnson, and Julio Jones in another league when both options were on the table. Among other deplorables...Mark Ingram and Jamaal Charles. I'm basically the Chargers at fantasy, right now. :/


There is nothing wrong with drafting Jamel Charles, he is totally going to be a RB1 for the rest of the season... i hope

I am just hoping the Jacquiz Rodgers and DeMarco Murray injury rumours are exaggerated otherwise might team might from from 3 top ten RB to 0 with Blount losing carries
Original post by Monkey_Pete
There is nothing wrong with drafting Jamel Charles, he is totally going to be a RB1 for the rest of the season... i hope

I am just hoping the Jacquiz Rodgers and DeMarco Murray injury rumours are exaggerated otherwise might team might from from 3 top ten RB to 0 with Blount losing carries


To be honest, if I was the GM of the Chiefs, I would hope to restructure his contract, and back him into accepting a RB2 role behind Spencer Ware, who is much younger and playing on a far cheaper contract. Failing that, I would cut him, and move on with Ware, Charcandrick
West and Knile Davis. But, although it pains me to say it, Charles is a KC legend, and if he could stay healthy, has a decent crack at the Hall of Fame. So the GM should do right by him.

On all accounts that situation is tough to watch.

Quick Reply

Latest