There is a bit of drama currently hitting the fan in one of my leagues. I am wanting some opinions on it from the folks around here.

 

In the course of the draft we had two players that appeared to be in collusion across the board in their drafting. One person in the #2 spot the other in the #7 spot.

 

#2 likes Randy Moss

#7 likes Adrian Peterson

 

In order to get Moss, instead of drafting him at the #2 spot he picked up AP. #7 then grabbed Moss. This in and of itself was fine and dandy until the rest of the draft started to go on. Then a pattern emerged on both teams. Here is more or less the way it went with some additional commentary:

 

#7 drafted the following positions in this order:

 

WR, WR, QB, WR, WR, WR, RB, K, TE, QB, DST, TE, RB, DST

 

So, #7 didn't see fit to draft his starting RB until the 7th round, after he picked up his 3 starting WR and TWO backups? And then he doesn't draft his #2 STARTING RB until the 13th round, after he drafted his backup TE, backup QB, and K? That's not just suspicious, that's absurd. We all know #7 was going to trade some of those WR (Moss and someone else, likely) for Adrian Peterson, so knowing that makes some of your selections more sensible, but it is still really suspicious even while keeping that in mind. Especially considering that #2 drafted like this:

 

RB, RB, QB, RB, TE, RB, WR, DST, K, WR, RB, WR, QB, K

So, #2 saw fit to draft 2 back-up RB before drafting his first WR in the 7th round? His 2nd STARTING WR was drafted in round 10, and by the end of the draft he has NO back-up WR? Again, some of it makes sense in the context of the agreement per Peterson/Moss et al, but it seems that the agreement went beyond that.

 

It seems to me, and I would imagine just about everyone else, that #2 and #7 were virtually drafting together. By both of them loading up on RB and WR respectively, getting backups 2 deep at the positions halfway through the draft, it skewed the entire thing. That goes beyond just trade bait to get one player, and it seems kind of obvious that there was collusion going on. Now, maybe not to the extent that some think and maybe not to the extent that the way they drafted would indicate, but it looks like it goes beyond just Moss for Peterson.

Now to give even further detail a trade for AP and Ronnie Brown for Moss and Andre Johnson was posted immediately following the draft, which was immediately voted down. Similar trades between these two teams have been voted down since the draft as well. Now those two are starting to cry foul along with the their roommate.

Now I have no problem with trades, but my biggest beef with the whole thing is that, as posted above, it looked like from the beginning that they were doing something together on it or trying to pull a fast one. If they had just agreed to trade 1 for 1 based on how much they both love the player I would have had no issue with it (even though the person trading AP would be getting the short end of the stick). As it is it just stinks and it has exploded over the weekend.

Other opinions on this would be appreciated. Just wanting to hear an outsider's view on it.

I'm sorry, that's way too long for me to read. :lol:

I'm sorry, that's way too long for me to read. :lol:

 

 

Bah, who needs ya! :lol:

So, they drafted knowing they were going to make the Moss-Peterson trade? I think I'm missing something.

So, they drafted knowing they were going to make the Moss-Peterson trade? I think I'm missing something.

 

 

Yes. Their draft was done entirely with the trade in mind. These individuals are roommates and best friends to boot, which also makes it a little more obvious.

Although it seems over the top the way they did it but I have seen trades worked out during a draft.

Although it seems over the top the way they did it but I have seen trades worked out during a draft.

 

 

I generally have no problem with that either. In this case though, both players more or less just picked a position and drafted it for themselves AND the other.

Yes. Their draft was done entirely with the trade in mind. These individuals are roommates and best friends to boot, which also makes it a little more obvious.

 

I don't know if that is entirely malicious. Were they able to compile a better draft because of the trade agreement gaining them an unfair advantage? I guess I don't see foul play here, unless they were to dump one team's players onto the other and split the pot, so to speak.

It also doesn't help that someone else in the league offerred a trade to someone else, was accepted then realized it was a bad trade and called tons of people to get them to vote against it. The person who accepted the trade and then didn't get it is now crying bloody murder right about now.

 

Our message board has been interesting to say the least.

 

Needless to say I am considering NOT playing with these guys again next year. :lol:

I don't know if that is entirely malicious. Were they able to compile a better draft because of the trade agreement gaining them an unfair advantage? I guess I don't see foul play here, unless they were to dump one team's players onto the other and split the pot, so to speak.

 

For some people in the league it is a matter of principle, others it is just outright bitterness about it.

 

Honestly though it does look to give both players an edge across the board if the trade goes through.

For some people in the league it is a matter of principle, others it is just outright bitterness about it.

 

Honestly though it does look to give both players an edge across the board if the trade goes through.

 

I can sort of see that, but it would have to have been very well orchestrated between them. I would be much angrier over the trade veto.

I can sort of see that, but it would have to have been very well orchestrated between them. I would be much angrier over the trade veto.

 

 

I admit, there is a part of me that wants to keep it from happening because it makes both teams weaker. There is also a part of me that is to the point that I am thinking it is just a game and let it happen and move on.

 

There is just something that rubs me the wrong way about letting that go through though. I think the appearance of it all just bugs me. That said I don't doubt my team's ability to beat either of them with or without the trades when I play them. I am just annoyed at their overall method.

 

I will say though that any edge they get wouldn't be insurmountable by any means.

You need to tell them to get a life. :lol: But I would veto the trade as well.

Honestly though it does look to give both players an edge across the board if the trade goes through.

 

Isn't that the point of being in a league and making trades?

Isn't that the point of being in a league and making trades?

 

 

On the one hand yes, it is just the fact that they went into the whole thing with this in mind that has some up in arms.

 

I am getting to the point though that I am just willing to let it go through and let the chip fall where they may.