I have had my running back issues in fantasy football this year, for sure.
A lot of the problem was rooted in my freezing Ryan Mathews in the NAIFFL, where my team is a solid 0-2 going into Week 3. Similarly, in the Experts Schmexperts League, where I also have Mathews, I am 0-2 as well, while in my other two leagues, where Marshawn Lynch and Arian Foster are my go-to guys, things are a lot better.
So, I did indeed put in bids for Andre Brown in all my leagues, even the two where my teams are doing pretty well.
Which is exactly where I think a lot of what makes me a good fantasy baseball player completely hoses me as a fantasy football player.
That is, I am very good at being patient with both allowing my players to do their thing, as well as parlaying my FAAB money over the course of the baseball season. Meanwhile, I am slowly learning that spending one's FAAB sooner, rather than later is really the way to go in football.
What it basically meant was in the NAIFFL, I bid $1 (of my season cap $30 total) on Brown, only to lose him to Rob Leibowitz, who obtained the Giants RB for a meager $4. In Kathy League Gifford I was a tad more aggressive, bidding $12 of my $100 total, but my mate Gabe Ramirez bagged the Giant for $46, money that based upon yesterday's performance was well spent.
My other leagues--Experts Schmexperts and Utter Genius (hey, I only play in them, I did not name them)--there is only straight waivers, based upon one's spot in the standings. Well, in Genius my team was too good to get him, while in Schmexperts, I am not quite bad enough.
Still, in two leagues being a little more aggressive would have made not just the difference of adding Brown and his points to my teams, but would have similarly prevented my opponents from having them.
Meaning points on my bench, at worst, are better than points on someone else's active roster. Which makes total sense to me in the baseball environment, yet I am thick to embrace when it comes to football.
So odd, our brains and how they work.
* * * *
OK, I am sorry, but I need to be political here, so if you have had your fantasy fill and wish not to have your sensibilities disrupted, look away now.
Now, you may never have heard about Senate Bill 3457, which was also called the Veterans Jobs Corps Bill. It was a bill that was actually written in a bi-partisan fashion this year, and which had funds agreed upon and allocated. The purpose of the bill was to assist our returning Veterans with civil service jobs, like with our local police and fire departments. Jobs where the experience in the Middle East would translate and assist Vets--who currently have an unemployment rate of 10.9% as opposed to the 8.1% the rest of the country lives under--find a job upon return.
I think it is also important to note that at present a Vet commits suicide every 80 minutes, largely as a result of adjusting to life back home, and one of those frustrations is an unemployment rate that is 35% higher than the rest of us.
SB 3457 died last Wednesday (Sept 19) due to a filibuster. When it died, there were 58 senators--including five Republicans--who had voted for the bill, with 40 voting against, meaning four more "yes" votes would have passed the bill.
Well, there were four Republican Senators--John Boozman (Ark), Pat Toomey (Penn), Mike Johanns ((Neb), and Richard Burr (North Ca.)--who all participated in drafting SB 3457. They were soliticted relative to what they wanted to see in the bill, and wrote specific portions adding those concerns.
Yet, on Wednesday, all four voted against the bill.
Apparently, these guys suggested they were not voting against Veterans, but rather voting against a rule that had to be waived in order to generate a vote.
Well, apparently the 58 yeahs--including those five partymates--were not so principled, but my first question would be why these guys spent time (and wasted our tax payers money) working on a bill in support only to vote against it?
My second question would be to Americans in general, asking if this really sounds like the Senate and country wants to support the Vets (and our president who suggested the bill) or simply discredit folks and try to obtain/retain power?
If the latter, well then apparently a democracy is not what is sought.
Either way, these guys should be ashamed of themselves.
I am fine with as many people as possible voting in our country, and though I have my own political preferences--which I suppose are not a secret--everyone does indeed need to vote their beliefs and conscience.
However, I do hope we can all be honest with ourselves and motives, and what is best for the whole country--including those Veterans (and please note I was publicly against the Middle East Wars from the start)--who served when asked and now get the political shaft.
Again, Toomey, Burr, Johanns, and Boozman should be ashamed of themselves.