Illegal Block?

Whether or not you have qualified for your fantasy playoffs, now is the time to make your preparations for that possibility.

Dump that mediocre fourth RB and fifth WR that were keeping you afloat during the bye weeks. If you still have a third QB, you're insane. He's not helping you. The only justification for holding onto these guys is a great potential matchup in the semifinal or championship week (usually Weeks 15 and 16) or simply to prevent a potential opponent from using him against you.

This brings up an interesting dilemma. Is it OK to "block" other owners, specifically an upcoming head-to-head opponent, by rostering an inactive player that they might actually use against you? ESPN's default rules say that impeding other owners is not allowed, but it identifies more the practice of cycling guys through waivers, not specifically single-player acquisitions and certainly not simply retaining a player you no longer intend to use.

If allowed, roster moves like these create unique advantages and should be used accordingly. If not allowed, etiquette and integrity prevent using them. It all depends on your individual league, but it's most important that every owner knows what the boundaries are and operates within them. It is your responsibility to know what they are, and it's in your best interest to operate within them to your maximum advantage while simultaneously trying to prevent a similar advantage an opponent can use over you.

Keeping a player that you won't use just to prevent a potential opponent from using him against you is almost universally acceptable. So if one of your potential opponents in the coming weeks is desperate for a quarterback, you may want to keep that third guy after all. Although if he's comparable to multiple guys on the waiver wire already, there's no point because your opponent can just as easily pick up one of those guys. But take a look at potential favorable matchups just in case. Good examples here are Jon Kitna and David Garrard, who host Washington in Weeks 15 and 16, respectively. You'd feel pretty silly if you dropped Garrard and then lost because of him in Week 16. Obviously, if your potential opponents have Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees and Philip Rivers, they're not going to play Garrard. But if they have Eli Manning or Matt Schaub, they might sneak him in.

Cycling players through waivers is almost universally frowned upon, but some leagues actually allow it, either expressly or via a gentlemen's agreement. There are infinite combinations of using this to your advantage if allowed, but it's usually safe to assume it's not.

The gray area falls in single-player acquisitions, specifically acquiring a player that you are unlikely to use with full knowledge that your opponent that week would likely use against you. This commonly occurs with injured RBs, whereby you acquire your opponent's backup when the starter gets injured, even though you still have four viable RBs ahead of him. Your opponent basically gets "unfairly" screwed.

But there is rational justification for such a transaction, the most logical of which is acquiring the player with the intent of trading him to another player that needs an RB. No owner should be denied of a tradeable asset, even if such a trade never comes to fruition. (It's a tougher sell after your trade deadline though!)

The more borderline transaction would be acquiring the best available QB (or two) during your opponent's QB's bye week when there is no real current or future benefit to you. I'm actually in favor of allowing transactions like these because it requires the offending owner to burn a legitimately valuable roster spot. It's thus a critical decision, like any other. Conversely, I'm not in favor of allowing cycling guys through waivers because it does not require using any more roster spots than the single-player acquisition method (thus the sacrifice is much smaller for the individual benefit) and it unnecessarily compromises the pool of available players for the entire field or participants.

Regardless, your individual league's settings and all the participants' knowledge of them are, as stated, the most critical factor in deciding what transactions you can/cannot or should/should not make. Know them and use them, and make sure your opponents know them and use them too. There's nothing better than participating in a league with owners just as savvy and as motivated as you.

If you find yourself in a league debating what is OK and not in terms of blocking, try proposing a rule whereby owners must roster any acquired player through a full week of games. This forces owners to burn that roster spot for the duration and make much more critical choices in terms of its timely use, while still allowing the potential for strategic blocks. And if you want to get really crazy, try requiring owners to activate any player acquired in the week in which they were acquired. That makes all acquisitions even more critical/strategic, but stifles a lot of the vital ability to acquire players specifically for future use. Probably not worth instituting such a rule, but interesting nonetheless.

The subject of future use becomes especially important to keeper and dynasty leaguers at this time of year. Whether or not you've made the playoffs, you can start planning for next year, at least minimally with an available roster spot or two. And the number of keepers you have is the determining factor for your strategy. If you have a small number (four or less) it is highly unlikely any acquisition right now will make your cut for next year, so don't even bother. If you have more though (6-10) you might be able to draw a lucky lottery ticket like Arian Foster. I grabbed him on a whim in a six-keeper league during his late surge last season, thinking he was one conceivable answer in the backfield for an otherwise juggernaut offense, and thus fantasy gold. The drafting of Ben Tate didn't help, but Tate's injury and Foster's solid preseason did. Nevertheless, he was still my final cut, just behind Dallas Clark. Whoops. I also kept Shonn Greene. Double whoops. But these kinds of opportunities are out there all the time, and it's the prudent owner that takes advantage via small calculated risks at this time of year.

If you're in a full keeper dynasty league, the strategies shift considerably. You can build a strong top-to-bottom squad, with a roster full of presently usable assets that will keep you competitive for multiple seasons, or you can use some of your spots for higher upside futures, which is generally the better strategy. There is a long list of guys that qualify as future-but-not-present values, but some of the best bets include Tashard Choice, Bernard Scott, Arrelious Benn, Demariyus Thomas, Sam Bradford and Josh Freeman. Matt Stafford, and more recently James Jones, have extremely high potential dynasty value and should definitely be grabbed if they are still available in your pool. Among the tight ends, I like the Saints' Jimmy Graham, but he may be a tough weekly play regardless given the ridiculously high number of options that Drew Brees has.

This started as the year of the tight end, and stayed true as much, but for different reasons. What was once an extremely deep pool became shallow in a matter of a few weeks, but it still adds up to the same thing: most owners have the same access as any other owner to about the same value at the position. There were a ton of high end guys to start (10+ points per game), and now a ton of mediocre guys (4-5 points per game). Antonio Gates, the only option that was ever truly elite, is now creating fits for his owners. Midseason darling Aaron Hernandez is now being regularly dropped for Rob Gronkowski, as if it makes a difference. You might make a case for Jason Witten, Vernon Davis or Jacob Tamme, but in reality, there are no more truly reliable options available.