Did you see towards the end of the Miami/New England game last night when the Dolphins had two kickers on the field for an onside kick?  Clever, or not?

I've seen it before in college.   I don't think it was nearly as clever as Gruden made it out to be.  But, since you can't line 9 guys up on one side of the ball, it makes sense. 

WOULDN'T 3 KICKERS BE EVEN MORE CLEVER+ CONFUSING?

11 kickers all huddled around the ball would confuse the hell out of me.

Would any team other than the Packers keep 11 kickers on the 53-man roster?

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/13/2011 9:58:00 AM (view original):
11 kickers all huddled around the ball would confuse the hell out of me.

Is it because you have trouble counting past 10?

No.  But the Pack would also carry 11 long-snappers to accomodate each kicker. 

Nine.  I'm a baseball guy.  That DH thing gives me fits. 

Who would you like to see win BB13?  Who do you think will win?

THAT PORSHE IS A HOTTIE?!?!

All three of the remaining contestants are annoying so I don't care who wins.  If Rachel is in it, I expect she'll win as she should have three locked in votes. If she goes against Porsche, Adam will cast the deciding vote as I don't expect Danielle, Kalia or Shelley to vote for her.  If she goes against Adam, she should get all the votes.   Same for Porsche against Adam.

SHE'S GOT SOME EXTRA JUNK IN HER TRUNK AND I LIKE THAT!!!   BUT HER VOICE IS ANNOYING SO I'D NEED A BALLGAG FOR HER!!!!

I have a 22 year old pitcher I picked up in the R5 draft.  I think in a few seasons he may be a decent long relief/spot start guy, but the guy I had at AAA was better than him at the start of the season.  A few games into the season, the R5 pick got injured for 18 days so I put him on the DL and brought up my currently better AAA pitcher.  The R5 guy has now recovered.  Is it bad form for me to just let him sit on the DL all season, thus making my team better this year, and then be able to send him down to AAA next year and hope he can recover from the ratings losses he will get for inactivity?  In the alternative, is it actually smart managing at low risk because even if the guy takes a ratings hit and never gets better, he hasn't cost me anything and would have been a liability on the team this season?

It's just roster manipulation on your part.  Some might think it's bad form.   However, I manipulate the hell out of my roster.  Just did it today.   Had a guy on DL(-25 days) but, with roster expansion 20 games away, I didn't want to send anyone down.as my playoff spot looks pretty locked in.  However, I had a 3 day injury to a player who was playing 2 of 3 due to fatigue.   So I put him on the 15 day DL, where he'll rest for the stretch run, and brought the other guy back.   In the real world, a player with a 2 day hangnail is not going to take the 15 DL sitting down(nor would the guy who's been healthy for 25 days have been happy with his inactivity) but, in HBD, you can do it.

Theorectically speaking:

If an owner was in danger of falling short on win requirements in a world, should he do whatever it takes to try to reach the win requirements in the short-term, even if it means potential long-term damage to the team?  For instance, trading top prospects for marginal players who might barely mean the difference between meeting or not meeting the MWR.

In other words, what's best for the team in question and the world overall: an owner risking losing his franchise due to falling short of MWR, but keeping a solid foundation for the next owner to build upon?  Or going "all-in" to keep the team now at the risk of crippling it for future seasons (and for the next owner, if the "all-in" gamble falls short)?

I'd want to keep my team.  I wouldn't make "crippling" trades to do it because, if I do make it, I don't want to do the same dance again next season or the season after.  Simply because I'd eventually run out of prospect chips to trade.

As for what's best for the world, I just laid it out for you.  What's good for your team, attempt to win now but not wreck the future, is what everyone should be doing anyway.