Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, GottaGetTheWin said:

Am I in the twilight zone right now?

 Are people really telling me that seeing this isn't a problem? TE - Taysom Hill, QB, NO

If you don't then you aren't trying to play and enjoy some friendly competition,  you are trying to exploit and you are the worst type of owner who sucks the fun out of competition so you can feed your ego to win a fantasy league.  

Every single person above that is complaining about Taysom being put at TE right now WHILE HE IS ELIGIBLE should stop whining because it's within the rules BUT THE MINUTE HE IS NO LONGER ELIGIBLE THAT CHANGES.  It's no longer in the rules for him to be at that position.  Am I the crazy one here?  Is the concept of someone not being able to play a position they aren't listed to be able to play that foreign? 

If a player has eligibility at that position from the software then that player should be allowed to play there.  If that player doesn't have that eligibility then they shouldn't.  I don't think it's that complicated. 

Should I be able to continue to collect unemployment because I was out of work for 3 weeks due to COVID, even though I'm back to work?  

What happened to common sense?

 

 

Okay, so let me ask this question. In fantasy baseball literally no one complains about an everyday OF with C eligibility. That is almost as much advantageous play as a QB playing TE. The OF plays zero games at C, but he maintains that eligibility throughout a season because of the prior season (which could happen in 2021 with Daulton Varsho). Or, the year that Rizzo gained 2B eligibility because of where he was positioned during shifts. Even though he was never actually playing 2B, he given that position frequently enough that he gained 2B eligibility in one season and kept it for the next. Would you be as irate over those are you are over this? Getting everyday OF stats at C or getting top 3 1B stats at 2B isn't all that different. There's a lot of ire over this from guys over this situation, but I'm guessing there's a lot of hypocrisy, as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 535
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm the Commish in my ESPN league. This weekend, I had to face my opponent who owned Taysom Hill. He slotted him in his TE spot and had Mahomes in his QB spot. Some other members in my league talked a

Heres my thing: it was well established Taysom's position eligibility before the season.  If a commissioner wanted to make a rule PRIOR to the season I get that. But to try to pull rank during the sea

Posted Images

13 hours ago, GottaGetTheWin said:

If we are letting people with one position eligibility play in other positions then why can't I just start QBs at every position I have? 

 

Because those QBs haven't actually played TE or WR or RB. Taysom Hill has. He played them all last year, TE more than any other, and he has played them all this year. I'm not trying to be combative here...just trying to discuss. But it feels like you're arguing about this as if Hill has never played other positions and has only played QB. That simply isn't the case, and I understand that you know this. But you're arguing as if he's only played QB this season.

And you're making this big deal, but very possible that it's all null-and-void by halftime tomorrow. So why remove TE or WR eligibility from him before we know what is actually going to happen? Why refuse to allow a team to slot him at TE or WR when we don't actually KNOW how the game will play out tomorrow?

Frankly, no commish should do anything as drastic as refusing to allow an owner to play Hill at TE or WR without a unanimous league vote (maybe unanimous aside from the Hill owner). One, as I mentioned earlier, we just don't know what will happen tomorrow. Two, it sets a dangerous precedent for a commish to make a ruling based on what he believes is fair or not fair (and that should never be left up to one person). Three, commissioners should never make rules changes midseason. You start the season with a set of rules, and if you didn't have the forethought to deal with a potential issue prior to the season, you should just let it ride for the duration. Well-run leagues don't have commissioners who play god.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Flyman75 said:

 

Because those QBs haven't actually played TE or WR or RB. Taysom Hill has. He played them all last year, TE more than any other, and he has played them all this year. I'm not trying to be combative here...just trying to discuss. But it feels like you're arguing about this as if Hill has never played other positions and has only played QB. That simply isn't the case, and I understand that you know this. But you're arguing as if he's only played QB this season.

And you're making this big deal, but very possible that it's all null-and-void by halftime tomorrow. So why remove TE or WR eligibility from him before we know what is actually going to happen? Why refuse to allow a team to slot him at TE or WR when we don't actually KNOW how the game will play out tomorrow?

Frankly, no commish should do anything as drastic as refusing to allow an owner to play Hill at TE or WR without a unanimous league vote (maybe unanimous aside from the Hill owner). One, as I mentioned earlier, we just don't know what will happen tomorrow. Two, it sets a dangerous precedent for a commish to make a ruling based on what he believes is fair or not fair (and that should never be left up to one person). Three, commissioners should never make rules changes midseason. You start the season with a set of rules, and if you didn't have the forethought to deal with a potential issue prior to the season, you should just let it ride for the duration. Well-run leagues don't have commissioners who play god.


You are misunderstanding my point.

I’m not arguing whether Hill should have TE eligibility or not. What I’m arguing is that IF ESPN takes away his TE eligibility then he shouldn’t be allowed to play in that slot. 
 

People were saying that they felt they should be allowed to leave Hill at TE even if he no longer has that eligibility. 
 

My argument is that that is wrong and has 0 to do with whether he should have the actual eligibility or not 
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems pretty clear from today that ESPN dropped the ball on this. Anybody with common sense knows a starting QB should not be eligible for tight and status. Really feel bad for peoples leagues who allowed this to happen. Glad I didn’t let this happen 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, mulhollandvelvet said:

There’s no way he doesn’t lose TE eligibility right? 

According to half the people in the Hill thread, "eligibility is, and should be, based on last year's snaps". 

So, I guess those people have to argue that he shouldn't lose it, and there's nothing wrong with Taysom Hill being the overall TE1 the rest of the year. That's exactly how this should work and not the least bit ridiculous or wrong. 

Edited by ajs723
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s say for arguments sake next week he goes back to being a gadget player...is espn goin to chang it back to TE/QB again after removing Te eligibility?

 

tbh. They should just not touch his eligibility. It is what it is. They made a mistake. And savvy people took advantage of it. Everyone had a fair chance to pick up Taysom. So I don’t get the complaints. 
 

it’s a game about a game. Everyone needs to chill

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The precedent is really Marques Colston, isn't it?  Recall that in his rookie year he was designated as a TE.  He was never changed.  It ruined leagues, essentially.  (In 14 games, he went 70/1038/8.)

To a lesser extent, Jaylen Samuels had the same issue during his run a couple years back at RB1 for Pittsburgh.

I can't recall a player ever having his position eligibility changed from one thing to another to the exclusion of the old position midseason before.  IIRC, Ty Montgomery gained RB eligibility during a season while keeping WR eligibility.  (This happens in baseball all the time, as an example.)  

I agree that, if Hill remains NO's starting QB, this is a massive loophole and that it is unfortunate.  But I just don't know if there's any precedent that allows them to strip Hill of TE eligibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you handle the following situation or how are the rules for your dynasty league.

There is one team (Team A) which after 3 weeks decided there's no chance he gets anywhere this season so he decided to tank. He traded nearly all his valuable pieces for picks or players that are on IR (Saquon, Dak, etc). He - as expected - went 1-9 till this week. Which imho is a totally fine decision to make in a dynasty league.

There are 2 more teams which had bad luck with injuries and are 2-8 (Team B) and 3-7 (Team C). Now Team C realised that it's just a few losses from potentially the #1 overall.

Team C played Team A this week. Left Melvin Gordon, Michael Thomas and Aaron Rodgers on the bench and started backups and also had 3 players in the lineup who are on bye. Of corse Team A won. Meanwhile Team B lost because it's just a bad team lol.

Now Team A is rightfully pissed, because he made sure that he isn't tanking by setting empty/bad playerslots.

 

I - as a team that is fighting for the playoffs - am pissed, because my playoff race rival plays against Team C next week. I fear that he pulls the same stunt again and gives away a free win, while I play a team that's actual trying to win, too.

 

I fear that if I don't interfere the teams going for the #1 pick will set up empty (garbage) starters just to keep losing and that next year this will maybe start even earlier. Ruins the fun I my eyes.

 

So, how du you handle that?
What are your rules?
As long as an active player is in every starter slot it's okay?
You have to set the best starters you have? If so, do you go after prediction? Do you leave some room for discussion (startin TreQuan Smit over MT is not for discussion, starting Cousins over Rodgers could be discussed)? And how do you punish that? Do you administrative change the lineups afterwards?

Don't know how strict I should be. 🤷‍♂️

I want to keep the league competitive but still fun!

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Joe Mama said:

ESPN is costing people a lot of money.  Need to fix otherwise could have a class action lawsuit on their hands.


Oh, please.  This is absurd and ridiculous.  They did the 100% right thing by not changing it midweek... stop whining and being dramatic. 

 

I’m sure they’ll take away his TE eligibility this week now that it’s clear he’s the starter at QB.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thebadferret said:

How would you handle the following situation or how are the rules for your dynasty league.

There is one team (Team A) which after 3 weeks decided there's no chance he gets anywhere this season so he decided to tank. He traded nearly all his valuable pieces for picks or players that are on IR (Saquon, Dak, etc). He - as expected - went 1-9 till this week. Which imho is a totally fine decision to make in a dynasty league.

There are 2 more teams which had bad luck with injuries and are 2-8 (Team B) and 3-7 (Team C). Now Team C realised that it's just a few losses from potentially the #1 overall.

Team C played Team A this week. Left Melvin Gordon, Michael Thomas and Aaron Rodgers on the bench and started backups and also had 3 players in the lineup who are on bye. Of corse Team A won. Meanwhile Team B lost because it's just a bad team lol.

Now Team A is rightfully pissed, because he made sure that he isn't tanking by setting empty/bad playerslots.

 

I - as a team that is fighting for the playoffs - am pissed, because my playoff race rival plays against Team C next week. I fear that he pulls the same stunt again and gives away a free win, while I play a team that's actual trying to win, too.

 

I fear that if I don't interfere the teams going for the #1 pick will set up empty (garbage) starters just to keep losing and that next year this will maybe start even earlier. Ruins the fun I my eyes.

 

So, how du you handle that?
What are your rules?
As long as an active player is in every starter slot it's okay?
You have to set the best starters you have? If so, do you go after prediction? Do you leave some room for discussion (startin TreQuan Smit over MT is not for discussion, starting Cousins over Rodgers could be discussed)? And how do you punish that? Do you administrative change the lineups afterwards?

Don't know how strict I should be. 🤷‍♂️

I want to keep the league competitive but still fun!

It's a very tough decision and one we've faced every so often in my dynasty league. 

For example, my team was a rebuild going into the year. I said it may times publicly to my league and I made trades accordingly, but I ALWAYS started the best players I could for the exact reasons you listed.  In truth, I didn't want to win, but I wanted to keep the league fair and competitive for teams in the chase.  

At the same time, another team who had decided early on that he was going to tank as well and started benching Evans and someone else I'm forgetting for backups. We called him out for it and he didn't do it again. 

There are a couple things to do here.  The first is call him out on his BS the first week.  Hopefully being publicly called out will snap him back and it won't be a problem moving forward. 

Step 2 would be costing him draft picks.  If he does it again take away his second round pick.  If he does it again take away his first(give back his second). 

You could also talk to the league about increasing buy-ins and having a weekly payout for highest scoring weeks.  This gives teams an incentive to play for each week because even if your team sucks overall it may pop on that 1 week and get some money. 

And last case scenario if NONE of that works and he keeps doing it, boot the owner after the year and replace him with someone better. 

 

Edited by GottaGetTheWin
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JaylenBrownFanclub said:

If hes not forced out of my lineup i will feel really bad playing him at TE

Seeing how much controversy was stirred up by this one player, I am so glad in the one league I commish I was able to grab him off the wire. I could just see the league fights over this. I sat him on my bench.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, kwelch said:

Seeing how much controversy was stirred up by this one player, I am so glad in the one league I commish I was able to grab him off the wire. I could just see the league fights over this. I sat him on my bench.

Not the commish but was gonna do the same, unfortunately someone grabbed him and started him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, Taysom Hill had TE eligibility from the beginning of the year on ESPN. Anybody could have drafted him or picked him up knowing that there is a path to QB snaps. 

Punishing those people for having the foresight or luck to pick him up is what's not fair. We didn't make the rules. ESPN did. 

Edited by Gandalfthecat
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Gandalfthecat said:

At the end of the day, Taysom Hill had TE eligibility had the beginning of the year on ESPN. Anybody could have drafted him or picked him up knowing that there is a path to QB snaps. 

Punishing those people for having the foresight or luck to pick him up is what's not fair. We didn't make the rules. ESPN did. 

 

Exactly, but you know people will whine like little children because something didn't go their way. 

Hopefully this debate is over now as the week is over, he kept the eligibility, and is likely to get it taken away tomorrow.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SkinsChargersFan said:


Oh, please.  This is absurd and ridiculous.  They did the 100% right thing by not changing it midweek... stop whining and being dramatic. 

 

I’m sure they’ll take away his TE eligibility this week now that it’s clear he’s the starter at QB.

Why would this be the right thing? If it was the right thing to list him as a TE last week, then it's the right thing to list him at TE this week. Pick a stance and be principled. Should eligibility be based off of snaps played the previous season or based on what position the player is currently playing. If it's the former, he shouldn't lose eligibility, if it's the latter, he shouldn't have had that eligibility this week. There's no logical argument that he should have been a TE this week, but not next week. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gandalfthecat said:

They've all but come out and said they're removing his TE eligibility this week, correct? 

I wonder how that's going to work for people who have set him in that slot for the following weeks. 

Suffice to say, this controversy is not over. 

I've already had that argument with someone a couple pages back...People are already scheming to leave him in their TE slot and make no other roster adjustments so they can try and not have to take him out. 

2020 the year that broke fantasy football. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ajs723 said:

Why would this be the right thing? If it was the right thing to list him as a TE last week, then it's the right thing to list him at TE this week. Pick a stance and be principled. Should eligibility be based off of snaps played the previous season or based on what position the player is currently playing. If it's the former, he shouldn't lose eligibility, if it's the latter, he shouldn't have had that eligibility this week. There's no logical argument that he should have been a TE this week, but not next week. 


It’s the right thing to do because he started the week (and season) with eligibility before being named QB starter, so people made FAAB bids, roster moves, etc. with the idea in mind that he could be used as a TE.

 

To change it midweek would have been wrong, and any commissioner who forced a league member to not play him at TE is wrong too.

 

If they change it for next week, league members have time to make roster moves accordingly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SkinsChargersFan said:


It’s the right thing to do because he started the week (and season) with eligibility before being named QB starter, so people made FAAB bids, roster moves, etc. with the idea in mind that he could be used as a TE.

 

To change it midweek would have been wrong, and any commissioner who forced a league member to not play him at TE is wrong too.

 

If they change it for next week, league members have time to make roster moves accordingly.

That seems really arbitrary. You don't make roster moves for one week, you make them for ROS. If it was unfair to change it last week, because people made moves with TE eligibility in mind, it's wrong to change it now. Someone I'm sure spent 100% FAAB on him thinking he was TE eligible. Again, either he's TE eligible, or he's not. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...