Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, GottaGetTheWin said:

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. 

seems like it would be relatively simple for ESPN to remove players from a designated slot after changing their position

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

7 minutes ago, ajs723 said:

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. 

It’s the lesser of two wrongs so to speak to remove the TE eligibility now

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 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.

 
a starting qb as stated by the coach

playing qb for the whole game.

allowed to play in the TE slot.

my IQ is dropping every post I read that justifies this lol

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Joe Mama said:

It’s the lesser of two wrongs so to speak to remove the TE eligibility now

That's fine, but if that's the case, then it should have been removed last week. Bottom line, they set the standard of him being TE eligible. It was obviously wrong, and a mistake, but I think they have to stick to it now. 

If Noah Fant changes his position to WR on Tuesday, and I say as commissioner, you can continue starting him at TE... Then, after he blows up next weekend, I don't get to say, never mind, he's only a WR now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another solution is for commissioners (going forward) to allow Hill to stay in the TE spot (if that’s what ESPN allots), but to not count passing stats.

Hill was already getting rushing attempts and stats out of the TE position all year so it would be disingenuous to not allow that to continue at least 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, FooserX said:

 
a starting qb as stated by the coach

playing qb for the whole game.

allowed to play in the TE slot.

my IQ is dropping every post I read that justifies this lol


Your IQ was likely not that high to begin with if you can’t see the reasoning for ESPN leaving him with a TE designation for this past week.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, lolcopter said:

seems like it would be relatively simple for ESPN to remove players from a designated slot after changing their position

Who knows...we've never been in this situation before that I know of where a player will lose eligibility while he's in another positional slot. 

Yahoo doesn't automatically remove people from IR spots when they come off IR, I don't think ESPN does either so if that is an indication then they probably can't easily just bounce him out of the spot. 

Who knows...

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, rizon said:

Another solution is for commissioners (going forward) to allow Hill to stay in the TE spot (if that’s what ESPN allots), but to not count passing stats.

Hill was already getting rushing attempts and stats out of the TE position all year so it would be disingenuous to not allow that to continue at least 

 

If you do that then I'll argue that WRs that throw gadget plays or Qbs that catch TDs should be negated too.

 

I understand your point, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate for the other can of worms something like this would be opening.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

As commish, I have a pretty strict rule to go with what ESPN sets as it's affects every league member equally. It's out of our hands to start changing rules, and everyone had the chance to pick him up.

As a fantasy owner who is in a must win game this week and is facing Hill, PLEASE REMOVE HIS TE DESIGNATION!

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

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. 

 


This is good stuff. One of the things we did in one of my keeper leagues (and in one my baseball keeper leagues) is go away from reverse order of finish for the draft order. In my baseball league, the non-money spots (4-12) are basically a random draw, and the draw is done publicly on Discord. The football league is more complicated. 

It has helped curtail the overt-bench-every-star tanking in both leagues. 

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

 

If you do that then I'll argue that WRs that throw gadget plays or Qbs that catch TDs should be negated too.

 

I understand your point, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate for the other can of worms something like this would be opening.  


We are in agreement, as I made the same case to our league when bringing up examples like OBJ and Landry, or Tyreek, or most notably and appropriately Ty Montgomery and Jaylen Samuels who were lethal in previous seasons with dual eligibility though they were really only playing one position.

 

im just trying to help the discussion as folks search for potential solutions that take note of this extreme occurrence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Flyman75 said:


This is good stuff. One of the things we did in one of my keeper leagues (and in one my baseball keeper leagues) is go away from reverse order of finish for the draft order. In my baseball league, the non-money spots (4-12) are basically a random draw, and the draw is done publicly on Discord. The football league is more complicated. 

It has helped curtail the overt-bench-every-star tanking in both leagues. 


This is the best solution. Do it like the NBA draft.
 

If you have a method of giving the worst teams a slightly better chance of first overall pick, you can employ that as well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SkinsChargersFan said:


This is the best solution. Do it like the NBA draft.
 

If you have a method of giving the worst teams a slightly better chance of first overall pick, you can employ that as well.


The football league I was talking about does. It’s a little complicated but certain placings (5-12) have a certain number of lotto balls. The 11th and 12th place teams get the most and second-most lotto balls. The team that wins the consolation bracket (consisting of teams who finish 5th-8th) gets the third-most lotto balls. The 10th place and consolation runner-up (6th) get the same number of lotto balls. 

It’s an interesting and fun way to go about it, and I applaud my commish for going with it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ajs723 said:

That's fine, but if that's the case, then it should have been removed last week. Bottom line, they set the standard of him being TE eligible. It was obviously wrong, and a mistake, but I think they have to stick to it now. 

If Noah Fant changes his position to WR on Tuesday, and I say as commissioner, you can continue starting him at TE... Then, after he blows up next weekend, I don't get to say, never mind, he's only a WR now. 


No you don’t, if something is “wrong”, you change it. You don’t ruin the integrity of the league, 11 other players, because something is blatantly wrong. So it’s wrong for 1 week, let’s just let it be wrong for the next 7 weeks as well. That’s terrible IMO. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the dual eligibility discussion, having a player listed as RB/WR isn’t really an issue b/c both positions score similarly (talking standard scoring). The biggest issue with the Hill fiasco is that QB’s score on average 50-75% more than WR/TE’s. Bottom line is, you just can’t slot a player that is playing FT QB in a WR/TE position. It makes no sense whatsoever.  

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Wrong" is subjective. You had your shot at Hill. You didn't get him. 

If people are this miffed about it then what you should do is quit ESPN next year. 

Regardless I think the criers and the whiners will get their way and he will have TE removed. 

8 minutes ago, Sonny_D said:


No you don’t, if something is “wrong”, you change it. You don’t ruin the integrity of the league, 11 other players, because something is blatantly wrong. So it’s wrong for 1 week, let’s just let it be wrong for the next 7 weeks as well. That’s terrible IMO. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gandalfthecat said:

"Wrong" is subjective. You had your shot at Hill. You didn't get him. 

If people are this miffed about it then what you should do is quit ESPN next year. 

Regardless I think the criers and the whiners will get their way and he will have TE removed. 

 


It’s not subjective. You have a starting QB playing in a TE or WR slot. Just because ESPN had it wrong doesn’t mean you don’t fix it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good arguments on both sides of this. I contended that Hill should be left at TE/WR going into the game because we simply didn’t know if Payton was going to actually start Hill at QB and play him there all game. It would have been a very Payton thing to do to start him but bring Winston in after the first drive...or to start Hill but swap them in and out with Hill continuing in his gadget roll. Until it happened, we just simply didn’t know what yesterday was actually going to hold. 

And here’s where I’ll finish on this because I’m already tired of the cyclical argument that this has become...let each league decide how they want to address this. You do your league the way you want, but stop shaming or talking down to people on either side for going with what their league allows or disallows. Each league should decide, moving forward now that Hill played the full game at QB, how to handle this. If a league votes to allow him to stay at TE or WR, so be it. If a league votes to disallow it, so be it. In my FleaFlicker league, the other owners have no issue with Hill being WR-eligible, so he will have that as long as FF allows. You don’t like that? Who cares? You’re not a part of our league. And to be consistent, I shouldn’t said Fooser and someone else shouldn’t exercise their commish powers to stop someone from playing Hill at TE. If their league owners are cool with that, so be it. I wouldn’t be, but maybe their owners are. 

One day this argument will die. 

Edited by Flyman75
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 about how unfair it was towards me and were even ok putting together a vote or if I wanted to change the settings to alter how Taysom Hill scored points. I decided against it because it would have been unfair for my opponent and especially with me being the Commish as his opponent to "cheat the system". I decided against it and figured I would have to just take the loss in a must win game for me.


I won last night by .3 of a point and am glad I didn't alter anything. Sometimes doing the right thing is doing what doesn't benefit you the most.

Edited by jagsfan05
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Flyman75 said:

Good arguments on both sides of this. I contended that Hill should be left at TE/WR going into the game because we simply didn’t know if Payton was going to actually start Hill at QB and play him there all game. It would have been a very Payton thing to do to start him but bring Winston in after the first drive...or to start Hill but swap them in and out with Hill continuing in his gadget roll. Until it happened, we just simply didn’t know what yesterday was actually going to hold. 

And here’s where I’ll finish on this because I’m already tired of the cyclical argument that this has become...let each league decide how they want to address this. You do your league the way you want, but stop shaming or talking down to people on either side for going with what their league allows or disallows. Each league should decide, moving forward now that Hill played the full game at QB, how to handle this. If a league votes to allow him to stay at TE or WR, so be it. If a league votes to disallow it, so be it. In my FleaFlicker league, the other owners have no issue with Hill being WR-eligible, so he will have that as long as FF allows. You don’t like that? Who cares? You’re not a part of our league. And to be consistent, I shouldn’t said Fooser and someone else shouldn’t exercise their commish powers to stop someone from playing Hill at TE. If their league owners are cool with that, so be it. I wouldn’t be, but maybe their owners are. 

One day this argument will die. 


My only issue with this is that in a 12-man league 11 people are going to vote for Hill to lose TE status. So I think you ultimately have to leave it up to ESPN and take it out of people's hands so no blame goes around.

Edited by Gandalfthecat
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, ajs723 said:

That's fine, but if that's the case, then it should have been removed last week. Bottom line, they set the standard of him being TE eligible. It was obviously wrong, and a mistake, but I think they have to stick to it now. 

If Noah Fant changes his position to WR on Tuesday, and I say as commissioner, you can continue starting him at TE... Then, after he blows up next weekend, I don't get to say, never mind, he's only a WR now. 

No they don’t have to stick with it now. They did say last week they’d re-evaluate this week so everyone should have known that might happen

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, GottaGetTheWin said:

 

If you do that then I'll argue that WRs that throw gadget plays or Qbs that catch TDs should be negated too.

 

I understand your point, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate for the other can of worms something like this would be opening.  

My main league has always done this

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gandalfthecat said:


My only issue with this is that in a 12-man league 11 people are going to vote for Hill to lose TE status. So I think you ultimately have to leave it up to ESPN and take it out of people's hands so no blame goes around.


In my 12-team league, nobody voted against him staying as a WR. Albeit, that’s different than TE. 

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...