Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Recommended Posts

Just now, GottaGetTheWin said:

Clearly you didn't actually read my post because I thought i was pretty straightforward saying that no, it shouldn't be changed mid-season and that people should stop whining about it. 

 

I did read your post and you said "The fact that he has TE eligibility in any league is a joke". I asked why you think that.

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

To the commissioners choosing to play god - 

 

In one of my ESPN leagues the Taysom owner who has Wilson at QB and Kelce at TE just traded Taysom for CEH. 

If you manually prevented Taysom’s TE eligibility then what would happen to that trade? Would you go back and move the players to their original teams?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

NEED ADVICE ON TRADE REVIEW, PLEASE:

I am the commissioner of a 12-team Superflex league on ESPN.  Playoffs are weeks 14-16, 6 teams make it in.  The players involved (names have been changed):

  "DAN" currently holds the #5 seed, on the playoff bubble.

  "MIKE" currently holds the #6 seed, on the playoff bubble.

  "CAL" is currently in the #7 position, with a decent chance to move up.

  "PETE" is currently in the #9 position, a long-shot to make the playoffs, but still trying.  His poor record is due to having missed Chubb, Thomas, and Golladay for much of the year.

In week 11, CAL plays DAN, and PETE plays MIKE.  Essentially must-win games for both CAL and PETE, with the additional factor that both CAL and PETE want both DAN and MIKE to lose.

Entering the week, CAL had two top-10 QBs plus Dalton on IR.  PETE had Josh Allen (on bye in week 11) and Drew Lock (injured and might not start).

After waivers processed. CAL had picked up Winston (3-QB roster limit in this league, but this was okay because Dalton was still on IR), and PETE had picked up Flacco.  No other starting QBs were available on the waiver wire.  (Another team had picked up Taysom Hill as a speculative grab.)

CAL then proceeded to trade Dalton and a WR3 to PETE for a WR2.  No problem there.

After that trade processed (but BEFORE Hill had been named the starter in New Orleans), CAL immediately traded Winston to PETE for Dalton.  I asked CAL about that move, and he said that Winston had been who PETE had wanted as part of the original deal.  However, due to a quirk of ESPN's IR management, they couldn't make the initial trade with Winston - the ESPN site wouldn't let a trade be processed while an ineligible player (Dalton, by that time removed from the COVID-IR list) was on IR, but it also wouldn't let Dalton be activated because CAL already had 3 active QBs on his roster.  The double trade was a workaround for that restriction, but everything ended up legal so there ended up being no problem there either.

Now, this morning, Taysom Hill is announced as the starter in New Orleans.  Not long after that, CAL traded Dalton back to PETE for Winston.

MIKE has challenged the legality of the third trade, citing collusion.

 

Trade review in this league is entirely on the commissioner, there is no league vote.  The standards for trade review as articulated in the league rules basically state that as long as a legitimate argument can be made that the trade makes each team better or fills a need on each team involved, the trade will be allowed to go through.

 

For PETE, it's obvious that the last trade makes his team better.

For CAL, it's fairly obvious that there is no direct benefit to his team - in trading a startable player and getting an essentially worthless player at the same position in return, he is clearly losing value in this trade.  The only benefit of the trade to CAL is that it would increase the probability of PETE beating MIKE this week, which would help CAL's chances of making the playoffs.

 

That dynamic - giving up something for basically nothing in order to try to engineer an outcome in a different game to increase one's chances of making the playoffs - feels an awful lot like collusion to me.  But I'd like some second opinions before I rule.

 

What do you think about the trade?  ALLOW, or VETO?

 

Thanks in advance for your help.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, tusb said:

 

NEED ADVICE ON TRADE REVIEW, PLEASE:

I am the commissioner of a 12-team Superflex league on ESPN.  Playoffs are weeks 14-16, 6 teams make it in.  The players involved (names have been changed):

  "DAN" currently holds the #5 seed, on the playoff bubble.

  "MIKE" currently holds the #6 seed, on the playoff bubble.

  "CAL" is currently in the #7 position, with a decent chance to move up.

  "PETE" is currently in the #9 position, a long-shot to make the playoffs, but still trying.  His poor record is due to having missed Chubb, Thomas, and Golladay for much of the year.

In week 11, CAL plays DAN, and PETE plays MIKE.  Essentially must-win games for both CAL and PETE, with the additional factor that both CAL and PETE want both DAN and MIKE to lose.

Entering the week, CAL had two top-10 QBs plus Dalton on IR.  PETE had Josh Allen (on bye in week 11) and Drew Lock (injured and might not start).

After waivers processed. CAL had picked up Winston (3-QB roster limit in this league, but this was okay because Dalton was still on IR), and PETE had picked up Flacco.  No other starting QBs were available on the waiver wire.  (Another team had picked up Taysom Hill as a speculative grab.)

CAL then proceeded to trade Dalton and a WR3 to PETE for a WR2.  No problem there.

After that trade processed (but BEFORE Hill had been named the starter in New Orleans), CAL immediately traded Winston to PETE for Dalton.  I asked CAL about that move, and he said that Winston had been who PETE had wanted as part of the original deal.  However, due to a quirk of ESPN's IR management, they couldn't make the initial trade with Winston - the ESPN site wouldn't let a trade be processed while an ineligible player (Dalton, by that time removed from the COVID-IR list) was on IR, but it also wouldn't let Dalton be activated because CAL already had 3 active QBs on his roster.  The double trade was a workaround for that restriction, but everything ended up legal so there ended up being no problem there either.

Now, this morning, Taysom Hill is announced as the starter in New Orleans.  Not long after that, CAL traded Dalton back to PETE for Winston.

MIKE has challenged the legality of the third trade, citing collusion.

 

Trade review in this league is entirely on the commissioner, there is no league vote.  The standards for trade review as articulated in the league rules basically state that as long as a legitimate argument can be made that the trade makes each team better or fills a need on each team involved, the trade will be allowed to go through.

 

For PETE, it's obvious that the last trade makes his team better.

For CAL, it's fairly obvious that there is no direct benefit to his team - in trading a startable player and getting an essentially worthless player at the same position in return, he is clearly losing value in this trade.  The only benefit of the trade to CAL is that it would increase the probability of PETE beating MIKE this week, which would help CAL's chances of making the playoffs.

 

That dynamic - giving up something for basically nothing in order to try to engineer an outcome in a different game to increase one's chances of making the playoffs - feels an awful lot like collusion to me.  But I'd like some second opinions before I rule.

 

What do you think about the trade?  ALLOW, or VETO?

 

Thanks in advance for your help.

 

Oh snap you caught me off guard with a real commissioner's quandary... 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, tusb said:

 

NEED ADVICE ON TRADE REVIEW, PLEASE:

I am the commissioner of a 12-team Superflex league on ESPN.  Playoffs are weeks 14-16, 6 teams make it in.  The players involved (names have been changed):

  "DAN" currently holds the #5 seed, on the playoff bubble.

  "MIKE" currently holds the #6 seed, on the playoff bubble.

  "CAL" is currently in the #7 position, with a decent chance to move up.

  "PETE" is currently in the #9 position, a long-shot to make the playoffs, but still trying.  His poor record is due to having missed Chubb, Thomas, and Golladay for much of the year.

In week 11, CAL plays DAN, and PETE plays MIKE.  Essentially must-win games for both CAL and PETE, with the additional factor that both CAL and PETE want both DAN and MIKE to lose.

Entering the week, CAL had two top-10 QBs plus Dalton on IR.  PETE had Josh Allen (on bye in week 11) and Drew Lock (injured and might not start).

After waivers processed. CAL had picked up Winston (3-QB roster limit in this league, but this was okay because Dalton was still on IR), and PETE had picked up Flacco.  No other starting QBs were available on the waiver wire.  (Another team had picked up Taysom Hill as a speculative grab.)

CAL then proceeded to trade Dalton and a WR3 to PETE for a WR2.  No problem there.

After that trade processed (but BEFORE Hill had been named the starter in New Orleans), CAL immediately traded Winston to PETE for Dalton.  I asked CAL about that move, and he said that Winston had been who PETE had wanted as part of the original deal.  However, due to a quirk of ESPN's IR management, they couldn't make the initial trade with Winston - the ESPN site wouldn't let a trade be processed while an ineligible player (Dalton, by that time removed from the COVID-IR list) was on IR, but it also wouldn't let Dalton be activated because CAL already had 3 active QBs on his roster.  The double trade was a workaround for that restriction, but everything ended up legal so there ended up being no problem there either.

Now, this morning, Taysom Hill is announced as the starter in New Orleans.  Not long after that, CAL traded Dalton back to PETE for Winston.

MIKE has challenged the legality of the third trade, citing collusion.

 

Trade review in this league is entirely on the commissioner, there is no league vote.  The standards for trade review as articulated in the league rules basically state that as long as a legitimate argument can be made that the trade makes each team better or fills a need on each team involved, the trade will be allowed to go through.

 

For PETE, it's obvious that the last trade makes his team better.

For CAL, it's fairly obvious that there is no direct benefit to his team - in trading a startable player and getting an essentially worthless player at the same position in return, he is clearly losing value in this trade.  The only benefit of the trade to CAL is that it would increase the probability of PETE beating MIKE this week, which would help CAL's chances of making the playoffs.

 

That dynamic - giving up something for basically nothing in order to try to engineer an outcome in a different game to increase one's chances of making the playoffs - feels an awful lot like collusion to me.  But I'd like some second opinions before I rule.

 

What do you think about the trade?  ALLOW, or VETO?

 

Thanks in advance for your help.

 

Just a thought.  It would have been easier had you just named the players by their seed.  The 6th seed, 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, tusb said:

 

NEED ADVICE ON TRADE REVIEW, PLEASE:

I am the commissioner of a 12-team Superflex league on ESPN.  Playoffs are weeks 14-16, 6 teams make it in.  The players involved (names have been changed):

  "DAN" currently holds the #5 seed, on the playoff bubble.

  "MIKE" currently holds the #6 seed, on the playoff bubble.

  "CAL" is currently in the #7 position, with a decent chance to move up.

  "PETE" is currently in the #9 position, a long-shot to make the playoffs, but still trying.  His poor record is due to having missed Chubb, Thomas, and Golladay for much of the year.

In week 11, CAL plays DAN, and PETE plays MIKE.  Essentially must-win games for both CAL and PETE, with the additional factor that both CAL and PETE want both DAN and MIKE to lose.

Entering the week, CAL had two top-10 QBs plus Dalton on IR.  PETE had Josh Allen (on bye in week 11) and Drew Lock (injured and might not start).

After waivers processed. CAL had picked up Winston (3-QB roster limit in this league, but this was okay because Dalton was still on IR), and PETE had picked up Flacco.  No other starting QBs were available on the waiver wire.  (Another team had picked up Taysom Hill as a speculative grab.)

CAL then proceeded to trade Dalton and a WR3 to PETE for a WR2.  No problem there.

After that trade processed (but BEFORE Hill had been named the starter in New Orleans), CAL immediately traded Winston to PETE for Dalton.  I asked CAL about that move, and he said that Winston had been who PETE had wanted as part of the original deal.  However, due to a quirk of ESPN's IR management, they couldn't make the initial trade with Winston - the ESPN site wouldn't let a trade be processed while an ineligible player (Dalton, by that time removed from the COVID-IR list) was on IR, but it also wouldn't let Dalton be activated because CAL already had 3 active QBs on his roster.  The double trade was a workaround for that restriction, but everything ended up legal so there ended up being no problem there either.

Now, this morning, Taysom Hill is announced as the starter in New Orleans.  Not long after that, CAL traded Dalton back to PETE for Winston.

MIKE has challenged the legality of the third trade, citing collusion.

 

Trade review in this league is entirely on the commissioner, there is no league vote.  The standards for trade review as articulated in the league rules basically state that as long as a legitimate argument can be made that the trade makes each team better or fills a need on each team involved, the trade will be allowed to go through.

 

For PETE, it's obvious that the last trade makes his team better.

For CAL, it's fairly obvious that there is no direct benefit to his team - in trading a startable player and getting an essentially worthless player at the same position in return, he is clearly losing value in this trade.  The only benefit of the trade to CAL is that it would increase the probability of PETE beating MIKE this week, which would help CAL's chances of making the playoffs.

 

That dynamic - giving up something for basically nothing in order to try to engineer an outcome in a different game to increase one's chances of making the playoffs - feels an awful lot like collusion to me.  But I'd like some second opinions before I rule.

 

What do you think about the trade?  ALLOW, or VETO?

 

Thanks in advance for your help.

Allow it. Pure speculation honestly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, tusb said:

 

NEED ADVICE ON TRADE REVIEW, PLEASE:

I am the commissioner of a 12-team Superflex league on ESPN.  Playoffs are weeks 14-16, 6 teams make it in.  The players involved (names have been changed):

  "DAN" currently holds the #5 seed, on the playoff bubble.

  "MIKE" currently holds the #6 seed, on the playoff bubble.

  "CAL" is currently in the #7 position, with a decent chance to move up.

  "PETE" is currently in the #9 position, a long-shot to make the playoffs, but still trying.  His poor record is due to having missed Chubb, Thomas, and Golladay for much of the year.

In week 11, CAL plays DAN, and PETE plays MIKE.  Essentially must-win games for both CAL and PETE, with the additional factor that both CAL and PETE want both DAN and MIKE to lose.

Entering the week, CAL had two top-10 QBs plus Dalton on IR.  PETE had Josh Allen (on bye in week 11) and Drew Lock (injured and might not start).

After waivers processed. CAL had picked up Winston (3-QB roster limit in this league, but this was okay because Dalton was still on IR), and PETE had picked up Flacco.  No other starting QBs were available on the waiver wire.  (Another team had picked up Taysom Hill as a speculative grab.)

CAL then proceeded to trade Dalton and a WR3 to PETE for a WR2.  No problem there.

After that trade processed (but BEFORE Hill had been named the starter in New Orleans), CAL immediately traded Winston to PETE for Dalton.  I asked CAL about that move, and he said that Winston had been who PETE had wanted as part of the original deal.  However, due to a quirk of ESPN's IR management, they couldn't make the initial trade with Winston - the ESPN site wouldn't let a trade be processed while an ineligible player (Dalton, by that time removed from the COVID-IR list) was on IR, but it also wouldn't let Dalton be activated because CAL already had 3 active QBs on his roster.  The double trade was a workaround for that restriction, but everything ended up legal so there ended up being no problem there either.

Now, this morning, Taysom Hill is announced as the starter in New Orleans.  Not long after that, CAL traded Dalton back to PETE for Winston.

MIKE has challenged the legality of the third trade, citing collusion.

 

Trade review in this league is entirely on the commissioner, there is no league vote.  The standards for trade review as articulated in the league rules basically state that as long as a legitimate argument can be made that the trade makes each team better or fills a need on each team involved, the trade will be allowed to go through.

 

For PETE, it's obvious that the last trade makes his team better.

For CAL, it's fairly obvious that there is no direct benefit to his team - in trading a startable player and getting an essentially worthless player at the same position in return, he is clearly losing value in this trade.  The only benefit of the trade to CAL is that it would increase the probability of PETE beating MIKE this week, which would help CAL's chances of making the playoffs.

 

That dynamic - giving up something for basically nothing in order to try to engineer an outcome in a different game to increase one's chances of making the playoffs - feels an awful lot like collusion to me.  But I'd like some second opinions before I rule.

 

What do you think about the trade?  ALLOW, or VETO?

 

Thanks in advance for your help.

 

It could have just been a good faith agreement.  I've done it and had it done for me in the past when a player gets injured that's a part of the trade.

 

...But it could also be collusion.  Is Dalton not pretty close to valueless at this point?  While Winston has a very high upside his value is limited while Taysom is the starter / Upon Brees' return.  If anything I think Winston is the better QB to hold over Dalton even with Taysom being named starter.  

 

Pete (9th seed) and Cal (7th seed) are in direct competition for the last spot maybe 2 spots in the playoffs (depending on how tight the standings are).  With the trade between The 7th seed & The 9th seed the 7th seed isn't really gaining anything by taking on Dalton.

 

It's really kind of a judgement call on your end.  How well do you know these guys?  Are they better friends with each other comparatively to the rest of the group?  If you are really unsure hold a league vote.  Majority wins, you decide in a tie.  

 

The real question is who does Pete play in the next few weeks?

Edited by FouLLine
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, FouLLine said:

 

It could have just been a good faith agreement.  I've done it and had it done for me in the past when a player gets injured that's a part of the trade.

 

...But it could also be collusion.  Is Dalton not pretty close to valueless at this point?  While Winston has a very high upside his value is limited while Taysom is the starter / Upon Brees' return.  If anything I think Winston is the better QB to hold over Dalton even with Taysom being named starter.  

 

Pete (9th seed) and Cal (7th seed) are in direct competition for the last spot maybe 2 spots in the playoffs (depending on how tight the standings are).  With the trade between The 7th seed & The 9th seed the 7th seed isn't really gaining anything by taking on Dalton.

 

It's really kind of a judgement call on your end.  How well do you know these guys?  Are they better friends with each other comparatively to the rest of the group?  If you are really unsure hold a league vote.  Majority wins, you decide in a tie.  

 

The real question is who does Pete play in the next few weeks?

 

"Is Dalton not pretty close to valueless"?  I wouldn't say that, especially not in a Superflex league.  I think on a team with Elliott, Cooper, Lamb, Gallup, and Schultz, Dalton carries some significant upside.  Yes he looked lousy at first, but the Cowboys' offensive line was really banged up then.  Now, recovered from injury and with some o-line pieces back, plus that fact that the Cowboys are still very much in the hunt for the NFC L-EAST title, if Dalton can recover some of the mojo he had during his successful years in Cincinnati he can still return value as a low-to-mid QB2.  As for Winston's value; it's purely speculative at this point, but he certainly has no immediate value.

"How well do you know these guys"?  Reasonably well.  Everyone in this league used to work at the same company, but they have all moved on to different jobs since the league started.  I'd say that they are friends, but not any closer friends than any other random pair of GMs in this league.

"Upcoming schedule"?  That's actually a fun element to this equation: BOTH DAN and MIKE play BOTH of the top 2 scoring teams in the league in weeks 12 and 13, so a loss for either DAN or MIKE in week 11 puts their playoff position on shaky ground.  PETE plays the #8 team in week 12 and the last-place team in week 13.  CAL plays a team that has clinched a playoff spot but is mid-pack in overall scoring in week 12, and the second-to-last place team in week 13.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tenner said:

To the commissioners choosing to play god - 

 

In one of my ESPN leagues the Taysom owner who has Wilson at QB and Kelce at TE just traded Taysom for CEH. 

If you manually prevented Taysom’s TE eligibility then what would happen to that trade? Would you go back and move the players to their original teams?

 

Uh - absolutely.

Allowing this ESPN glitch to alter the FF season is crazy.

So let's say ESPN changed their mind today, and only made him QB eligible. Would that trade be right?

No man.

 

Can't we all just use some common sense here.

 

 

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

 

"Is Dalton not pretty close to valueless"?  I wouldn't say that, especially not in a Superflex league.  I think on a team with Elliott, Cooper, Lamb, Gallup, and Schultz, Dalton carries some significant upside.  Yes he looked lousy at first, but the Cowboys' offensive line was really banged up then.  Now, recovered from injury and with some o-line pieces back, plus that fact that the Cowboys are still very much in the hunt for the NFC L-EAST title, if Dalton can recover some of the mojo he had during his successful years in Cincinnati he can still return value as a low-to-mid QB2.  As for Winston's value; it's purely speculative at this point, but he certainly has no immediate value.

"How well do you know these guys"?  Reasonably well.  Everyone in this league used to work at the same company, but they have all moved on to different jobs since the league started.  I'd say that they are friends, but not any closer friends than any other random pair of GMs in this league.

"Upcoming schedule"?  That's actually a fun element to this equation: BOTH DAN and MIKE play BOTH of the top 2 scoring teams in the league in weeks 12 and 13, so a loss for either DAN or MIKE in week 11 puts their playoff position on shaky ground.  PETE plays the #8 team in week 12 and the last-place team in week 13.  CAL plays a team that has clinched a playoff spot but is mid-pack in overall scoring in week 12, and the second-to-last place team in week 13.

 

 

Can you just post the trades all in a row.  Was it 2 trades between them or 3?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GarrettHasTheClap said:

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 season is lame as hell.  You deal with it this year and change in the offseason. There are a few guys with dual eligibility,  at least in yahoo. But to get threatened during the season and change it is a loser mentality. 

 

Furthermore,  Brees got hurt last year and hes 43. It had to be known he was a threat to get hurt again. Next time, do your due diligence.  If he's clearly on the depth chart why didnt anyone think of the possibility prior to now?

 

Dude - no one is arguing that Hill can't play the QB slot.

If he's listed as the #2 QB, and people want to gamble on him at QB - no problem.

But don't put give someone TE eligibility to a starting QB lol. No one thinks of this PRIOR to the season because no one would ever think it would happen. 

 

 

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

Uh - absolutely.

Allowing this ESPN glitch to alter the FF season is crazy.

So let's say ESPN changed their mind today, and only made him QB eligible. Would that trade be right?

No man.

 

Can't we all just use some common sense here.

 

Honestly the most fair thing for ESPN to do at this point is reassess on a week to week basis.  I think Taysom will have to be the TE1 by more than 50% for them to do anything about it and it may need to happen for multiple weeks.  If Taysom only gets 35%-40% is he really better than a top 5 TE?  Say Hill does score 20 points, is that really that unfair if Kelsey scores 16 and Waller 14?  Or what if Gesicki or Geodert has a peak week of 28 to Taysom's 22?  

 

I don't think it's fair for any platform to take TE eligibility away until there are multiple weeks where he is clearly the TE1 by a wide margin.  Besides what happens when Brees comes back?  Or if Winston takes over at QB?  Now Hill can't be played at TE anymore?  That isn't fair either.  Waiver priority and FAAB were burnt up on this guy the last week or two... He is still only owned in 26% of ESPN leagues.  So most leagues still have a crack at him.

 

The Taysom Hill eligibility is an analyze and reassess issue right now. 

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

 

I will ask you again.

He played most of his snaps at TIGHT END last year. What position should he have qualified for going into this season?

By your illogical stance here, no player should ever qualify at multiple positions. Kris Bryant is a starting 3B for the Chicago Cubs but plays a few games at OF, 1B so he has multiple position eligibility. Is that wrong too?

 

Nonsense.

 

I think when a player is named a started at one position for the week, their designation should just change. Easy.

 

As for "no skin in the game" - the LM has to take care of everyone in the league - not support some loophole because one player beat everyone else to the punch once the news broke.

TE is a horrifically bad wasteland after Kelce...it's a level playing field. To add in a starting QB to that position is really just screwing the league. If ESPN changes Hill's designation next week, it means they were WRONG this week. lol. Just because something is allowable, doesn't mean it's right. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FooserX said:

 

I think when a player is named a started at one position for the week, their designation should just change. Easy.

 

As for "no skin in the game" - the LM has to take care of everyone in the league - not support some loophole because one player beat everyone else to the punch once the news broke.

TE is a horrifically bad wasteland after Kelce...it's a level playing field. To add in a starting QB to that position is really just screwing the league. If ESPN changes Hill's designation next week, it means they were WRONG this week. lol. Just because something is allowable, doesn't mean it's right. 

 

Most people in the Taysom Hill thread used a waiver on him if not this week last week... And that's kind of how it works you pick up players on speculation and when news breaks it breaks.  You don't undo it because it's more favorably to another team.  News breaking is always going to be more favorable to some teams and unfavorable to other teams.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plot Twist... He is going to be TE eligible this week... IF ESPN changes it to only QB next week BUT... you don't move him out of the TE slot then its gunna get fun! 

 

I wonder in leagues where there is no LM if he would continue to rack up points in the TE spot even if he isn't eligible?  Popcorn Time! 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no changing people's mind on this.

There are some people in the "Whatever the platform allows, is fair game" camp...

And there's the other people who are in the "It doesn't matter what the rules technically allow, it's not fair to the league" camp.

Everyone 100% understands the other camp's logic. They just don't agree with it because it's a moral compass issue. This is not a FF issue.

 

No point in arguing. 🙂

 

I do urge commishes to step up and do the right thing though. I play with a good group of guys, and even the guy who picked up Hill is okay with the decision to not play him at TE this week. Though if he's not the starting QB next week, it will be allowed to stay in TE.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Afc34 said:

^^ this is what happens when you play in “just for fun” leagues or you only do $20 buy ins. 

 

Haha - no, it happens if people are all good guys who just want to be fair.

If money changes one's ethical decisions, then that pretty much says all I need to know about that league/person.

 

There's not a single person on this site that thinks it's "right" to have a starting QB playing in the TE slot. They're just hung up on the designation loophole. I have seen some really shady stuff happen all over my life, and it's always the same logic. "Hey man, we got away with it...must be ok!!" 

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, FooserX said:

 

I think when a player is named a started at one position for the week, their designation should just change. Easy.

 

As for "no skin in the game" - the LM has to take care of everyone in the league - not support some loophole because one player beat everyone else to the punch once the news broke.

TE is a horrifically bad wasteland after Kelce...it's a level playing field. To add in a starting QB to that position is really just screwing the league. If ESPN changes Hill's designation next week, it means they were WRONG this week. lol. Just because something is allowable, doesn't mean it's right. 

Think about what you just said there. "If ESPN changes Hill's designation next week, it means they were WRONG this week." Well let me ask you this....what if ESPN removed his TE designation and he ended up not being the starting QB (Peyton has already came out and disputed the reports that he has named a starting QB) and played his normal TE/gadget role that he's played all year? That would create a WAY bigger problem for anyone that picked him up and wanted play to play him in their TE slot. ESPN is making the correct decision THIS week by leaving his position designation he has had all year. They even discussed this back before waivers even cleared so not sure why anyone would even be making a fuss but it isn't surprising knowing how unreasonable people get when they don't get there way. And yes, I am even playing against Taysum in a league where I am commish but that won't change my opinion on doing what I think is the right thing to do.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Silkk1211 said:

Think about what you just said there. "If ESPN changes Hill's designation next week, it means they were WRONG this week." Well let me ask you this....what if ESPN removed his TE designation and he ended up not being the starting QB (Peyton has already came out and disputed the reports that he has named a starting QB) and played his normal TE/gadget role that he's played all year? That would create a WAY bigger problem for anyone that picked him up and wanted play to play him in their TE slot. ESPN is making the correct decision THIS week by leaving his position designation he has had all year. They even discussed this back before waivers even cleared so not sure why anyone would even be making a fuss but it isn't surprising knowing how unreasonable people get when they don't get there way. And yes, I am even playing against Taysum in a league where I am commish but that won't change my opinion on doing what I think is the right thing to do.

 

This is the most intelligent response I've read about this. haha.

You present a great point, but I think one just has to weigh the pros and cons to each outcome. 

1 - A team having a QB playing TE is giving a team a 15 - 20 point advantage to every team he faces. 

2 - Someone who had a crappy TE situation to begin with, can't play a crappy TE. 

 

One has a huge league winning upside consequences, while the other is very minimal. I'm not sure how that's a WAY bigger problem. 

 

Again - I have no problem with people starting hill as QB. I also have no problem with people starting hill at TE if Peyton doesn't make him the starter. 

 

 

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

 

Haha - no, it happens if people are all good guys who just want to be fair.

If money changes one's ethical decisions, then that pretty much says all I need to know about that league/person.

 

There's not a single person on this site that thinks it's "right" to have a starting QB playing in the TE slot. They're just hung up on the designation loophole. I have seen some really shady stuff happen all over my life, and it's always the same logic. "Hey man, we got away with it...must be ok!!" 

 


you sound like Batman. “I will do this in the name of justice” so now you want to abuse your commish power?? Money doesn’t change anything. There was never a participation trophy in FF. Either you want to win or not. A league full of “good guys” doesn’t change anything if I’m the only manager for my team. Why even allow people to manage their rosters

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

 

This is the most intelligent response I've read about this. haha.

You present a great point, but I think one just has to weigh the pros and cons to each outcome. 

1 - A team having a QB playing TE is giving a team a 15 - 20 point advantage to every team he faces. 

2 - Someone who had a crappy TE situation to begin with, can't play a crappy TE. 

 

One has a huge league winning upside consequences, while the other is very minimal. I'm not sure how that's a WAY bigger problem. 

 

Again - I have no problem with people starting hill as QB. I also have no problem with people starting hill at TE if Peyton doesn't make him the starter. 

 

 

It would be a way bigger problem if they stripped his TE eligibility and he didn't even end up playing QB but instead was used as his typical gadget style player and he ended up catching and/or running for a TD. Peyton has not announced a starter and even IF he does before the game we're too late in the week to mess with it AND Peyton doesn't have to tell anyone the truth. It's best to let it alone this week and let it play out to be safe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Afc34 said:


you sound like Batman. “I will do this in the name of justice” so now you want to abuse your commish power?? Money doesn’t change anything. There was never a participation trophy in FF. Either you want to win or not. A league full of “good guys” doesn’t change anything if I’m the only manager for my team. Why even allow people to manage their rosters

 

I don't know about abuse of power. If the commish isn't there to make sure things run fair, and trades are reasonable...why the heck is he here for?

He's there to make decisions for the good of the league. To stop collusion, and stop dumb stuff from happening because people will do anything to win. lol

This is one of those times, bro.

 

  • Like 1
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...