Jump to content



Photo

Jaylen Samuels a rb/te on yahoo....TE?


  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

#41 American Chewy

American Chewy

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 2,943 posts

Posted 05 December 2018 - 12:14 PM

then knock yourself out.

 

you'll be responsible for every position error made by a website, eligibility error (like eligbility for IR, etc) and such, from here to the end of time.

 

luckily he's listed as TE/RB because if he was only listed as TE then he couldn't be used AT ALL, given your stance that every mistake must be fixed.  unless, of course, you're planning to manually calculate how much he could get someone at RB in that scenario.  but you don't have that NOW, luckily, but it's only a matter of time before you have to fix a problem that you cannot fix

 

to each his own.  i will NOT BE opening the pandoras box that i only scratch the surface of here

 

 

I have no problem with it.  To me this seems like a no-brainer fix.  past player designation issues like colston or webb there was at least some justification.  Colston was drafted as a TE and listed as such on the saints depth chart.  Webb I owned that season and I simply chose to bench him after league complaints (I wasn't in the playoffs anyway).  These are the only other situations i can even recall in 17 yrs.  I guess I am not too worried about it in my league.



#42 kilroy69

kilroy69

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 27,231 posts

Posted 05 December 2018 - 12:22 PM

unilaterally

so I can go in and set mahomes at TE?
Its still not a hummingbird.

#43 American Chewy

American Chewy

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 2,943 posts

Posted 05 December 2018 - 12:28 PM

Wow, I didn’t know that. I just assumed it was a YAHOO thing and every league in Yahoo has to abide by the same rules and procedures. I assumed because yahoo designated him both then he has to be both for every league run by yahoo....no discretion by individual commissioners. I don’t even know who the commissioner is in my league...he hasn’t made himself known as such. Is he supposed to?

 

yeah i can't go in and edit the player.  This is simply me saying "you can't use him at TE".

 

how you frame this would be correct in nearly all cases.  but as we all know, situations come up.  maybe you have a commissioner who just lets it lay as is which is fine.  i prefer to step in in situations like this.  I don't expect any blowback from the owner of the player, but I haven't heard back yet.



#44 cavern

cavern

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,965 posts

Posted 05 December 2018 - 12:38 PM

so, you get to be the sole arbiter as to whether a designation makes sense or not.  Joe Webb was playing QB but people had him in as WR and you allowed THAT because, in your opinion there "was some justification" but, there is no justification for Samuels being a rb but being allowed in the TE - at least in your opinion.

 

got it 

 

yeah, i run my league differently than that

 

I have no problem with it.  To me this seems like a no-brainer fix.  past player designation issues like colston or webb there was at least some justification.  Colston was drafted as a TE and listed as such on the saints depth chart.  Webb I owned that season and I simply chose to bench him after league complaints (I wasn't in the playoffs anyway).  These are the only other situations i can even recall in 17 yrs.  I guess I am not too worried about it in my league.



#45 American Chewy

American Chewy

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 2,943 posts

Posted 05 December 2018 - 12:41 PM

You cant disallow him at TE now. I actually held him at points in the season being TE desperate and hoping he played. He may have even been drafted because of it.

If you want to do it as a new rule for next season go for it.

 

he wasn't drafted, i believe he was only picked up a couple of weeks ago after conner was dinged up in a game.  Honestly, its my bad for not noticing this before the season.  If the player who has him wants to quit the league over it then i'll live with it.  I'm doubt that will happen, and frankly the blowback from allowing Samuels to play TE it is likely to be much worse. Fantasy football shouldn't be about taking advantage of platform loopholes which this clearly is.  Just depends on how your league chooses to operate, I do understand both sides of this. 



#46 rotisserieking

rotisserieking

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 2,509 posts

Posted 05 December 2018 - 12:41 PM

 

I have no problem with it.  To me this seems like a no-brainer fix.  past player designation issues like colston or webb there was at least some justification.  Colston was drafted as a TE and listed as such on the saints depth chart.  Webb I owned that season and I simply chose to bench him after league complaints (I wasn't in the playoffs anyway).  These are the only other situations i can even recall in 17 yrs.  I guess I am not too worried about it in my league.

 

Actually this is another justified situation. When Samuels was at the combine he was with the TEs and not with the RBs, thus Yahoo and CBS listed him first as a TE and then added him as an RB later because who's to say how the coach will use him, thus give the player the option in case he plays at one or the other position.

 

As a 20 year commish, I believe you are way overstepping your authority in an attempt to combat gamesmanship and strategy.



#47 jgcrawfish

jgcrawfish

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 14,253 posts

Posted 05 December 2018 - 12:46 PM

Yeah, I am not quite sure what to do.  Stick with the consistency of Kittle or go for it with Samuels for potential upside.  Also, the Steelers have been saying they will use a committee, but I think Samuels will get his touches/passes.  Decisions, decisions.  I am 12-1 and feel like I should just keep riding with my lineup that I have basically used all season, but like the chance of being able to use a RB in the TE position.  

See below...

 

i managed to get him in the only yahoo league i am in.  i have kelce.  so, not likely to start him as TE.  but, given that i also relied on Gordon, i might be starting him as a RB and i also have flexibility later at TE if i need it.

 

PLUS, noone will be starting him at TE AGAINST ME! 

This is exactly what i was going point out.  If you feel better starting Kittle, then take somebody throwing out a potential 25 pt RB in the TE spot against you OUT of the equation.  Sometimes your best offense is a good defense.  

 

 

i feel like this is exactly what my purpose as commissioner is.  to fix egregious errors which this is. 

 

this is not your purpose as a commissioner.  your purpose as a commissioner is to enforce the rules of the league and maintain it's integrity.  it is not to override what the platform/website has in place.  if you want to fix it, you fix it next year with approval from the league.  this isn't one person bending the rules that you have to snap into line, it's potentially one person doing what is allowed by the system.

 

years ago i was in a league and I won 3 titles in my first 4 years.  before I get too much into it, also know that I am a serial running back hoarder.  anyway, my boss was league commish and wasn't happy that I was winning, so he proposed a rule in the off-season for positional limits on players on your roster.  essentially he wanted to limit us to 4 RB and 4 WR total, so that I couldn't hoard like 7 RB like I liked to.  My take on it was, if I want 1 QB, 1 TE, 1 K and 1 DST on my team and want the rest of my bench to be made up RB and WR, who are you to dictate the makeup of my team?  I also pointed out that EVERYBODY had the same opportunity to do so, via draft, FA acquisition, trades, whatever.  So the season starts and I discover that sure enough, I can have only 4 "RB", but i can also have something like 4-5 RB/TE/WR on my team as "Flex" designation (CBS league).  So when it was all said and done, essentially out of spite, I had 4 RB as "RB" and 5 more RB as "Flex".  Petty of me?  Probably.  But I didn't cheat, I worked within the system (and won a title that year).  So he started to change it, during season, to which the league unequivocally said "NO".  

 

Bottom line is, just like in life, things aren't fair.  There are quirks, loopholes and glitches that people take advantage of every day which are completely within the rules and legal but benefit them because they are aware of them and act more quickly than others.  Unilaterally trying to legislate fairness is an act of futility because it cannot be accomplished.  



"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

#48 American Chewy

American Chewy

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 2,943 posts

Posted 05 December 2018 - 12:51 PM

so, you get to be the sole arbiter as to whether a designation makes sense or not.  Joe Webb was playing QB but people had him in as WR and you allowed THAT because, in your opinion there "was some justification" but, there is no justification for Samuels being a rb but being allowed in the TE - at least in your opinion.

 

got it 

 

yeah, i run my league differently than that

 

I'm not saying i actually "allowed" the webb situation, I chose to bench him before it went any further.  I can't comment on whether other sites listed webb as a qb/wr or if webb actually played wr that season or not.  I dont remember.  I have a feeling though based on the amount of stink people were raising over that that it would have been disallowed no matter who had him.  We are a league that is pretty into doing whats right and fair.  fwiw, I do consult with people who've been in the league since the beginning on situations like these before making any ruling.  "unilaterally" was over the top for me to say.



#49 American Chewy

American Chewy

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 2,943 posts

Posted 05 December 2018 - 01:03 PM

 

Actually this is another justified situation. When Samuels was at the combine he was with the TEs and not with the RBs, thus Yahoo and CBS listed him first as a TE and then added him as an RB later because who's to say how the coach will use him, thus give the player the option in case he plays at one or the other position.

 

As a 20 year commish, I believe you are way overstepping your authority in an attempt to combat gamesmanship and strategy.

 

duly noted.  its why i'm bringing this here to discuss it. 

 

someone in my league posted a combine report that said samuels is in no way a TE at the next level.  i'm not really interested in combine reports though...more how a player is listed on depth charts and used in the preseason when it comes to designations.  I think its pretty damning when no other fantasy site has him listed as a TE.



#50 jgcrawfish

jgcrawfish

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 14,253 posts

Posted 05 December 2018 - 01:06 PM

 

I'm not saying i actually "allowed" the webb situation, I chose to bench him before it went any further.  I can't comment on whether other sites listed webb as a qb/wr or if webb actually played wr that season or not.  I dont remember.  I have a feeling though based on the amount of stink people were raising over that that it would have been disallowed no matter who had him.  We are a league that is pretty into doing whats right and fair.  fwiw, I do consult with people who've been in the league since the beginning on situations like these before making any ruling.  "unilaterally" was over the top for me to say.

A misspeak/mistype is cool.  I think the idea is right but the implementation may be harder because they're are a few of these situations.  I find it ridiculous in general that Yahoo would allow a guy drafted at RB, practicing and playing as an RB to be used at TE spot because he played that in college and NOT fix it when the issue comes to a head.  But by the same token...what is Tavon Austin?  He takes handoffs, lines up at WR, etc...Hell, even more complicated is Taysom Hill in New Orleans.  That dude is listed as a QB, but really should he have eligibility at RB+WR+TE because he literally played every skill position in ONE GAME!  We have to rely on the provider/platform for the bulk of the stuff, and the league commish for league matters.  A player potentially listed out of position across the entire platform isn't a league issue.  



"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

#51 cyclone24

cyclone24

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 16,746 posts

Posted 05 December 2018 - 01:13 PM

Nobody has brought it up yet in my yahoo league..but im sure they will notice. Its in no way changeable on yahoo is it?
Kid i wish i could buy you at what youre really worth and sell you for what you think youre worth
Mickey Mantle to Joe Pepitone.

#52 American Chewy

American Chewy

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 2,943 posts

Posted 05 December 2018 - 01:17 PM

See below...

 

This is exactly what i was going point out.  If you feel better starting Kittle, then take somebody throwing out a potential 25 pt RB in the TE spot against you OUT of the equation.  Sometimes your best offense is a good defense.  

 

 

this is not your purpose as a commissioner.  your purpose as a commissioner is to enforce the rules of the league and maintain it's integrity.  it is not to override what the platform/website has in place.  if you want to fix it, you fix it next year with approval from the league.  this isn't one person bending the rules that you have to snap into line, it's potentially one person doing what is allowed by the system.

 

years ago i was in a league and I won 3 titles in my first 4 years.  before I get too much into it, also know that I am a serial running back hoarder.  anyway, my boss was league commish and wasn't happy that I was winning, so he proposed a rule in the off-season for positional limits on players on your roster.  essentially he wanted to limit us to 4 RB and 4 WR total, so that I couldn't hoard like 7 RB like I liked to.  My take on it was, if I want 1 QB, 1 TE, 1 K and 1 DST on my team and want the rest of my bench to be made up RB and WR, who are you to dictate the makeup of my team?  I also pointed out that EVERYBODY had the same opportunity to do so, via draft, FA acquisition, trades, whatever.  So the season starts and I discover that sure enough, I can have only 4 "RB", but i can also have something like 4-5 RB/TE/WR on my team as "Flex" designation (CBS league).  So when it was all said and done, essentially out of spite, I had 4 RB as "RB" and 5 more RB as "Flex".  Petty of me?  Probably.  But I didn't cheat, I worked within the system (and won a title that year).  So he started to change it, during season, to which the league unequivocally said "NO".  

 

Bottom line is, just like in life, things aren't fair.  There are quirks, loopholes and glitches that people take advantage of every day which are completely within the rules and legal but benefit them because they are aware of them and act more quickly than others.  Unilaterally trying to legislate fairness is an act of futility because it cannot be accomplished.  

 

I dont think comparing what players people choose to have on their bench is the same as dealing with a rogue fantasy platform improperly designating a player.  its pretty clear across the fantasy spectrum that Samuels is not a TE. 

 

I think this comes down to how you want your league to operate.  do you want to have people win and lose through silly loopholes or not?  We don't.  if this ends up being 11 vs 1 then i'm ok with that person choosing to quit over it.  I don't see that happening though, knowing the player I'm pretty sure this owner would rather win "legitimately" anyway if everyone says its not right for him to use samuels as a TE.  still waiting his response though.



#53 Fireballer

Fireballer

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 2,903 posts

Posted 05 December 2018 - 01:18 PM

as a commissioner would you disallow his usage at TE?  I'm thinking about unilaterally ruling against it.


As an informed commissioner, Im sure you knew about his eligibility before now. If you didnt, you should step down. A commissioner stays on top of this. If you knew about it, and didnt change it before someone is in the position to start him, you should step down. If you waited this long, its a serious douche move to change it now.

#54 American Chewy

American Chewy

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 2,943 posts

Posted 05 December 2018 - 02:04 PM

As an informed commissioner, Im sure you knew about his eligibility before now. If you didnt, you should step down. A commissioner stays on top of this. If you knew about it, and didnt change it before someone is in the position to start him, you should step down. If you waited this long, its a serious douche move to change it now.

 

This is a fluid situation.  I didn't know, it's my bad.  Im now leaning toward allowing it but with serious guilt to the player if he decides to do it.  If Samuels carries him to a title he risks people not wanting him back.  Guess it's his call.



#55 cavern

cavern

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,965 posts

Posted 05 December 2018 - 02:05 PM

lol.  perhaps you could also curse the use of jaylen samuels

 

something along these lines oughta do it (krusty doll is jaylen samuels)

 

 

 

This is a fluid situation.  I didn't know, it's my bad.  Im now leaning toward allowing it but with serious guilt to the player if he decides to do it.  If Samuels carries him to a title he seriously risks people not wanting him back.  Guess it's his call.



#56 jgcrawfish

jgcrawfish

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 14,253 posts

Posted 05 December 2018 - 02:27 PM

As an informed commissioner, Im sure you knew about his eligibility before now. If you didnt, you should step down. A commissioner stays on top of this. If you knew about it, and didnt change it before someone is in the position to start him, you should step down. If you waited this long, its a serious douche move to change it now.

 

This is harsh, well, except for the last line (which is still a bit harsh)

 

This is a fluid situation.  I didn't know, it's my bad.  Im now leaning toward allowing it but with serious guilt to the player if he decides to do it.  If Samuels carries him to a title he risks people not wanting him back.  Guess it's his call.

I just believe you can't make in-season changes like this.  Everybody had the opportunity to get Samuels.  If the Connor owner didn't get him to back up his stud RB, that's on them.  If the other owners didn't save their WW priority or bid enough FAAB to get him, also on them.  But again, no one is breaking rules so IMO it's not proper of you to step in.  



"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

#57 American Chewy

American Chewy

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 2,943 posts

Posted 05 December 2018 - 03:53 PM

 

This is harsh, well, except for the last line (which is still a bit harsh)

I just believe you can't make in-season changes like this.  Everybody had the opportunity to get Samuels.  If the Connor owner didn't get him to back up his stud RB, that's on them.  If the other owners didn't save their WW priority or bid enough FAAB to get him, also on them.  But again, no one is breaking rules so IMO it's not proper of you to step in.  

 

Thanks for all the input everyone.  I went ahead and allowed it.  Though I personally as commish asked him to very strongly consider not taking advantage of Yahoo's  (and to a lessor extent my) mistake in the name of fair play.  Basically putting the ball in his court whether he wants to deal with any tainted results/legacy and fellow owner backlash.



#58 rotisserieking

rotisserieking

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 2,509 posts

Posted 05 December 2018 - 03:56 PM

 

I just believe you can't make in-season changes like this.  Everybody had the opportunity to get Samuels.  If the Connor owner didn't get him to back up his stud RB, that's on them.  If the other owners didn't save their WW priority or bid enough FAAB to get him, also on them.  But again, no one is breaking rules so IMO it's not proper of you to step in.  

 

Spot on. And yes, this IS a rule change - you are trying to manipulate the league settings. Add it in next season and call it the Samuels Rule but leave it alone in 2018. Chewy:

 

League Setting and Rule Changes

Rule changes are an area where leagues end up falling apart when handled incorrectly. First, rules should never be changed in-season, unless the entire league agrees on the change and the rule in question was a mistake and is causing a problem. Often, leagues and commissioners who do not have a rules document to fall back on will make changes mid-season to appease an upset owner to the detriment of the league. Outline an off-season plan to suggest and discuss rule changes and set a deadline, such as one week prior to the draft, for any final changes. This way, everyone is on equal knowledge for the draft and season. Update your rules document with any changes and send it out to the league so that everyone is on the same page.



#59 Phil Simms 11

Phil Simms 11

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,667 posts

Posted 05 December 2018 - 04:15 PM

If it was me I would play him at TE and not worry what the other people said, but of course I knew he entered the season at TE and remained there. 



#60 Fireballer

Fireballer

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 2,903 posts

Posted 05 December 2018 - 04:25 PM

 
Thanks for all the input everyone.  I went ahead and allowed it.  Though I personally as commish asked him to very strongly consider not taking advantage of Yahoo's  (and to a lessor extent my) mistake in the name of fair play.  Basically putting the ball in his court whether he wants to deal with any tainted results/legacy and fellow owner backlash.


Just bustin your balls in my previous post. But yeah, I think your only option here is let it ride. Everyone in the league has same access to players info on Yahoo. If someone took issue with it, it shoulda been done sooner. Live and learn.

#61 kilroy69

kilroy69

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 27,231 posts

Posted 05 December 2018 - 04:27 PM

I am using him as a TE. That is what he is listed as. It is within the rules to do so.
Its still not a hummingbird.

#62 TennisMenace

TennisMenace

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 5,271 posts

Posted 05 December 2018 - 06:07 PM

Just bustin your balls in my previous post. But yeah, I think your only option here is let it ride. Everyone in the league has same access to players info on Yahoo. If someone took issue with it, it shoulda been done sooner. Live and learn.

In all fairness he was never picked up in my league until today. I didnt even know he had a TE designation next to his name until yesterday. I picked 9 on waivers so obviously I had no chance.

Im sure you can see how unfair it is to see a team strut out a RB who probably gets 20 touches to play TE instead of some bloke TE.
2018 .5 PPR, 10 team. Flex:w/r/t

8-5
QB: Rivers, Winston, Allen
RB: MMack, JWhite, AJones, NChubb
WR: OBJ, Hopkins, Golladay, DJ Moore
TE: Ertz
D: Rams, Skins
K: Zuerlien

#63 cavern

cavern

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,965 posts

Posted 05 December 2018 - 07:00 PM

what comes around goes around, imo.  it was worse when people had 2 starting QB's in their lineup several years back.  their starter in their QB position and Joe Webb in their WR position.

 

the only fair way, imo, is let the luck of the draw of the website designation rule.  otherwise you end up with someone saying that colston in TE spot is justified but samuels is not, etc.  very very difficult to be consistent

 

edit: that being said, i would not blame anyone for switching FROM yahoo next season.  YAHOO seems to be the one that gets this crap wrong most often

In all fairness he was never picked up in my league until today. I didnt even know he had a TE designation next to his name until yesterday. I picked 9 on waivers so obviously I had no chance.

Im sure you can see how unfair it is to see a team strut out a RB who probably gets 20 touches to play TE instead of some bloke TE.



#64 eclipse3321

eclipse3321

    FF Rookie

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 01:41 AM

Do I start Samuels over Gronk at TE? Gronk has been so inconsistent but he has a decent matchup this week. 



#65 TheUsualSuspect

TheUsualSuspect

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 2,366 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 02:26 AM

Clearly some of you are unemployed.

Ive never heard or read the word blowback before this thread, and still dont know what it means. Thank You.

If any given player is listed as RB, TE, K, dinosaur... what does it matter if guy has been listed the same thing since August? Ie) Samuels. Any league member has had access to that same versatile piece of poo for four months.

Now, if Yahoo for example CHANGED players position mid-season, there is an issue... but they did not.

Side Note: I hope Samuels goes like 5-12, 4 rec for 19 yds.

Go to sleep.
"I don't want your money... I want your bookie's money." -Walter Abrams

#66 Crystal Meth Tweekers

Crystal Meth Tweekers

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 562 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 08:30 AM

Do I start Samuels over Gronk at TE? Gronk has been so inconsistent but he has a decent matchup this week. 

 

 

C'mon man really? It may work out for you but Gronk is a hall of fame TE who has been good forever. 



#67 jimaveli

jimaveli

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 2,261 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 08:51 AM

The guy is not a tight end. At all. Most of the earth knows this. What are we doing?

Maybe the world has not been the same since the Contra Code, Game Genies, YouTube walk-throughs, and create-a-character modes that allow people to create 99-rated entities. With that, many people are okay with obvious shenanigans in competitions? Is that what this is?

#68 jgcrawfish

jgcrawfish

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 14,253 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 03:22 PM

what comes around goes around, imo.  it was worse when people had 2 starting QB's in their lineup several years back.  their starter in their QB position and Joe Webb in their WR position.

 

the only fair way, imo, is let the luck of the draw of the website designation rule.  otherwise you end up with someone saying that colston in TE spot is justified but samuels is not, etc.  very very difficult to be consistent

 

edit: that being said, i would not blame anyone for switching FROM yahoo next season.  YAHOO seems to be the one that gets this crap wrong most often

I still think the Colston thing was more egregious.  Colston hit a point where it was putting up consistent WR1 points at the TE spot.  There was a guy in one of my leagues (if I recall correctly) that was alternating Colston and Gates (in his prime) at his Flex/TE spot in a 2 Flex league.  Like it wasn't unfair enough he had Gates, but he was putting up beatdowns weekly with TE's??!!!  

 

I'm in complete agreement, I don't know why anybody would continue to play yahoo leagues since this has been a regular occurrence for them that they refuse to fix.  Completely ridiculous.  



"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

#69 cyclone24

cyclone24

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 16,746 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 03:38 PM

I definitely think next year I'm going to scour Yahoo to look for these guys just to have them on the radar. I luckily got samuels but it was not by some great foresight.
It's completely stupid that hes listed as a tight end but also pretty stupid if you don't take advantage of it.
Kid i wish i could buy you at what youre really worth and sell you for what you think youre worth
Mickey Mantle to Joe Pepitone.

#70 posty

posty

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 38,323 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 05:08 PM

I still think the Colston thing was more egregious.  Colston hit a point where it was putting up consistent WR1 points at the TE spot.  There was a guy in one of my leagues (if I recall correctly) that was alternating Colston and Gates (in his prime) at his Flex/TE spot in a 2 Flex league.  Like it wasn't unfair enough he had Gates, but he was putting up beatdowns weekly with TE's??!!!  
 
I'm in complete agreement, I don't know why anybody would continue to play yahoo leagues since this has been a regular occurrence for them that they refuse to fix.  Completely ridiculous.  


This is not Yahoos fault as they get they information from their stat provider.

And there is nothing to fix as they do not remove positions during the season.

#71 kilroy69

kilroy69

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 27,231 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 05:32 PM

I used Samuels at TE for the first game of the year. Got me like 3 point less than najoku did. Which was 0. Hopefully this will work better.
Its still not a hummingbird.

#72 cavern

cavern

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,965 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 07:27 PM

then why do the other websites correctly list samuels as only a rb?

 

 

This is not Yahoos fault as they get they information from their stat provider.

And there is nothing to fix as they do not remove positions during the season.



#73 EternalShinyAndChrome

EternalShinyAndChrome

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 2,830 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 11:54 PM

Sweet!  Slapped Samuels into my TE spot and now can play another RB.



#74 American Chewy

American Chewy

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 2,943 posts

Posted 07 December 2018 - 04:44 AM

Beginning next season our league is instituting a rule that if a player isn't eligible for a position on other major fantasy sites like espn, nfl, cbs, ect then he can't be used in that spot.  I honestly don't expect this to be much of an issue, this Samuels thing feels pretty isolated in that it's only one site screwing up his positional eligibility.  I can't recall another time this happened...i assume the Colston thing was on multiple sites, as well as the joe webb situation.



#75 posty

posty

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 38,323 posts

Posted 07 December 2018 - 08:43 AM

then why do the other websites correctly list samuels as only a rb?


Different stat provider...

#76 Phil Simms 11

Phil Simms 11

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,667 posts

Posted 07 December 2018 - 09:57 AM

Beginning next season our league is instituting a rule that if a player isn't eligible for a position on other major fantasy sites like espn, nfl, cbs, ect then he can't be used in that spot.  I honestly don't expect this to be much of an issue, this Samuels thing feels pretty isolated in that it's only one site screwing up his positional eligibility.  I can't recall another time this happened...i assume the Colston thing was on multiple sites, as well as the joe webb situation.


Your league already voted on that for next year? Was in unanimous?

#77 jgcrawfish

jgcrawfish

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 14,253 posts

Posted 07 December 2018 - 10:07 AM

Youre league already voted on that for next year? Was in unanimous?

No, it was voted in unilaterally.   <_<



"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

#78 cavern

cavern

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,965 posts

Posted 07 December 2018 - 10:08 AM

now that is a policy i can agree with if it's done in advance.  well done

Beginning next season our league is instituting a rule that if a player isn't eligible for a position on other major fantasy sites like espn, nfl, cbs, ect then he can't be used in that spot.  I honestly don't expect this to be much of an issue, this Samuels thing feels pretty isolated in that it's only one site screwing up his positional eligibility.  I can't recall another time this happened...i assume the Colston thing was on multiple sites, as well as the joe webb situation.



#79 posty

posty

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 38,323 posts

Posted 07 December 2018 - 10:10 AM

Beginning next season our league is instituting a rule that if a player isn't eligible for a position on other major fantasy sites like espn, nfl, cbs, ect then he can't be used in that spot.  I honestly don't expect this to be much of an issue, this Samuels thing feels pretty isolated in that it's only one site screwing up his positional eligibility.  I can't recall another time this happened...i assume the Colston thing was on multiple sites, as well as the joe webb situation.


What platform do you use?

How are you going to enforce it?

#80 American Chewy

American Chewy

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 2,943 posts

Posted 07 December 2018 - 09:43 PM

Your league already voted on that for next year? Was in unanimous?

 

No, it was voted in unilaterally.   <_<

 

sorry i guess it will be "official" at the draft next season when we talk about rule changes.  everyone in our chat seemed to be for it though when we talked about it.