American Chewy

8th round feels about right. i'm sure there will be plenty of people who reach for him...though i like that this may not be well known by everyone for my draft tomorrow.

theres definitely a "less is more" to this place

Heard its a quad bruise. Apparently nothing to be worried about.

fair. like i said i will be debating this. personally i'm not convinced samuels will steal a lot, the history of pitt is to rely heavily on one guy. i feel conner would have to get injured or somehow fail badly to lose his high usage %.

i'm going to be drafting in the middle of the first round (likely 6th) in .5 ppr, what i want there is reliable production. people are considering drafting DJ high based on 2+ years ago in a totally different system with an established QB. Hopkins or a RB like Conner feel like safer plays here. i've got a month to sort it out at least. this thread helps.

Has anyone done a 16 week H2H regular season with no playoffs? This is something im considering. There is growing discontent with the randomness of the playoffs...we have the 5 and 6 seeds playing for a title this yr and in 17 seasons the first place reg season winner has won the league playoffs twice.

down to the dregs....lions@buf, redskins@jax, and giants v tenn are my options. leaning redskins just cause the o/u in that game is 36. smells like a total garbage game.

honestly i think west is just a warm body at this point, a depth player who already knew the system and would be ok in an emergency. i realize we are getting very close to an emergency but i highly doubt he gets some kind of big workload, maybe a series or a breather snap. williams should be the guy.

ware doubtful now...i picked up williams. appears in the least he will get the ball around the goaline.

anyone who did that deserved what they got

look man, i'm only looking out for the most egregious of situations. like being able to start a qb in a wr/te/rb spot or a rb/qb in a te spot. how often has this happened in the last say, 20 years, where only one site had this mis-designation and the rest of the fantasy universe didn't? maybe twice (webb and samuels)? if you think its some great strategy to take advantage of platform errors and thats your path to hopeful victory, then i guess you can stay in your league and i'll stay in mine. after much open discussion all week my leaguemates are fine with this rule change going forward, its not some dictatorship.

yahoo. i already check starting rosters before kickoff of games so if theres any player this is an issue for (again, i expect this to be extremely rare and unlikely to be something to worry about week to week) i'll contact the owner so he can make changes.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

yeah but "if" they beat the steelers, and thats a big if on the road, they get a layup vs cincy, so at worst they are a game back of KC with a chance to tie them with a win at arrowhead for the division. and its not impossible to say the chiefs could stumble vs baltimore and perhaps they go into that game already tied. a lot hinges on what the chargers do vs pitt. was just so dumb to keep playing starters in that 2nd half last week.