Stupid Yahoo allowing Webb as a WR in Championship game!

[surferskin 30]

“The object is to win fairly, by the rules – but to win.” - Vince Lombardi

 

Nice try winner.

 

I did win by the rules.

[Terrapin Flyer 0]

I did win by the rules.

 

Not fairly cheesebag.

[Law 220]

How many of the high and mighty, morally-superior to the rest of the world played Woodhead on their team? At what position, WR or RB? Was either one "fair?" What are your thoughts on that, or is just that YOU and you alone decide in which instance what is fair and what is morally corrupt?

[Puddleglum 0]

How many of the high and mighty, morally-superior to the rest of the world played Woodhead on their team? At what position, WR or RB? Was either one "fair?" What are your thoughts on that, or is just that YOU and you alone decide in which instance what is fair and what is morally corrupt?

 

As a lawyer, surely you are accustomed to the subtle but significant nuances that can swing an argument one way or another. I'll break it down for you. (Full disclosure: I didn't have any dual-elegibility players on my roster this year)

 

First, I acknowledge that the Danny Woodhead situation is similar. I think it too demonstrates a weakness in the Yahoo system of keeping dual elegibility the entire year reguardless of how a player is used, and there was a certain degree of unfairness in starting him at WR. He is obviously an RB but the impact was less significant and less objectionable for a number of reasons.

 

• Yahoo rosters have a WR-RB flex position by default, and Woodhead was mostly a flex play based on production anyways.
  
• Woodhead's yards break down to ~ 58% rushing and 42% recieving.
  
• Woodhead played actual games as both RB and WR for the Jets last year, and he started the season with the Jets.
  

By comparison:

 

• 
   
  
• I have never heard of a flex position that allows a QB to play. (This would be a defacto 2-QB roster)
  
• Joe Webb's yards break down to ~ 78% passing, 22% rushing, and 0% recieving.
  
• Joe Webb has never played a snap at WR caught a pass in the NFL.
  

 

HTH

 

EDIT: Last point corrected, apparently Webb did play a few snaps against the Bills as the WR4.

[mobb_deep 917]

• Joe Webb has never played a snap at WR in the NFL.
  

 

HTH

 

wrong. HTH.

[Terrapin Flyer 0]

How many of the high and mighty, morally-superior to the rest of the world played Woodhead on their team? At what position, WR or RB? Was either one "fair?" What are your thoughts on that, or is just that YOU and you alone decide in which instance what is fair and what is morally corrupt?

 

I wonder how many of the low down, dirty, morally bankrupt "winners" would have cried like little b!tches if someone had pulled the same unsportsman like move on them. Get the hell out of here. And Puddleglum said everything there is to say about Woodhead. Spot on!

[Puddleglum 0]

wrong. HTH.

My mistake, it looks like Webb played a few snaps as the 4th WR during the Bills game. Post edited accordingly.

[Law 220]

I wonder how many of the low down, dirty, morally bankrupt "winners" would have cried like little b!tches if someone had pulled the same unsportsman like move on them. Get the hell out of here.

 

 

See, here's the thing for me....I don't care about this because it really should be a non-issue. I mean, how many championship caliber teams found themselves in a position to use a player like Webb in the first place? I mean, he was FAR more likely to have negative points against the Eagles than positive. How was a team good enough to get to the final, now so bad as to rely on that risk!??!

 

No one in my three leagues played him. There were far better options than that risk. Most weren't about to play all season to then throw a wild crap shot with Webb. Sure, some out there somewhere did. What was their risk again? Extremely high! If they won using him, so what. It's morally wrong and it's certainly not cheating. I ask again, how do you cheat in a computerized game? You can't. If you were able to play him, it was legal and therefore by definition NOT cheating.

 

But, it's this vocal minority that's attempting to take the moral high ground and say that it is cheating because they wouldn't do it. Well, good for you! I'm sure you're that much closer to sainthood. I'd also like to take a look at every other aspect of your live and see if you're as equally superior. Clearly this is something you are ok with as you find it your place to decide what others should do or think. What are your taxes like? Use any loopholes there? Ever "borrow" some office supplies from work? Oh no, look out! It's a slippery slope!

 

Just as it is for a few, the minority, taking upon themselves to decide what it s right and what is wrong for the majority. Who died and left you God? Just because you have a different opinion than everyone else, does NOT make your opinion right and it certainly does not make you as morally superior as you try to portray yourself.

 

It just makes you all look like giant pompous asses. And even bigger crybabies.

[Terrapin Flyer 0]

See, here's the thing for me....I don't care about this because it really should be a non-issue. I mean, how many championship caliber teams found themselves in a position to use a player like Webb in the first place? I mean, he was FAR more likely to have negative points against the Eagles than positive. How was a team good enough to get to the final, now so bad as to rely on that risk!??!

 

No one in my three leagues played him. There were far better options than that risk. Most weren't about to play all season to then throw a wild crap shot with Webb. Sure, some out there somewhere did. What was their risk again? Extremely high! If they won using him, so what. It's morally wrong and it's certainly not cheating. I ask again, how do you cheat in a computerized game? You can't. If you were able to play him, it was legal and therefore by definition NOT cheating.

 

But, it's this vocal minority that's attempting to take the moral high ground and say that it is cheating because they wouldn't do it. Well, good for you! I'm sure you're that much closer to sainthood. I'd also like to take a look at every other aspect of your live and see if you're as equally superior. Clearly this is something you are ok with as you find it your place to decide what others should do or think. What are your taxes like? Use any loopholes there? Ever "borrow" some office supplies from work? Oh no, look out! It's a slippery slope!

 

Just as it is for a few, the minority, taking upon themselves to decide what it s right and what is wrong for the majority. Who died and left you God? Just because you have a different opinion than everyone else, does NOT make your opinion right and it certainly does not make you as morally superior as you try to portray yourself.

 

It just makes you all look like giant pompous asses. And even bigger crybabies.

 

Well, as a matter of fact, I do not take office supplies or anything else that doesn't belong to me because I believe there are consequences. Even if you don't get caught you will have to answer for it on one level or another. I don't expect you to beieve me and I've nothing to prove to anyone on a message board anyway. I do not claim to be a saint. I am wrong in many things I do but I try to do the right thing as often as possible. I am only morally superior to the morally bankrupt.

 

I agree that it was probably not an issue in the majority of leagues but it is the attempt at justifying a cheesey move that sticks in my craw. Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should. Its about integrity man but as a lawyer I'm sure you're not familiar with that concept.

[Puddleglum 0]

I agree that it was probably not an issue in the majority of leagues but it is the attempt at justifying a cheesey move that sticks in my craw. Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should. Its about integrity man but as a lawyer I'm sure you're not familiar with that concept.

 

BOOM ROASTED!

[Puddleglum 0]

See, here's the thing for me....I don't care about this because it really should be a non-issue. I mean, how many championship caliber teams found themselves in a position to use a player like Webb in the first place? I mean, he was FAR more likely to have negative points against the Eagles than positive. How was a team good enough to get to the final, now so bad as to rely on that risk!??!

 

No one in my three leagues played him. There were far better options than that risk. Most weren't about to play all season to then throw a wild crap shot with Webb. Sure, some out there somewhere did. What was their risk again? Extremely high! If they won using him, so what. It's morally wrong and it's certainly not cheating. I ask again, how do you cheat in a computerized game? You can't. If you were able to play him, it was legal and therefore by definition NOT cheating.

I actually think the argument about risk is the best leg you have to stand on. It's easy for us all to say after the fact that it was flagrant abuse of a Yahoo quirk, and unfair, and the rest, but if Webb had thrown a pick in the 1st quarter and got knocked out of the game, we would all just be having a good laugh about it now. It truly was a big risk to rely on him in the championship game.

 

But, it's this vocal minority that's attempting to take the moral high ground and say that it is cheating because they wouldn't do it. Well, good for you! I'm sure you're that much closer to sainthood. I'd also like to take a look at every other aspect of your live and see if you're as equally superior. Clearly this is something you are ok with as you find it your place to decide what others should do or think. What are your taxes like? Use any loopholes there? Ever "borrow" some office supplies from work? Oh no, look out! It's a slippery slope!

This is weak stuff, man. Have you really adopted the position that anyone who has ever done anything of questionable morality is now not allowed to have an opinion or stance on matters of fairness and sportsmanship?

 

Just as it is for a few, the minority, taking upon themselves to decide what it s right and what is wrong for the majority. Who died and left you God? Just because you have a different opinion than everyone else, does NOT make your opinion right and it certainly does not make you as morally superior as you try to portray yourself.

Of course simply having an opinion doesn't make me or anyone else right. The whole point of dialoging and debating is so each argument and position can be articulated and evaluated by others. I demolished your Danny Woodhead argument and now you've decided to take cover in the concrete bunker of subjective morality.

 

It just makes you all look like giant pompous asses. And even bigger crybabies.

Name calling, brilliant!

 

So, to summarize, it was okay to start Joe Webb at WR because:

1. Everybody cheats a little here and there in life.
   
2. Morality is all subjective anyways, if you think it's okay then it is.
   
3. People who disagree are just crybabies.
   

 

Does this stuff fly in the courtroom?

[Law 220]

Its about integrity man but as a lawyer I'm sure you're not familiar with that concept.

 

 

Hmmm, lawyer jokes. Really? That's sad. You know what lawyer jokes tell me? They're fun when meant as fun, but when meant as fact or reality, they show an amazing level of ignorance. You tell me if your profession requires you to conduct yourself within a code of ethics some fifty pages long. THEN tell me about integrity!

 

But, you are who I thought you were.

 

[Terrapin Flyer 0]

Hmmm, lawyer jokes. Really? That's sad. You know what lawyer jokes tell me? They're fun when meant as fun, but when meant as fact or reality, they show an amazing level of ignorance. You tell me if your profession requires you to conduct yourself within a code of ethics some fifty pages long. THEN tell me about integrity! But, you are who I thought you were.

 

 

What does your professions code of ethics have to do with it? Politicians have a code of ethics too and I know of a few of them who may have bent them a little too far. The point is about not needing a code of ethics to do the ethical thing. You've already showed that you are willing to do shady things if you can get away with it. Integrity is doing the right thing when no one is looking. You are exactly who I thought you were.

[justforbeer 39]

Leave it to Law to say that everyone is a crook and underhanded.

 

When you say minority and it is a 55/45 split that is a bit of an overstatement as it is very close...

 

I am sure you don't realize this but when you are underhanded right in front of everyone to see, then you lose all respect as a fellow competitor.

 

In the courtroom, that is not an issue, but in normal life outside it is.

 

I lost because of Joe Webb. I also will note that that person is not invited back to our league either. We are also using CBS next year. It is a damn shame.

[truebigdog 0]

When you say minority and it is a 55/45 split that is a bit of an overstatement.

Really? Do you not know the meaning of the word, "minority"?

[TV's Frank 0]

So what we've learned is that playing a guy at WR -- who qualifies by the rules of the Web site in question as a WR -- is not only "cheating", but a sin against God and Man. Probably a little higher than gluttony or coveting your neighbor's ass on the big list, but slightly below adultery.