Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Is it bad sportsmanship to start QB/WR Joe Webb in Week 15? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter greenline
- Start date
ShaneFalco
Footballguy
You might as well start a poll that says: I am facing Joe Webb at WR or I am not facing Joe Webb at WR
two_dollars
Footballguy
Definitely bad sportsmanship to start a player at WR (who has not played a down at WR), that you KNOW going into the game he is taking every snap at QB. It's exploiting the position labeling. Pretty clear cut.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jeff Pasquino
Footballguy
I think it is a Yahoo quirk.Karma says that he'll throw 4 picks and be -3 at a WR spot.
goldenchild
Footballguy
footballnerd
Footballguy
If its not in the rules, play it or someone else will. I also don't think you can have selective enforcement either, one can argue that a RB starting at WR gets more touches than a WR3, yet no one is complaining there. If you change it for one position you have to change it for all.
I do guarantee that a lot of leagues will have a "Joe Webb" rule next year.
I do guarantee that a lot of leagues will have a "Joe Webb" rule next year.
Last edited by a moderator:
rocketsauce
Footballguy
Not to be a jerk....but play in league's that use reputable commish services, and avoid headaches like this one.
Colston never should've been TE eligible, and RB/WR Danny Woodhead was a joke.
As an above poster said -- He is a QB on MFL.
Colston never should've been TE eligible, and RB/WR Danny Woodhead was a joke.
As an above poster said -- He is a QB on MFL.
footballnerd
Footballguy
Exactly, it's not Tom Brady at WR, the guy could fail too.
az_prof
Footballguy
Maybe he won't even start. If you want to take the chance of starting him at WR, good luck with that. I would rather have Roddy White, Deion Branch, and Ochocino or Deion Branch (my starting WRs).
Instinctive
Footballguy
This link is all we need, I believe:
/thread
/thread
redBourne
Footballguy
I'd rather have those guys too, let me go check to see if one of them is on my waiver wire...Webb is a shot in the dark spot for people who are down on their luck at WR or need a flex. I'm happily and miraculously alive because of some lucky blow-ups last week. But my team is ravished with injuries and I could use a mediocre fill in as my last spot. Is that garbage WR that I've been holding on to all year hoping to pan out really worth it on my bench? Why not take a shot. And don't say "well you had better opportunities to pick up players or trade some away." I did, but my WW pickups didn't pan out and my trades ended in more injuries late in the season.Karma for me says he'll do me no better than my backup wr who I have to start now.
two_dollars
Footballguy
So you're happy there was someone who you know is playing QB all game that you can start in a position other than QB, and collect QB points on? I bet your league thinks very highly of you.
morris4903
Footballguy
If woodhead was allowed to play wr the whole season, then Webb can be played at QB.
two_dollars
Footballguy
He shouldn't have been.
Chaka
Footballguy
And charge it to Mr. Underhill.
Hipple Long Ware & Peete
Footballguy
lol @ the haterz. YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!
Two questions:
Do these league that allow such have comissioners or have they abdicated this? I don't play in the latter.
Is winning everything? I would rather lose playing the way I think the game should be played than win otherwise. So color me whichever way you like, but I do put my money where my mouth is. Loopholes are for losers, whether they cashout or not. Why? Because there is more to life than money. There is integrity.
Do these league that allow such have comissioners or have they abdicated this? I don't play in the latter.
Is winning everything? I would rather lose playing the way I think the game should be played than win otherwise. So color me whichever way you like, but I do put my money where my mouth is. Loopholes are for losers, whether they cashout or not. Why? Because there is more to life than money. There is integrity.
Last edited by a moderator:
i picked up webb as a backup in my 2 QB league not knowing of his WR designation. with 2 flex he would likely be a good start for me. i voted it was not sporting. is it fair? i guess. but its a technicality or loophole or even angleshoot. i would be peeved if my opponent was playing him.ShaneFalco said:
morris4903
Footballguy
That's fine. As long as your aren't changing the rules during the season. I agree that the loophole is stupid. I'm in a Yahoo league and I picked him up just so my opponent this week wouldn't get any ideas.two_dollars said:
thatguy
Footballguy
Wow. A lot of holier than thou attitudes in this thread. Every team in a givenleague at one point or another had equal access to guys like Woodhead and Webb, and Colston a few years ago. Smart owners in leagues that give these players multi-position eligibility should be well aware of their enhanced value, and act accordingly--this is no different than smart owners gaining advantage over their competition by drafting better, analyzing talent better, etc. It's just one more tactic in what is ultimately a very tactical game. It really is absurd to suggest that those who intend to play Webb at WR are somehow morally inferior. It is allowed by the rules set forth in Yahoo leagues. Who the hell cares? And FWIW, I don't play in any Yahoo leagues, don't own Woodhead or Webb, and have never owned Colston. I have no horse in this race, but I do believe a lot of you need to take a step down from that soapbox.
supersportniner
Footballguy
I'm looking at him on the waiver wire wondering if I dont pick him up my oponnet will and in my league you are granted 6 plus bonus points for 85 yrds passing crazy I know so he is almost guaranteed 9 points what to do HMMMM!!!
glong989
Footballguy
Join a new league. 6 points for 85 yards passing? What is it worth when someone drops 300+? 15 point bonus?
Last edited by a moderator:
Football Critic
Footballguy
Well....A ton of Haters all over.
First off, Yahoo! has him listed as a QB/WR, so he can be played as such and its not breaking the rules, gees.
Second, He has played both positions this year so what does it matter?
Third, he is not going to do anything spectacular.
Fourth, who are any of you to say what a player can or can not be listed as.
Fifth, in most parts something valuable is on the line and all is fair in love and war, and as far as i'm concern its war to win what I want in my league.
Sixth, do we need more threads about this?
He throws for 167 yards passing, 1 TD and 2 picks, 46 yards rushing 1 TD and 1 fumble. In my book thats 12 plus points in my Yahoo! league. Even without the second TD thats 6, and in a TD heavy league, thats ok with me at the 3rd WR spot.
First off, Yahoo! has him listed as a QB/WR, so he can be played as such and its not breaking the rules, gees.
Second, He has played both positions this year so what does it matter?
Third, he is not going to do anything spectacular.
Fourth, who are any of you to say what a player can or can not be listed as.
Fifth, in most parts something valuable is on the line and all is fair in love and war, and as far as i'm concern its war to win what I want in my league.
Sixth, do we need more threads about this?
He throws for 167 yards passing, 1 TD and 2 picks, 46 yards rushing 1 TD and 1 fumble. In my book thats 12 plus points in my Yahoo! league. Even without the second TD thats 6, and in a TD heavy league, thats ok with me at the 3rd WR spot.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
Talk about exploiting loopholes!!az_prof said:
FUBAR
Footballguy
This is the problem I would have, not so much where he starts but if the scoring is different for the position. Even if you're allowed to start him at WR, he should be scored as a QB and not get the bonus points like this.
by_the_sea_wannabe
:sj:
YesThe leagues I play in have a clause that wouldn't allow this but if it is legal then not only can you do it / you should do it if you think he will score the most points.Because if you don't try to score as many points as you can, you may be accused of tanking
Xue
Footballguy
I agree.George Wilson (BUF) was WR and S eligible last year in ESPN and one guy used him as a WR3 racking up IDP pts!
Jersey35
Footballguy
In leagues that allow this, I think it's fine. I think it's foolish and potentially damaging to a league to allow it, but what I think doesn't matter to most other leagues out there.
The bottom line is that if it's allowed, it's allowed, and you... allow it. If not, you don't. Most leagues I'm aware of have their own set of bylaws which supercede what the "website" does by default. One of the jobs of the commissioner is to enforce these bylaws over and above the website defaults. Some leagues simply use their fantasy service's rules, and that's fine. That being the case, most leagues that do simply follow their website defaults are probably going to be looking at this issue long and hard (especially if Webb somehow blows up at "WR") and be considering a rule addition in the offseason - and that should at least tell you a little something about whether or not taking advantage of this situation is truly good sportsmanship or not.
In my league, for example, I've ruled on these situations on a case-by-case basis. Usually once an owner brought the issue to my attention, usually either because they were lobbying to start a player at a position said player wasn't listed at (rare) or someone wanted to put the stops to another owner exploiting a site's clerical error by starting a player at a position they really weren't playing. I'll generally look at their official position listing on NFL.com first to see if there's a discrepancy - generally defaulting to NFL.com's listing when applicable.
The one that comes to mind most immediately was Marques Colston in his rookie year. The site we were using (I don't recall now) had him listed as a tight end all season. The owner who picked him up used him for one week at TE, won their matchup, it was brought to my attention, we discussed it, and Colston was moved to WR (in our league) for the remainder of the season - or until he started to actually play the TE position (which was never).
If a player is truly splitting time between positions, then I'd have no problem allowing a dual positional designation. The truth is that this is rarely the case. Joe Webb is playing QB this week. We'll be starting him, and scoring him, as a QB.
if your league has addressed this in the past and it's always been allowed, more power to ya. Go do it! If it's not allowed, then obviously don't. If it's never been addressed, tread cautiously, and be prepared with an alternate option, because someone in your league might think you're exploiting a loophole and you may be coming back here to post sour grapes on Monday.
*disclaimer: I own Webb and will not be starting him at any position. He's listed as a QB in our league. Our league scores all positions the same for the same accomplishments (though QB's would tend, on average, to score more points).
The bottom line is that if it's allowed, it's allowed, and you... allow it. If not, you don't. Most leagues I'm aware of have their own set of bylaws which supercede what the "website" does by default. One of the jobs of the commissioner is to enforce these bylaws over and above the website defaults. Some leagues simply use their fantasy service's rules, and that's fine. That being the case, most leagues that do simply follow their website defaults are probably going to be looking at this issue long and hard (especially if Webb somehow blows up at "WR") and be considering a rule addition in the offseason - and that should at least tell you a little something about whether or not taking advantage of this situation is truly good sportsmanship or not.
In my league, for example, I've ruled on these situations on a case-by-case basis. Usually once an owner brought the issue to my attention, usually either because they were lobbying to start a player at a position said player wasn't listed at (rare) or someone wanted to put the stops to another owner exploiting a site's clerical error by starting a player at a position they really weren't playing. I'll generally look at their official position listing on NFL.com first to see if there's a discrepancy - generally defaulting to NFL.com's listing when applicable.
The one that comes to mind most immediately was Marques Colston in his rookie year. The site we were using (I don't recall now) had him listed as a tight end all season. The owner who picked him up used him for one week at TE, won their matchup, it was brought to my attention, we discussed it, and Colston was moved to WR (in our league) for the remainder of the season - or until he started to actually play the TE position (which was never).
If a player is truly splitting time between positions, then I'd have no problem allowing a dual positional designation. The truth is that this is rarely the case. Joe Webb is playing QB this week. We'll be starting him, and scoring him, as a QB.
if your league has addressed this in the past and it's always been allowed, more power to ya. Go do it! If it's not allowed, then obviously don't. If it's never been addressed, tread cautiously, and be prepared with an alternate option, because someone in your league might think you're exploiting a loophole and you may be coming back here to post sour grapes on Monday.
*disclaimer: I own Webb and will not be starting him at any position. He's listed as a QB in our league. Our league scores all positions the same for the same accomplishments (though QB's would tend, on average, to score more points).
Last edited by a moderator:
Crusaderfan
Footballguy
I thought about it yesterday since the league I play in awards 1 pt per QB completion - so his numbers could be major. But I decided that I wanted to win by skill not by using a Yahoo loophole. I can only imagine the damage this will do to some leagues because not everyone has the same sportsmanship. yeah - it is a money league I play in but my need to win fairly is worth more to me. Just my 
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
I agree.I am a commisioner and had an owner call me about this this morning. He was looking to pick up Webb and wanted to know if he can start him at WR since he heard on the radio that Webb had both WR/QB eligibility. Reluctantly I told him if our site listed him at both positions I would really have little choice but to allow it - but I was pretty sure CBS only had him listed at QB (which thankfully is the case).
He was a college QB that was drafted to play WR but in OTAs they decided to keep him at QB where he has worked all season and has been on the depth chart as the thrid string QB. He's a QB, not a WR and people that want to start him know full well that he's starting at QB this week - I feel it would be a little cheesey to try and exploit a loophole, but at the same time I couldn't call it illegal or rule against it.
Before leagues were internet based, our league's rule was if you could find a player listed at a position in a major magazine, you could play him at that position. The only time it really came up and mattered was with Kordell Stewart, who was listed at WR one year. That was also back when all TDs were 6 points. The guy that took him cleaned up.
If your rules allow it, it's fair game.
If your rules allow it, it's fair game.
Lobary
Footballguy
Disagree completely. The Danny Woodhead owner in my league used him at WR throughout the season, and it helped get him to the playoffs. Was that bad sportsmanship on his part, or was he simply exploiting an opportunity within the league rules?Like Danny Woodhead's owner this season or Marques Colston's owner in 2006, those who snagged Webb off the waiver wire were capitalizing on the same opportunity. So what if I KNOW going into the game that he will likely be taking all his snaps at QB? My opponents presumably KNOW the same thing, or at least should know, and they had the same opportunity to pick him up.
I beat them to the punch. Nothing unsportsmanlike about it.
gethugefast1
Footballguy
Alex Smith would have 4 fantasy points last night in my league as a WR. 
Clifford
Footballguy
Glad to see a clear majority say its fine. Starting him at WR this week.
For those unfamiliar with Webb's college career, he was actually pretty amazing at QB for UAB, and he comprised 99% of their offense while he was there. Better runner than a passer which is why I think he has a shot at doing well despite the weather conditions. I could see 150 passing, 45 rushing, equal possibility of a TD and a pick. I can't imagine he'll be throwing too much. Probably mostly a ground game with him, Gerhart/Peterson, and Harvin.
For those unfamiliar with Webb's college career, he was actually pretty amazing at QB for UAB, and he comprised 99% of their offense while he was there. Better runner than a passer which is why I think he has a shot at doing well despite the weather conditions. I could see 150 passing, 45 rushing, equal possibility of a TD and a pick. I can't imagine he'll be throwing too much. Probably mostly a ground game with him, Gerhart/Peterson, and Harvin.
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
As a Bears D owner I'm salivating...
Football Critic
Footballguy
Thats pretty decent at WR 3, I had Ford last week, he got me .05 points! I'll take 4 from Webb.Alex Smith would have 4 fantasy points last night in my league as a WR.
footballnerd
Footballguy
lets take one more step into the Yahoo NBA leagues, there are a number of players in there that are given multiple positions but they only play one. I've seen Deron Williams given the PG/SG position when all he plays is PG, and people would pair him with another strong PG and dominate in assists. Multi-positions have been utilized by owners in Yahoo for quite some time now. I'm sure baseball and hockey have it too.
like i said earlier, you cant have selective enforcement. if you allowed an RB to play at WR all season, you can't enforce Webb to only play QB.
like i said earlier, you cant have selective enforcement. if you allowed an RB to play at WR all season, you can't enforce Webb to only play QB.
jackdubl
Footballguy
This reminds me of Marques Colston's rookie year when Yahoo had him listed as a WR/TE. I picked him up after week one and he was easily the number one TE that year, I believe. I am all in favor of exploiting whatever loophole you can find.
That being said, I would have a hard time plugging Webb in.
That being said, I would have a hard time plugging Webb in.
49erBamBam52
Footballguy
another example...
Spencer Havner!!
in IDP leagues he was a LB who started at TE for the packers for two games...
im happy to say i plugged him in at LB for those two games and he scored me three TD's in two games.
its a game, and if a player is designated as being able to play a position, it is ok to play him there... end of story.
BAM
ETA:
ESPN's spin on the subject...
Spin: Webb has practiced with the No. 1 offense and it looks like the Vikings are set to go with him as the starter and newly-signed Patrick Ramsey as his backup. Webb is a great athlete with outstanding speed, but is raw as a passer. Two weeks ago the Vikings moved him to receiver and he returned a kickoff, so also check to see if he qualifies at receiver - he could have hidden fantasy value at receiver while playing quarterback.
Spencer Havner!!
in IDP leagues he was a LB who started at TE for the packers for two games...
im happy to say i plugged him in at LB for those two games and he scored me three TD's in two games.
its a game, and if a player is designated as being able to play a position, it is ok to play him there... end of story.
BAM
ETA:
ESPN's spin on the subject...
Spin: Webb has practiced with the No. 1 offense and it looks like the Vikings are set to go with him as the starter and newly-signed Patrick Ramsey as his backup. Webb is a great athlete with outstanding speed, but is raw as a passer. Two weeks ago the Vikings moved him to receiver and he returned a kickoff, so also check to see if he qualifies at receiver - he could have hidden fantasy value at receiver while playing quarterback.
Last edited by a moderator:
goldenchild
Footballguy
It's pretty obvious that a lot of the people here are not, nor ever were, commissioners of their own leagues.How do we know this? Mark Sanchez isn't a QB/WR and he doesn't usually take every snap at QB (he splits out wide as WR at times when they go in the Seminole).Why is it bad sportsmanship to start a player at a spot he is eligible?
