Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
RB/WR Ty Montgomery, NE (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Run It Up
- Start date
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Until the team designates him as a RB, I actually do think it's debatable. And I have 88 and a vested interest in seeing him convert to RB.
strong
Footballguy
What the heck is this guy's dynasty value right now? Trembley just put out his weekly rankings and has Ty as the #4 ranked WR this week
With the logjam at RB (Starks back in a few weeks) and the overall poor play of the entire offense, maybe now is time to sell high.
i'd have him slated around WR20 ROS.
dyno-wise, i could see asking for something in the value range of WR20 to WR35 for him. i probably wouldn't move him for anything less.
JFS171
Footballguy
To me, Yahoo is being pretty arbitrary and petty about this. The guy is playing RB.. he's done so for 2 games, which is 12.5% of the games of an NFL season. In baseball, yahoo has the LOWEST position requirements to be eligible at 10 games, which is just over 6% of the games in an MLB season.
So, effectively Ty is double the position eligibility the yahoo platform requires to grant an MLB player an additional position. The other sites granting RB eligibility is only further evidence, but MLB depth charts don't list utility infielders at all 4 infield positions... they just list them as whatever their primary position is. Machado was mentioned earlier -- he was Baltimore's 3B for a long time, then got 10 games at SS, and boom - no questions asked, he had both.
Yahoo has precedent in place, IMO. The sports are different, but they've done this in baseball, and they've done it in basketball.
So, effectively Ty is double the position eligibility the yahoo platform requires to grant an MLB player an additional position. The other sites granting RB eligibility is only further evidence, but MLB depth charts don't list utility infielders at all 4 infield positions... they just list them as whatever their primary position is. Machado was mentioned earlier -- he was Baltimore's 3B for a long time, then got 10 games at SS, and boom - no questions asked, he had both.
Yahoo has precedent in place, IMO. The sports are different, but they've done this in baseball, and they've done it in basketball.
hamsterdam
Footballguy
I find it pretty ironic that people crying injustice over dual eligibility are happy to plug a guy that is playing majority snaps at RB in their WR slot and gladly take the points from the RB production.
I mean, if Monty ends up taking up to 90% of his snaps at RB ROS as most suspect, this ruling is just silly. I'm not even mad that he would still have WR eligibility, but assign the guy the position he is playing
I mean, if Monty ends up taking up to 90% of his snaps at RB ROS as most suspect, this ruling is just silly. I'm not even mad that he would still have WR eligibility, but assign the guy the position he is playing
JFS171
Footballguy
I don't know that I'd even use him at RB, but it'd be pretty helpful during the bye weeks to have the eligibility... and I think Yahoo is just being contrarian right now rather than actually following the fantasy sports precedent their own website has used in the past.
Interseptopus
Footballguy
For those of us in ESPN leagues that mucked things up worse, how would you enforce roster maximums?
For example, max 4 rbs and 5wr. Picked up before position change, now technically has 5 rbs. Guess the same owner could probably pull off having 6 wrs including him? Guess that's a question for them huh?
For the record, I'm in the WR camp. Played in Yahoo and ESPN leagues and lived through the Colston bs and cost me a championship because i tried to follow the limit rules set by our league.
Cry on for those who don't have him rostered.
For example, max 4 rbs and 5wr. Picked up before position change, now technically has 5 rbs. Guess the same owner could probably pull off having 6 wrs including him? Guess that's a question for them huh?
For the record, I'm in the WR camp. Played in Yahoo and ESPN leagues and lived through the Colston bs and cost me a championship because i tried to follow the limit rules set by our league.
Cry on for those who don't have him rostered.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Fwiw CBS still has him as a WR.
I'm really not in favor of the dual position change. Consider Jimmy Graham and Gronk and players like that. I just think players should just be one position, that which they are assigend by their teams.
Btw DJ Foster has this very same issue. He is a WR in CBS.
I'm really not in favor of the dual position change. Consider Jimmy Graham and Gronk and players like that. I just think players should just be one position, that which they are assigend by their teams.
Btw DJ Foster has this very same issue. He is a WR in CBS.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Yeah I know, it is ridiculous, I noticed this early on, was wondering what to do and figured I would cross that bridge when I got to it, if he ever became startable. Never thought it would come up with another player.
FWIW - nfl.com explanation:
" In order to avoid real-life conflicts of interest, NFL.com Fantasy may only reflect contractual, positional, or injury designation changes for players in our platform once they are officially submitted by the player's team. In other words, a player must be what he is because that's what the team that signed him said he is, not because of statistics, ability, pay, rumors, or reports. This is because we are the NFL; not just a media company reporting on the NFL. "
" In order to avoid real-life conflicts of interest, NFL.com Fantasy may only reflect contractual, positional, or injury designation changes for players in our platform once they are officially submitted by the player's team. In other words, a player must be what he is because that's what the team that signed him said he is, not because of statistics, ability, pay, rumors, or reports. This is because we are the NFL; not just a media company reporting on the NFL. "
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
As always, place them correctly and let the chips fall however they may. Nobody can fault a service for moving him to RB. Even if it hurts an owner. Anything less is a dereliction of duty. And a complete lack of quality control.
I had Rod Bernstine at TE for a couple years. Was pure bullcrap. I watched Kordell destroy a league at WR on a team that started Bledsoe at QB.
Its okay if it takes a couple weeks for verification, but not to just wash your hands of it and say some silly generalized statement.
I had Rod Bernstine at TE for a couple years. Was pure bullcrap. I watched Kordell destroy a league at WR on a team that started Bledsoe at QB.
Its okay if it takes a couple weeks for verification, but not to just wash your hands of it and say some silly generalized statement.
This is a lot different than Colston was. Montgomery has been a WR all year, and all of last year before injury. He's been a RB for a week. Now he'll likely see most of his touches at RB these next couple weeks, but its entirely possible that once Starks is back, Montgomery is seeing just as much time at WR again.
I can see why he should get RB status, but under no circumstances should he lose WR status.
I can see why he should get RB status, but under no circumstances should he lose WR status.
Interseptopus
Footballguy
I am a-okay if he never gains rb status. I'd love to play a rb at wr. especially a ppr rb. way more valuable at wr. he only gains value at rb if you are thin or if he switches back to wr and settles into wr3 position which he won't because adams looked great last week.
I have Bell and Ajayi. Bernard as my Rb2/3. Montgomery would help if Ajayi turns into a pumpkin and Benard continues to be ho-hum. For now I'm fine with him at WR and its only a matter of time before Yahoo switches
I have Bell and Ajayi. Bernard as my Rb2/3. Montgomery would help if Ajayi turns into a pumpkin and Benard continues to be ho-hum. For now I'm fine with him at WR and its only a matter of time before Yahoo switches
montana_grizzly_bears
Footballguy
I put in a bid on him but doubt I will get him. Does anyone else have the conundrum of starting Montgomery and Cobb at wr 1 and 2 that I would have?
Interseptopus
Footballguy
I'd start both. this week will be a high scoring affair. although I see them getting Jordy more involved if they can. they seem to do that historically... ignore a WR one week because of coverage then he gets 12 receptions the nextmontana_grizzly_bears said:
Interseptopus
Footballguy
Crowell and Benard yes. would be Monty if he was eligible so I guess it'd help me but I really think his value is better at wr
Interseptopus
Footballguy
didn't see this link on here yet.
yahoo posted their most recent position. ty stays a wr. I still think that makes him more valuable...
https://sports.yahoo.com/news/why-ty-montgomery-isnt-rb-eligible-on-yahoo-for-now-202522018.html
yahoo posted their most recent position. ty stays a wr. I still think that makes him more valuable...
https://sports.yahoo.com/news/why-ty-montgomery-isnt-rb-eligible-on-yahoo-for-now-202522018.html
Pigskin Fanatic
Footballguy
I have what he has but Dez instead of TY and play in a deep 14 team keeper auction league. amazing how often people post this question.cjv123 said:
mine's a salary league and trying to swap pryor for montgomery in the FAAB waiver tonight. had all my money tied up in pryor after week 1 FAAB. pretty much will be maxing out my cap for montgomery, hope this pans out. i would prefer he doesn't get designated RB, but looks like that's a foregone conclusion. i would have had him for $1 last week, had i remembered on Wednesday that the packs play Thursday, locking him out after wednesday night waiver. ugh.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dizzy
Footballguy
I wonder if the "real life" conflicts have anything to do with franchise tagging. Wasn't this an issue with Jimmy Graham when he was still in New Orleans? Something like he wanted to be recognized (officially) as a WR because of how often he lined up outside, but the team stuck to their guns that he was a TE. Huge difference in franchise tag payout between those two positions.DZ2300 said:
Not sure it applies here, but you could see where Ty Montgomery may be in a similar position one day and uses the NFL's "official" fantasy football site where they recognize him as a RB as support for his argument.
All just speculation of course.
Hilts
Footballguy
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Interseptopus
Footballguy
I don't mean to. id expext people tk be thin this year! all I'm saying is its more valuable to have a rb playing wr for your fantasy team than the other way around. by points.
but yes the more positions a guy is eligible for the better it is for the fantasy player because they are better off with byes injuries etc
Tommy Collins
Footballguy
cr8f
Footballguy
His injury last year was serious.
Ty Montgomery's injury was serious.
Montgomery said his surgery contained three parts: tight ropes inserted into his ligaments to hold them in place, a cartilage repair and — perhaps most serious — a microfracture procedure on his talus (a bone between the heel and fibula and tibia).
“I think there’s a stigma with a sprain,” Montgomery said. “But what I think a lot of people don’t understand is sprain means partial tear. And people forget I had the surgery in December.”
Ty Montgomery's injury was serious.
Montgomery said his surgery contained three parts: tight ropes inserted into his ligaments to hold them in place, a cartilage repair and — perhaps most serious — a microfracture procedure on his talus (a bone between the heel and fibula and tibia).
“I think there’s a stigma with a sprain,” Montgomery said. “But what I think a lot of people don’t understand is sprain means partial tear. And people forget I had the surgery in December.”
cr8f
Footballguy
Mine is 1.5PPR for RB's and 1 for WR's, but I'm better stocked at WR so staying where I'm at.The league where I have him is 1RB 3WR 2Flex, so I don't mind that my commish said he wasn't changing the position midseason. Heck, maybe I get to start 4 RBs when Martin is back now
worrierking
Footballguy
I may be in dead-horse-beating territory with this by now, but I think it's stupid that the Green Bay Packers can choose to start him at running back but a fantasy owner cannot. If the owner came to me as a commissioner and asked the question "why can't I start him at running back?" I would not have a good answer except maybe that our league software can't handle it. If I said that our league rules did not have a way of handling it, that might fly, but it might also call for some commissioner's ruling or league vote, which would be unsatisfactory.
This needs to be addressed by the software providers and by the individual leagues before the season. If a league chooses to say that there will be no position changes during the season, that's ok (I would disagree with it) but at least it would have a rule to go by. I personally believe a threshold of plays, runs, or starts that is predetermined should be part of any league rules prior to the season.
I know a lot of people think this is no big deal because in most leagues you can just flex him or start him at WR, but in a sixteen team auction league with two RB required and injuries and bye weeks, having him able to start at RB is a big deal. I didn't get him in our free agent auction, so it's immaterial, but I am looking at starting Draughn at RB in week nine. Montgomery would have been a significant upgrade if I had been able to get him. And it's stupid that the Packers can start him at RB and a fantasy owner can't.
This needs to be addressed by the software providers and by the individual leagues before the season. If a league chooses to say that there will be no position changes during the season, that's ok (I would disagree with it) but at least it would have a rule to go by. I personally believe a threshold of plays, runs, or starts that is predetermined should be part of any league rules prior to the season.
I know a lot of people think this is no big deal because in most leagues you can just flex him or start him at WR, but in a sixteen team auction league with two RB required and injuries and bye weeks, having him able to start at RB is a big deal. I didn't get him in our free agent auction, so it's immaterial, but I am looking at starting Draughn at RB in week nine. Montgomery would have been a significant upgrade if I had been able to get him. And it's stupid that the Packers can start him at RB and a fantasy owner can't.
Warhogs
Footballguy
This has been discussed many times but most leagues use positions assigned by an outside source or just have a rule saying no positions will be adjusted during the season. In my opinion you have to have something. I played in a league a long time ago that Kordell Stewart was playing QB but allowed to be played at TE. If J.J. Watt plays a few plays during the year at TE do you make him TE eligible? If Julio Jones lines up at TE in a formation can you then play him at TE? Some of this obviously gets ridiculous but setting a threshold for position eligibility becomes murky rather quickly.
worrierking
Footballguy
Not if the threshold is reasonable. Set it at 40 snaps or 20 carries for a running back. 40 Snaps or ten receptions for a TE or WR.
jtd13
Footballguy
shadyridr
Footballguy
Interseptopus
Footballguy
I made a post to this somewhere else in this thread or in another thread somewhere... it was honestly threatening for him to maybe sit out this season if it didn't go too well. He started August on PUP I believe.
mnmplayer
Footballguy
Looks like this thread got hijacked into a philosophical debate about positional designations ... so my 2 cents is ...
Just go with your software provider's decision. Whenever a conflict comes up say, "take it up with yahoo or ESPN," to the owner that is whining for some rule change like this. "If you can get yahoo to change their mind with your compelling argument and he gets RB status then the change will also be reflected in our league." It's like appealing to a higher court. I would advise most commissioners take this position, that way the owners can take out their frustrations and venting out on Yahoo instead of on you ... and who knows, maybe they will be convinced in the end if enough people agree.
This also works in the case of ESPN where the other 11 owners in the league that do not have Ty are complaining about the rule change. "Take it up with ESPN." If there were not already rules stipulating what to do under these kinds of conditions you are potentially going to at worst blow up the league or at least piss off an owner enough with your seemingly arbitrary decision to lose them.
This has nothing to do with the fact that I landed Ty in ESPN and not in yahoo, seriously. I find it surprising that yahoo hasn't changed him yet (as of now) and I think they will eventually. They are using the same strategy to deflect owner rage towards the GB packers with this statement, "... but we’re standing by the fact that the Packers haven’t listed Montgomery as a running back on their official depth chart. If and when that happens, we will update his position designation."
Now they are appealing to a higher court (GB) to change something. The problem is GB doesn't give a crap about fantasy teams (I don't think).
Calling for a league vote is like having an election on what's for dinner between 11 wolves and 1 sheep. It's not fair to call for a league vote that will benefit most players in the league if it doesn't pass and only one if it does. Might as well not even have the vote.
Just go with your software provider's decision. Whenever a conflict comes up say, "take it up with yahoo or ESPN," to the owner that is whining for some rule change like this. "If you can get yahoo to change their mind with your compelling argument and he gets RB status then the change will also be reflected in our league." It's like appealing to a higher court. I would advise most commissioners take this position, that way the owners can take out their frustrations and venting out on Yahoo instead of on you ... and who knows, maybe they will be convinced in the end if enough people agree.
This also works in the case of ESPN where the other 11 owners in the league that do not have Ty are complaining about the rule change. "Take it up with ESPN." If there were not already rules stipulating what to do under these kinds of conditions you are potentially going to at worst blow up the league or at least piss off an owner enough with your seemingly arbitrary decision to lose them.
This has nothing to do with the fact that I landed Ty in ESPN and not in yahoo, seriously. I find it surprising that yahoo hasn't changed him yet (as of now) and I think they will eventually. They are using the same strategy to deflect owner rage towards the GB packers with this statement, "... but we’re standing by the fact that the Packers haven’t listed Montgomery as a running back on their official depth chart. If and when that happens, we will update his position designation."
Now they are appealing to a higher court (GB) to change something. The problem is GB doesn't give a crap about fantasy teams (I don't think).
Calling for a league vote is like having an election on what's for dinner between 11 wolves and 1 sheep. It's not fair to call for a league vote that will benefit most players in the league if it doesn't pass and only one if it does. Might as well not even have the vote.
Tommy Collins
Footballguy
The DC was updated again yesterday. James Starks is the #1 RB. Montgomery is still listed as a WR. I don't foresee that changing this year.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hilts
Footballguy
They cite he's only filling in at the position because of injury. So what? Who cares why he's there. He's there and has been two games and will be a couple more. Yahoo didn't stop Machado from gaining shortstop eligibility even though he's a third baseman and was only playing a bunch of games because of injuries.
They cite others playing some snaps at other positions like it's relevant. It's not. This isn't playing a few snaps at another position. This is lining up at the position from start to finish, and staying there the whole time, getting lots of work. Over multiple games. It's highly unusual but it happened. Can't compare it to different scenarios.
Last edited by a moderator:
montana_grizzly_bears
Footballguy
Another case of things being needed to be written into league bylaws. As is our league has it written that a players position is determined by the nfl.com designation and that is the final say. As with anything else, never change the rules or make a rule mid season. Keep it in mind for next year and propose it then. For now, suck it up and QYB.
Also, those of you bringing up Baseball examples- look at the settings. You can actually see the place where they track the different positions for eligibility for each player. IIRC ESPN requires that a player play the position in 10 different games before he can be used there.
Also, those of you bringing up Baseball examples- look at the settings. You can actually see the place where they track the different positions for eligibility for each player. IIRC ESPN requires that a player play the position in 10 different games before he can be used there.
