Anyone else lose because of the QB/WR designation (1 Viewer)

[39407]

it's not like Webb was a slash or a multipurpose player, he was a flat out QB, no if ands or buts.

Seems there's a lot of people who are not about to let that little fact get in their way. Its pathetic really.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I'm curious to see where these folk stood with gianmarco's notifying the owner issue. I thought both gianmarco's decision and playing Webb at wr are acceptable moves.

 

[bleedgreen]

For those who are opposed to this: what if Webb had taken just one snap at WR? How about 2? How about half? Where do you draw the line?If you had the chance to pick him up (which I'm sure you did), it's your fault for getting beat fair and square.

Mike Vick rushes the ball several times a game. Maybe he should be able to start at RB?That would be sweet. Peyton Manning as my QB, Joe Webb as my WR, and Vick as my RB.

 

[39407]

I'm curious to see where these folk stood with gianmarco's notifying the owner issue. I thought both gianmarco's decision and playing Webb at wr are acceptable moves.

Anyone who is not a bushleague tool, has no business playing at Yahoo. That seems to be the lesson here.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I'm curious to see where these folk stood with gianmarco's notifying the owner issue. I thought both gianmarco's decision and playing Webb at wr are acceptable moves.

Anyone who is not a bushleague tool, has no business playing at Yahoo. That seems to be the lesson here.

:(

 

[bleedgreen]

In fact, why even bother having positions since technically any player could take a snap where points could accumulate across multiple categories. Running backs sometimes throw the ball, Tight Ends sometimes line up at receiver. Receivers sometimes run the ball. Why not just have 9 positions and fill them in with any players?

 

[Adebisi]

For those who are opposed to this: what if Webb had taken just one snap at WR? How about 2? How about half? Where do you draw the line?If you had the chance to pick him up (which I'm sure you did), it's your fault for getting beat fair and square.

QB's spread out and play WR in the wildcat.The fact is he did not take a snap all year at WR so he should have been designated a QB only.It's common sense. It was a flaw. And it sucks that the system (Yahoo) allowed for it to be exploited.Win at all costs. Yeah go ahead. That tells me a lot about people.

That's all well and good, but how about answering my question?

 

[Adebisi]

For those who are opposed to this: what if Webb had taken just one snap at WR? How about 2? How about half? Where do you draw the line?If you had the chance to pick him up (which I'm sure you did), it's your fault for getting beat fair and square.

Mike Vick rushes the ball several times a game. Maybe he should be able to start at RB?That would be sweet. Peyton Manning as my QB, Joe Webb as my WR, and Vick as my RB.

Or maybe you could just answer my question. That would be cool, too.

 

[bleedgreen]

For those who are opposed to this: what if Webb had taken just one snap at WR? How about 2? How about half? Where do you draw the line?If you had the chance to pick him up (which I'm sure you did), it's your fault for getting beat fair and square.

Mike Vick rushes the ball several times a game. Maybe he should be able to start at RB?That would be sweet. Peyton Manning as my QB, Joe Webb as my WR, and Vick as my RB.

Or maybe you could just answer my question. That would be cool, too.

My question is just as relevant and you didn't answer either. What if Vick has one designed run play in a game. How about 2 or 3? Where do you draw the line before he can become an RB start?

 

[Fragis Frodum]

Oh well, it is what it is. I would have never used that loophole, but I guess some guys want to win at all costs. Like I said, our QB scoring is such that an average game from a QB will get you 20+ points where an average game from a WR will get you more like 10. 14 of the top 15 scorers were QBs. The highest scoring QB in our league was Brees with 424 (26.5/game). The highest scoring WR in our league was Roddy White with 243 (15.2/game).

playing by the rules <> winning at all costs

Starting 2 QBs in the championship game with our scoring is bush league. This is a friends league where having a good time together doing something we all enjoy was supposedly the priority. I'm really not disappointed about losing, I'm really disappointed that someone in our league would choose to try to win like this. People have pointed out that I had the same opportunity to pick up and start Webb. That's right, I did have that opportunity. But I'd never want to win like that. And I'm sure that the majority of the other owners in our league would feel the same way.

So you have your integrity to make you feel all warm/fuzzy, while the other guy has the title and the cash.Is anyone else in the league crying and whining about the situation, or is it just you?

 

[TLEF316]

In some cases (my league for example) there was almost no risk in starting Webb. Barring a first quarter injury, there was a very good chance he would outscore every WR in the league this week. There was almost no chance he wasn't going to put WR3 type numbers at worst.Again, this is a flaw in my league's scoring system (again, have tried to change it for years) and the decision by yahoo to give him WR/QB eligibility, not the guy who played him. But considering that the league is just for fun and has been running for like 10 years now, i guess i just expected the guy to take the high road and not exploit an obvious loophole. He chose to play the guy at WR, and it will almost certainly win him the league. If that's something he wants to take pride in, then good for him

Not true, there have been more than enough third string QBs that have bombed their first start. Just look at Max Hall this year for AZ, vs Seattle. Webb was in a hostile environment, first start against a better team who had something to play for. Big gamble, that could have ended with Webb going 10/30 150yds and a few picks.

That hypothetical "bomb" of a game would still give him 10 or 11 points in my scoring system. Still a solid score for a WR3 or even a WR2 in a down week. (FBG projections generally had the top WR in my league projected for around 18 points in any given week). Again, my scoring system is VERY QB biased (point per completion is just absurd) so maybe that's not the best example. Webb had 32 points in my scoring system this week without throwing a TD pass. That's good for the top WR of the week in the entire league. (5 points clear of anyone else). It ruined the integrity of the league.

 

[Adebisi]

For those who are opposed to this: what if Webb had taken just one snap at WR? How about 2? How about half? Where do you draw the line?If you had the chance to pick him up (which I'm sure you did), it's your fault for getting beat fair and square.

Mike Vick rushes the ball several times a game. Maybe he should be able to start at RB?That would be sweet. Peyton Manning as my QB, Joe Webb as my WR, and Vick as my RB.

Or maybe you could just answer my question. That would be cool, too.

My question is just as relevant and you didn't answer either. What if Vick has one designed run play in a game. How about 2 or 3? Where do you draw the line before he can become an RB start?

You go first since I asked first, and I promise that I will answer after.

 

[plyka]

Oh....where is that icon... I can't seem to find it.... HERE IT IS!

Yeah, I know, nobody who wasn't affected by this cares, but it's kind of a bitter pill to swallow. I just think it ruins the integrity of the league. Like I said, our QB scoring is very different than other positions and starting a 2nd QB is a huge advantage. Had I been the commish I would have not allowed him to be used at WR. Just stinks to lose like that.

As a guy who started Webb, i can see your point. However, it's not as though Webb went ballistic. In my league I actually sat Crabtree to play Webb, Crabtree scored 18 points and Webb scored like 11. Also, it should be noted that I think I have one of the best commish's out there. He was the 1st place team, I was the 2nd place team before the playoffs started. I sent him an email asking him whether i could play Webb as a WR despite him playing QB, this was in the semi-finals. In the finals, I met the commish himself, and played Webb as a WR against him, lol. I ended up winning, but I'm not sure if it was due to just Webb.

 

[bleedgreen]

For those who are opposed to this: what if Webb had taken just one snap at WR? How about 2? How about half? Where do you draw the line?If you had the chance to pick him up (which I'm sure you did), it's your fault for getting beat fair and square.

Mike Vick rushes the ball several times a game. Maybe he should be able to start at RB?That would be sweet. Peyton Manning as my QB, Joe Webb as my WR, and Vick as my RB.

Or maybe you could just answer my question. That would be cool, too.

My question is just as relevant and you didn't answer either. What if Vick has one designed run play in a game. How about 2 or 3? Where do you draw the line before he can become an RB start?

You go first since I asked first, and I promise that I will answer after.

Well I thought I already answered it with my question and example. Any player on the field can take a snap or two at another position but that shouldn't make them eligible for being started at that position because of it....or else you could start just about any player at any position and that kind of defeats the purpose of most fantasy football leagues.What would the magic number be? Not sure. But it's certainly more than a few snaps.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

In some cases (my league for example) there was almost no risk in starting Webb. Barring a first quarter injury, there was a very good chance he would outscore every WR in the league this week. There was almost no chance he wasn't going to put WR3 type numbers at worst.Again, this is a flaw in my league's scoring system (again, have tried to change it for years) and the decision by yahoo to give him WR/QB eligibility, not the guy who played him. But considering that the league is just for fun and has been running for like 10 years now, i guess i just expected the guy to take the high road and not exploit an obvious loophole. He chose to play the guy at WR, and it will almost certainly win him the league. If that's something he wants to take pride in, then good for him

Not true, there have been more than enough third string QBs that have bombed their first start. Just look at Max Hall this year for AZ, vs Seattle. Webb was in a hostile environment, first start against a better team who had something to play for. Big gamble, that could have ended with Webb going 10/30 150yds and a few picks.

That hypothetical "bomb" of a game would still give him 10 or 11 points in my scoring system. Still a solid score for a WR3 or even a WR2 in a down week. (FBG projections generally had the top WR in my league projected for around 18 points in any given week). Again, my scoring system is VERY QB biased (point per completion is just absurd) so maybe that's not the best example. Webb had 32 points in my scoring system this week without throwing a TD pass. That's good for the top WR of the week in the entire league. (5 points clear of anyone else). It ruined the integrity of the league.

you play in a league with a ridiculous scoring system.I'm not saying that to judge you and your league, beat your league up, or anything like that --- everyone should obviously choose their own leagues.the point being that the rest of the world doesn't revolve around your ridiculous scoring system.in my league webb scored a very modest and normal total, comparable with kenny britt's 4/89/1.jerome simpson and andre roberts destroyed him ---- where's the outrage about starting those guys?

 

[bleedgreen]

Anyway, I'm outta this thread.

Seasons over for me and I'm looking forward to the real NFL playoffs.

In summary, my thoughts...

1. Yahoo's policy in this instance sucks

2. If your league allowed it, and you picked up Webb for WR, it's a shark move and congrats, don't feel bad.

3. I don't think a commish forbidding Webb from starting at WR is guilty of changing or violating any rules because

yahoo's policy in the case disrupts league integrity and that's part of what a commish tries to maintain.

4. I'm hearing the arguments on the other side and I'd understand a commish having a dilemma about what to do for fear

of the leagues response, but ultimately I think any decent commish rules against it.

5. I don't really care, I won my championship, seasons over.

Happy New Year

See ya next season.

 

[Death Bytes]

I've pretty much found that every person who has argued that Webb should not be allowed to start at WR was okay with Danny Woodhead starting at WR for Yahoo fantasy teams all year. The same rule that allows Woodhead to be started as a WR is the same Yahoo rule that allows Webb to be started as a WR. Yahoo does not require that they ever play a down at the position. They can be eligible at the position for no other reason than the team listed them at that position in the preseason.

I've found that the only differentiating factor that the anti-Webb people have between Webb and Woodhead is that QB's score more than RB's, so starting a QB as a WR is therefore unethical, but starting a RB as a WR is ethical.

I hate to break it to you guys but there is nothing unethical about either as long as the rule allows either.

The problem you are experiencing isn't one of ethics. The problem is your scoring rules are lopsided. If QB's scored similar points to WR and RB, Webb as a WR would be no more of an ethical issue than starting Woodhead as a WR.

Instead of attacking your fellow league members as being "unethical" for playing by the rules, why don't you get your scoring rules fixed so that below average QBs don't score more than above average WRs!!!

 

[wildbill]

Reading this thread just makes me appreciate the guys in my league. One of them picked up Webb a couple of weeks ago, and played him at WR this week. No one has complained, and everyone who has commented on it has said it was a smart move.

 

[simmonjm]

*Semi OT here read at your risk*

So I have played in this Yahoo FF league for about 6 years now and its a modest entry fee $150 with 12 teams. The commish and myself alternate winning each year it seems due to my savvy drafting ( Thanks FBG) and his ability to make great trades. This year he fell victim to the 2nd most points scored and worst record, and then uncharacteristically traded away all his players to 2nd and 3rd place teams in an effort to prevent me from winning. I was really pissed but low and behold I was able to grab Joe Webb and he was the only reason I won the championship this year. Funny thing is no one in the league was really that upset because i had been really douching it up on the league messageboard and it was like the Miami Heat effect (were everyone wanted to see failure) and no one cared about the blantant rules violations. Even with all the shenanigans I will probably be joining the league again because its filled with clueless idiots and because I am still playing with house money won from the first year in the league.

 

[Todem]

For those who are opposed to this: what if Webb had taken just one snap at WR? How about 2? How about half? Where do you draw the line?If you had the chance to pick him up (which I'm sure you did), it's your fault for getting beat fair and square.

Mike Vick rushes the ball several times a game. Maybe he should be able to start at RB?That would be sweet. Peyton Manning as my QB, Joe Webb as my WR, and Vick as my RB.

Or maybe you could just answer my question. That would be cool, too.

It goes back to having rules established before the season. So it is a delicate gray area. This is a unique situation. And after thinking about it and reading other very good posts pointing out the other side what I do know is I would have had a league vote on the situation once the chance Joe Webb was going to maybe play QB (the week Favre rolled out on Monday Night) and let the league decide should he be allowed to play at WR even though he was clearly going to play QB only. But then you run into the problem is someone already picked him up. But at the same time your trying to keep things clean.It really is a tough call. What I get a kick out of is some of he posts saying tough luck, your a loser, stop crying. It's like we are in friggin grade school. here.LOL.But to answer the question if I were making a lineup rule before the season if a player takes more than 50% of his snaps at a different position you can play him at said position. For example if if Percy Harvin clearly is being used as a RB as well as a WR then we have a league vote before the season and decide on a RB/WR or just WR.

 

[Death Bytes]

For those who are opposed to this: what if Webb had taken just one snap at WR? How about 2? How about half? Where do you draw the line?If you had the chance to pick him up (which I'm sure you did), it's your fault for getting beat fair and square.

Mike Vick rushes the ball several times a game. Maybe he should be able to start at RB?That would be sweet. Peyton Manning as my QB, Joe Webb as my WR, and Vick as my RB.

Or maybe you could just answer my question. That would be cool, too.

It goes back to having rules established before the season. So it is a delicate gray area. This is a unique situation. And after thinking about it and reading other very good posts pointing out the other side what I do know is I would have had a league vote on the situation once the chance Joe Webb was going to maybe play QB (the week Favre rolled out on Monday Night) and let the league decide should he be allowed to play at WR even though he was clearly going to play QB only. But then you run into the problem is someone already picked him up. But at the same time your trying to keep things clean.It really is a tough call. What I get a kick out of is some of he posts saying tough luck, your a loser, stop crying. It's like we are in friggin grade school. here.LOL.But to answer the question if I were making a lineup rule before the season if a player takes more than 50% of his snaps at a different position you can play him at said position. For example if if Percy Harvin clearly is being used as a RB as well as a WR then we have a league vote before the season and decide on a RB/WR or just WR.

What if you don't know if Harvin is clearly being used as a RB as well as a WR until after the season starts?

 

[Sinn Fein]

Here is a random idea that popped in my head - you could have a league rule that stipulates that a player is eligible at any position he is listed at with your fantasy manager. So, if you have a player who was listed at WR, but is really the 3rd string QB, then everyone knows he is a WR, and can draft him as such.

The rule is fair, straightforward, does not require anyone to glean the teams future intent, and puts every owner on the same footing.

If a team gets a windfall when the top two QBs go down, then good for that team. No different than when a top RB goes down and the backup puts up big numbers in his place. Good for the team that had the backup.

 

[Todem]

Here is a random idea that popped in my head - you could have a league rule that stipulates that a player is eligible at any position he is listed at with your fantasy manager. So, if you have a player who was listed at WR, but is really the 3rd string QB, then everyone knows he is a WR, and can draft him as such.The rule is fair, straightforward, does not require anyone to glean the teams future intent, and puts every owner on the same footing. If a team gets a windfall when the top two QBs go down, then good for that team. No different than when a top RB goes down and the backup puts up big numbers in his place. Good for the team that had the backup.

I think we are starting to agree on rules need to be clearly established before the season starts.And since there were no particualr rules in this case.....it is tough luck. I guess.But as a commish I would have been more proactive in addressing the league and getting feel from all the owners before it came to this.Again it is a gray area. For some here it is black and white. I just don't see it that way. I am a guy who beleives in an elastic clause for unusual circumstances and one who engages the all the owners to get a feel and and a pulse. After all we are all playing for money and some leagues very big money. But this problem seems to be Yahoo. At least that is what I gathered.Peace.

 

[habsfan]

If Webb had line of sight to a starting job in August, this thread wouldn't exist (or wouldn't be three pages anyway). I think the "Webb debacle" has as much to do with the timing of his sudden relevance as the position designation thing. Waiver wire gems that crop up in (or near) the fantasy play-offs can really put sand in your shorts and I think that's what's really going on here. The WR/RB designation just magnified his relevance a little but the reality is, he could have been Tamme or Kitna or whoever. The guy was very late to the "fantasy party" and he was an impact player. He twisted some knickers, that's for sure...

 

[Pipes]

For those who are opposed to this: what if Webb had taken just one snap at WR? How about 2? How about half? Where do you draw the line?

If you had the chance to pick him up (which I'm sure you did), it's your fault for getting beat fair and square.

Mike Vick rushes the ball several times a game. Maybe he should be able to start at RB?That would be sweet.

Peyton Manning as my QB, Joe Webb as my WR, and Vick as my RB.

Or maybe you could just answer my question. That would be cool, too.

It goes back to having rules established before the season. So it is a delicate gray area. This is a unique situation. And after thinking about it and reading other very good posts pointing out the other side what I do know is I would have had a league vote on the situation once the chance Joe Webb was going to maybe play QB (the week Favre rolled out on Monday Night) and let the league decide should he be allowed to play at WR even though he was clearly going to play QB only. But then you run into the problem is someone already picked him up. But at the same time your trying to keep things clean.It really is a tough call. What I get a kick out of is some of he posts saying tough luck, your a loser, stop crying. It's like we are in friggin grade school. here.

LOL.

But to answer the question if I were making a lineup rule before the season if a player takes more than 50% of his snaps at a different position you can play him at said position.

For example if if Percy Harvin clearly is being used as a RB as well as a WR then we have a league vote before the season and decide on a RB/WR or just WR.

The tool factor in the thread is over the top.

 

[Death Bytes]

Here is a random idea that popped in my head - you could have a league rule that stipulates that a player is eligible at any position he is listed at with your fantasy manager. So, if you have a player who was listed at WR, but is really the 3rd string QB, then everyone knows he is a WR, and can draft him as such.The rule is fair, straightforward, does not require anyone to glean the teams future intent, and puts every owner on the same footing. If a team gets a windfall when the top two QBs go down, then good for that team. No different than when a top RB goes down and the backup puts up big numbers in his place. Good for the team that had the backup.

I think we are starting to agree on rules need to be clearly established before the season starts.And since there were no particualr rules in this case.....it is tough luck. I guess.

You seem to be assuming that Yahoo didn't have a rule already in place. They did! The same Yahoo rule that makes Woodhead eligible to start as a WR is the same rule that makes Webb eligible to start as a WR. It's not an issue of there NOT being a rule. It's an issue that QB's typically score more than RB's in your fantasy league, which makes Webb starting as a WR an issue of "unfairness" to some people, but Woodhead starting as a WR is not to those same people. Yahoo made an official announcment that they would not change their rule in midseason despite all the "that's unfair" whining that they received. If you got beat by someone who started Webb, it wasn't because of a lack of a rule, or because of "tough luck". It's because your opponent played a better game than you did. If you want to play a game well, knowing the rules is a fundamental step.

 

[Sam Quentin]

yahoo is a joke

Malkin has played RW all season and he's still not RW eligible

it's bull####

 

[CrossEyed]

What some people seem to be missing in this discussion is how heavily weighted QB scoring is in the league in question, and what an unfair advantage it is to be able to start 2 QBs. Like I said in an earlier post, 14 of the top 15 scorers in our league were QBs. The highest QB scored 424, the highest WR scored 243.

The Woodhead discussion is irrelevant in this case because WRs and RBs score similar points in our league.

 

[Shawnky]

What some people seem to be missing in this discussion is how heavily weighted QB scoring is in the league in question, and what an unfair advantage it is to be able to start 2 QBs. Like I said in an earlier post, 14 of the top 15 scorers in our league were QBs. The highest QB scored 424, the highest WR scored 243.The Woodhead discussion is irrelevant in this case because WRs and RBs score similar points in our league.

And as stated before you could have picked up Webb and didn't. Doesn't matter if you would have played him or not. Why you feel the need for sympathy is beyond me. Grow a set brah.

 

[CrossEyed]

What some people seem to be missing in this discussion is how heavily weighted QB scoring is in the league in question, and what an unfair advantage it is to be able to start 2 QBs. Like I said in an earlier post, 14 of the top 15 scorers in our league were QBs. The highest QB scored 424, the highest WR scored 243.The Woodhead discussion is irrelevant in this case because WRs and RBs score similar points in our league.

And as stated before you could have picked up Webb and didn't. Doesn't matter if you would have played him or not. Why you feel the need for sympathy is beyond me. Grow a set brah.

Not looking for sympathy, just venting. Why do you feel the need to post here if it bothers you? Because that's what we do here, we post our thoughts and debate things back and forth.Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Because my opinion is different than yours on this I need to "grow a set"?

 

[TommyGilmore]

What some people seem to be missing in this discussion is how heavily weighted QB scoring is in the league in question, and what an unfair advantage it is to be able to start 2 QBs. Like I said in an earlier post, 14 of the top 15 scorers in our league were QBs. The highest QB scored 424, the highest WR scored 243.

The Woodhead discussion is irrelevant in this case because WRs and RBs score similar points in our league.

Situational Ethics.

 

[CrossEyed]

What some people seem to be missing in this discussion is how heavily weighted QB scoring is in the league in question, and what an unfair advantage it is to be able to start 2 QBs. Like I said in an earlier post, 14 of the top 15 scorers in our league were QBs. The highest QB scored 424, the highest WR scored 243.

The Woodhead discussion is irrelevant in this case because WRs and RBs score similar points in our league.

Situational Ethics.

Selective reading.

 

[Insein]

Everyone that used Webb as a 2nd QB in the WR position (or 3rd QB in 2QB leagues) is a tool.

the only thing this thread has shown me is that people could care less about "integrity of the game" and that too many people play in Yahoo leagues.

 

[CrossEyed]

Just a little additional info. 2 other owners posted on the league board this morning and both said it was basically a BS move.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

This hobby has gotten so popular, I shouldn't be surprised that d-bags are playing it.

 

[TommyGilmore]

What some people seem to be missing in this discussion is how heavily weighted QB scoring is in the league in question, and what an unfair advantage it is to be able to start 2 QBs. Like I said in an earlier post, 14 of the top 15 scorers in our league were QBs. The highest QB scored 424, the highest WR scored 243.

The Woodhead discussion is irrelevant in this case because WRs and RBs score similar points in our league.

Situational Ethics.

Selective reading.

Oh the irony.

 

[Topes]

What some people seem to be missing in this discussion is how heavily weighted QB scoring is in the league in question, and what an unfair advantage it is to be able to start 2 QBs. Like I said in an earlier post, 14 of the top 15 scorers in our league were QBs. The highest QB scored 424, the highest WR scored 243.

The Woodhead discussion is irrelevant in this case because WRs and RBs score similar points in our league.

Situational Ethics.

Selective reading.

Unlawful inexactitudes.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

What some people seem to be missing in this discussion is how heavily weighted QB scoring is in the league in question, and what an unfair advantage it is to be able to start 2 QBs. Like I said in an earlier post, 14 of the top 15 scorers in our league were QBs. The highest QB scored 424, the highest WR scored 243.

The Woodhead discussion is irrelevant in this case because WRs and RBs score similar points in our league.

Situational Ethics.

And who cares if the other owners whine about it? It's still a totally legit move. And despite rb's/wr's scoring similar points, the Woodhead situation applies.

Unless your complaint is not Webb was used at wr, but that qb's score too much?

 

[Sam Quentin]

It's an unfaier windfall to the guys who read about the dual eligibility on some message board first. Don't pretend that it was a smart and/or saavy move please.

 

[Death Bytes]

What some people seem to be missing in this discussion is how heavily weighted QB scoring is in the league in question, and what an unfair advantage it is to be able to start 2 QBs. Like I said in an earlier post, 14 of the top 15 scorers in our league were QBs. The highest QB scored 424, the highest WR scored 243.

The Woodhead discussion is irrelevant in this case because WRs and RBs score similar points in our league.

Situational Ethics.

And who cares if the other owners whine about it? It's still a totally legit move. And despite rb's/wr's scoring similar points, the Woodhead situation applies.

Unless your complaint is not Webb was used at wr, but that qb's score too much?

Complaining that QBs score too much:

Calling fellow league members unethical:

 

[Gators]

Lets say everyone agrees it's unethical to start Webb.

Now that it's established as fact you are still a poor GM if you didn't pick him up to prevent another team from using him. That is on YOU.

 

[Adebisi]

Here is a random idea that popped in my head - you could have a league rule that stipulates that a player is eligible at any position he is listed at with your fantasy manager. So, if you have a player who was listed at WR, but is really the 3rd string QB, then everyone knows he is a WR, and can draft him as such.The rule is fair, straightforward, does not require anyone to glean the teams future intent, and puts every owner on the same footing. If a team gets a windfall when the top two QBs go down, then good for that team. No different than when a top RB goes down and the backup puts up big numbers in his place. Good for the team that had the backup.

Sounds like this was the rule that was already in place.

 

[Adebisi]

It's an unfaier windfall to the guys who read about the dual eligibility on some message board first. Don't pretend that it was a smart and/or saavy move please.

As opposed to the guys who read about projections, injuries, sleepers, handcuffs, etc., on some message board first?

 

[Maui]

Lets say everyone agrees it's unethical to start Webb. Now that it's established as fact you are still a poor GM if you didn't pick him up to prevent another team from using him. That is on YOU.

I agree. I wouldn't have played him but I might have picked him up as a block. I was surprised it took two weeks for anyone to make the move.

 

[Cheesedawg]

1- Yahoo is a poor choice to host a FFL. I've tried them all and Yahoo is at or near the bottom of the list.

2- If you didn't complain about Webb being designated a WR from the moment that he appeared on the Minny depth chart at QB, then it is too late to complain now. If an owner had raised the issue in their league before he became a big factor, you would probably have had an easy time getting a consensus to not allow him to be played at QB. Complaining after he's been used and has beaten you is way too late.

3- Why aren't those who are mad about Webb also complaining about Josh Cribbs? What about when Miami was using the wildcat with great effectiveness? There are usually anomalies with positions every season. Those can add and also subtract from player values depending on your league rules. This is not uncommon.

4- Bottom line is, whatever the rule was when the draft occurred HAS to still be the rule until the season is over. I do not blame any owner for using Webb as a WR in a Yahoo league. The same opportunity was there for all owners.

5- Bad luck and good luck are big aspects of fantasy football, maddening as that can be. Having Webb become so relevant in the fantasy playoffs is simply part of the luck factor, not unlike Jerome Harrison last year.

6- Have a Happy New Year, FBG's!

 

[Insein]

1- Yahoo is a poor choice to host a FFL. I've tried them all and Yahoo is at or near the bottom of the list. Never more apparent then now, with this fiasco.

2- If you didn't complain about Webb being designated a WR from the moment that he appeared on the Minny depth chart at QB, then it is too late to complain now. If an owner had raised the issue in their league before he became a big factor, you would probably have had an easy time getting a consensus to not allow him to be played at QB. Complaining after he's been used and has beaten you is way too late. Outside the hardest of the hardcore dynasty players and Minnesota fans, who can honestly say they knew who Joe Webb was and what position he played? How can you then complain about a guy you don't know exists? It would only be applicable when you notice a guy starting Joe Webb as a WR against you that week.

3- Why aren't those who are mad about Webb also complaining about Josh Cribbs? What about when Miami was using the wildcat with great effectiveness? There are usually anomalies with positions every season. Those can add and also subtract from player values depending on your league rules. This is not uncommon. Josh Cribbs, Danny Woodhead, et al were not listed as 2 completely different scoring positions. In 99% of leagues, QB's score different than RB's and WR's. In 99% of non-PPR leagues, RB's and WR's score the same. To have the ability to have an extra player at a position that scores higher than the other (QB vs WR) then it is an unfair advantage created by the host site and not fully available for everyone to exploit. Only the first guy who notices the loophole.

4- Bottom line is, whatever the rule was when the draft occurred HAS to still be the rule until the season is over. I do not blame any owner for using Webb as a WR in a Yahoo league. The same opportunity was there for all owners. Some rules can be ammended during the season when an unusual situation occurs. This qualifies as an unforseen situation that drastically affects the integrity of the league.

5- Bad luck and good luck are big aspects of fantasy football, maddening as that can be. Having Webb become so relevant in the fantasy playoffs is simply part of the luck factor, not unlike Jerome Harrison last year. But unlike Jerome Harrison or Jamaal Charles, he was used not at the position that he played.

6- Have a Happy New Year, FBG's!

 

[Sam Quentin]

It's an unfaier windfall to the guys who read about the dual eligibility on some message board first. Don't pretend that it was a smart and/or saavy move please.

As opposed to the guys who read about projections, injuries, sleepers, handcuffs, etc., on some message board first?

exactlyrunning out and getting Tamme wasn't genius or brilliant...it was getting lucky enough to get the info firstwith projections ands sleepers many people do perform their own work...some don't

 

[Cheesedawg]

1- Yahoo is a poor choice to host a FFL. I've tried them all and Yahoo is at or near the bottom of the list. Never more apparent then now, with this fiasco.

2- If you didn't complain about Webb being designated a WR from the moment that he appeared on the Minny depth chart at QB, then it is too late to complain now. If an owner had raised the issue in their league before he became a big factor, you would probably have had an easy time getting a consensus to not allow him to be played at QB. Complaining after he's been used and has beaten you is way too late. Outside the hardest of the hardcore dynasty players and Minnesota fans, who can honestly say they knew who Joe Webb was and what position he played? How can you then complain about a guy you don't know exists? It would only be applicable when you notice a guy starting Joe Webb as a WR against you that week.

3- Why aren't those who are mad about Webb also complaining about Josh Cribbs? What about when Miami was using the wildcat with great effectiveness? There are usually anomalies with positions every season. Those can add and also subtract from player values depending on your league rules. This is not uncommon. Josh Cribbs, Danny Woodhead, et al were not listed as 2 completely different scoring positions. In 99% of leagues, QB's score different than RB's and WR's. In 99% of non-PPR leagues, RB's and WR's score the same. To have the ability to have an extra player at a position that scores higher than the other (QB vs WR) then it is an unfair advantage created by the host site and not fully available for everyone to exploit. Only the first guy who notices the loophole.

4- Bottom line is, whatever the rule was when the draft occurred HAS to still be the rule until the season is over. I do not blame any owner for using Webb as a WR in a Yahoo league. The same opportunity was there for all owners. Some rules can be ammended during the season when an unusual situation occurs. This qualifies as an unforseen situation that drastically affects the integrity of the league.

5- Bad luck and good luck are big aspects of fantasy football, maddening as that can be. Having Webb become so relevant in the fantasy playoffs is simply part of the luck factor, not unlike Jerome Harrison last year. But unlike Jerome Harrison or Jamaal Charles, he was used not at the position that he played.

6- Have a Happy New Year, FBG's!

No, YOU (and many other people, of course) didn't know who Joe Webb was. He has been talked about as the Vikes' "QB of the future" since his performance in mini-camp in June. If you want to notice value before the other owners in your league you will need to do more homework. Notice how Josh Cribbs is referenced as a comparison in this story from June: http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/...ArksUUUycaEacyUJosh Cribbs is a QB/WR who can also lineup at RB. He is listed as WR most places. If they discovered he was a really good thrower like Webb apparently is, his FF value would go way up because you would be able to use a player generating QB points at the WR position. This has been the case for a couple of years with Cribbs. Kordell Stewart was another example.

It is not about who notices the loophole, because it isn't a "loophole". It is, like everything else in this hobby, about recognizing fantasy football value before your leaguemates do. Somebody in each Yahoo league figured out that Webb had potential hidden fantasy value this season because he was listed as a WR but had impressed the coaches in the summer enough that Minnesota considered him to be a promising QB. Webb was the third QB every week of the season, so him being at that position was no secret. You could read his name every week on the inactives' list, each time listed as a QB by Minnesota. I don't think there were any Vikings' homers who were unaware of Webb.

When Favre began taking a beating this season, the value of both Tarvaris Jackson and Joe Webb went up. On Monday, Dec 13 when Tarvaris Jackson went down, Webb's Yahoo value jumped significantly again. If everybody in your league was appalled to discover that day for the first time that Webb was listed as a WR, they could have complained to the commissioner and undoubtedly could have asked for an in-season ruling that declared Webb ineligible to be played as a WR in your league. Once an owner picked Webb up, whether it was before Dec 13th or afterward, you can't change the rule to penalize the owner who understood Webb's value first. Changing the rule after he's been picked up amounts to cheating, whether it is done unilaterally by the commissioner or collectively by the other complaining owners. I would immediately cash out and leave any league that seriously entertained doing that.

Anybody whose feelings got hurt because Joe Webb wasn't on their radar until last week should do more homework and less complaining IMHO.

 

[thehornet]

What some people seem to be missing in this discussion is how heavily weighted QB scoring is in the league in question, and what an unfair advantage it is to be able to start 2 QBs. Like I said in an earlier post, 14 of the top 15 scorers in our league were QBs. The highest QB scored 424, the highest WR scored 243.

The Woodhead discussion is irrelevant in this case because WRs and RBs score similar points in our league.

Situational Ethics.

Selective reading.

Oh the irony.

and wned:

 

[plyka]

Our league commish ruled that he was eligible to play in WR slot because that is the way Yahoo posted Webb. However, the guy that put him in his lineup was viciously attacked for doing so and intimidated into pulling him late last night. He ended up losing by a couple points because he had to scramble to find a replacement. In my oppinion, I think he should have played Webb because no one said anything until last night. FF is more than just picking players, it also includes strategy, taking advantage of matchups and understanding your opponent. Oh well, I'm sure there will be a new rule next year to stop this from happening again.

what a weakling....he deserved to lose...