Commish not allowing me to use Spiller as WR (1 Viewer)

[Bronx Bomber]

My Commish told me I can't use Spiller as a WR in my 10 team ESPN PPR league where he is listed as RB/WR.. I used him last week at WR and someone protested. My commish said that since I dropped a RB for him that I have to use him at RB. I protested this saying this was not addressed in our rules and had I known that I would have dropped a WR for him and picked up another RB(one that was picked up after I picked up Spiller. I asked if he could retroactively go back and change the pick ups but I doubt that will happen.

Should I protest this or just let it go. I told the commish I'd respect his decision either way. But that I'd like to use him as I see fit since this rule was not made known ahead of time.

EDIT: Our league requires us to roster 3 RBs and 4WRs. I have Spiller rostered as my 3rd RB and I have 4WRs. I just checked the email again and the commish said nothing about effectively carrying "5WR" when I play Spiller at WR. He just said it is an unfair advantage to play a RB at a WR spot. Hope this addresses all the technicalities and points of argument. Thanks for all the responses.

 

[jdubs952]

If there was not a rule ahead of time, you should protest.

/played joe webb at WR during my playoffs last year

 

[jonboltz]

He is a RB. The ESPN league is wrong. What more, you probably realize that he is a RB. Let it go.

 

[Slapdash]

If he is listed as both, you should be able to use him as both. He should not be listed as both, however.

 

[griff321]

It's taking advantage of the league host and that's kinda shady. I can see how you can argue it, but it's pretty stupid that ESPN has him listed as a WR in the first place.

 

[Bronx Bomber]

He is a RB. The ESPN league is wrong. What more, you probably realize that he is a RB. Let it go.

I fully understand that I'm taking advantage of the ESPN site which is why I'd be okay letting it go. But I still would have liked to been able to manage my roster accordingly if I knew that I wasn't going to be able to use this to my advantage.

 

[jackdubl]

He was playing WR for a significant part of the season. If the software has him listed as both, and no rule was ever in place, I'm on your side of this one. Can't make a rule change retroactively, the time for that has passed. Not to mention, you have relied on the rule already by making the roster decisions you have made.

 

[ldizzle]

He is a RB. The ESPN league is wrong. What more, you probably realize that he is a RB. Let it go.

F that. You do know that spiller played wr this year right? Or is is this sarcasm or fishing?

 

[ldizzle]

He was playing WR for a significant part of the season. If the software has him listed as both, and no rule was ever in place, I'm on your side of this one. Can't make a rule change retroactively, the time for that has passed.

This!/thread

 

[Khalua83]

He is a RB. The ESPN league is wrong. What more, you probably realize that he is a RB. Let it go.

I fully understand that I'm taking advantage of the ESPN site which is why I'd be okay letting it go. But I still would have liked to been able to manage my roster accordingly if I knew that I wasn't going to be able to use this to my advantage.

Yahoo has McCluster as a Rb/WR but hes more of a RB this year. I say taking advantage is smart. Homeboy is just jelous you outsmarted him. If there isnt a rule, and hes listed as a wr, thats a espn fault not your own. If it were me and they pulled this ish, this is a league i wouldn't be next year

 

[jonboltz]

He is a RB. The ESPN league is wrong. What more, you probably realize that he is a RB. Let it go.

F that. You do know that spiller played wr this year right? Or is is this sarcasm or fishing?

http://www.buffalobills.com/team/roster/C.J.-Spiller/57e42512-c2ee-4ca7-8400-f1d85b3dbfcdSproles and many other RBs split out wide often. Percy Harvin gets several carries from the backfield per game. Let common sense prevail on this one.

 

[ChromeWeasel]

He is a RB. The ESPN league is wrong. What more, you probably realize that he is a RB. Let it go.

F that. You do know that spiller played wr this year right? Or is is this sarcasm or fishing?

Exactly. He's a legitimate flex player. Let the commish know that he played a lot of WR this year, and he was LISTED as a WR. It's possible the commish didn't know that. The OP should feel free to push this issue. Spiller was a legitimate wideout this year.

 

[nickdiesel]

I think if he is listed and no rule agains then he is eligible for whatever position the site lists him for. The way the commish answered the inquiry though that since you dropped a rb for him he is an rb, makes me wonder if this league requires you to have like three rbs on a team, no more no less. if this is the case and you picked him up as a rb, then i think if it is fair to limit him to a rb.

 

[ldizzle]

He is a RB. The ESPN league is wrong. What more, you probably realize that he is a RB. Let it go.

F that. You do know that spiller played wr this year right? Or is is this sarcasm or fishing?

http://www.buffalobills.com/team/roster/C.J.-Spiller/57e42512-c2ee-4ca7-8400-f1d85b3dbfcdSproles and many other RBs split out wide often. Percy Harvin gets several carries from the backfield per game. Let common sense prevail on this one.

Im not talkin splitting wide. He was a wr.Heres an article from pro football talk. Read that third sentence...

C.J. Spiller is now a wide receiverPosted by Gregg Rosenthal on October 17, 2011, 5:59 PM ESTGetty ImagesThe Bills haven’t been able to get the ball to 2010 No. 9 overall pick C.J. Spiller much this season. That hasn’t exactly been a problem, with Fred Jackson leading the league in yards from scrimmage.With Buffalo’s wideout group thin after injuries, head coach Chan Gailey found another way to get Spiller the ball. He started Spiller at wide receiver.Spiller stayed on the field quite a bit in Buffalo’s spread offense, catching five passes for 39 yards. He didn’t have a carry.“He did a good job,” Gailey said via the team’s website. “He did a very good job. I can see that being his role here for a short term.”While Spiller didn’t break any big plays, we were impressed by how natural he looked. He only started practicing at wide receiver last week. Perhaps he can be the the next Bobby Moore Ahmad Rashad.Gailey relies on overwhelming defenses with receiving options, and Spiller adds another quality pair of hands to the mix.

 

[jonboltz]

He is a RB. The ESPN league is wrong. What more, you probably realize that he is a RB. Let it go.

F that. You do know that spiller played wr this year right? Or is is this sarcasm or fishing?

http://www.buffalobills.com/team/roster/C.J.-Spiller/57e42512-c2ee-4ca7-8400-f1d85b3dbfcdSproles and many other RBs split out wide often. Percy Harvin gets several carries from the backfield per game. Let common sense prevail on this one.

Im not talkin splitting wide. He was a wr.Heres an article from pro football talk. Read that third sentence...C.J. Spiller is now a wide receiverPosted by Gregg Rosenthal on October 17, 2011, 5:59 PM ESTGetty ImagesThe Bills haven’t been able to get the ball to 2010 No. 9 overall pick C.J. Spiller much this season.  That hasn’t exactly been a problem, with Fred Jackson leading the league in yards from scrimmage.With Buffalo’s wideout group thin after injuries, head coach Chan Gailey found another way to get Spiller the ball. He started Spiller at wide receiver.Spiller stayed on the field quite a bit in Buffalo’s spread offense, catching five passes for 39 yards. He didn’t have a carry.“He did a good job,” Gailey said via the team’s website. “He did a very good job. I can see that being his role here for a short term.”While Spiller didn’t break any big plays, we were impressed by how natural he looked. He only started practicing at wide receiver last week.  Perhaps he can be the the next Bobby Moore Ahmad Rashad.Gailey relies on overwhelming defenses with receiving options, and Spiller adds another quality pair of hands to the mix.

I'm aware that he played WR earlier this year when they had injuries at the position. Your article date is October 17. Today is December 8. I find this pretty simple-- he's their starting RB, not their WR.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Do you have fixed roster requirements (e.g. you must carry exactly 4 RBs on your roster)? If so, commish has a point. If not, he doesn't.

 

[Mistabishi]

He is a RB. Get over it.

 

[Topes]

My Commish told me I can't use Spiller as a WR in my ESPN PPR league where he is listed as RB/WR. I used him last week at WR and someone protested. My commish said that since I dropped a RB for him that I have to use him at RB.

I don't know how your rules are set up, but that seems like some of the dumbest logic I could imagine. You commish could very well be within his rights to limit your usage of Smiller at WR, but to use that justification is just silly.(The league I commish has a "commish rules all" clause that allows commissioner to rule unilaterally in the interest of the league, in any instance that is not made clear by our rules. In over a dozen years, it has never been invoked, and I hope it never will be. In said league, though it is not written in our rules, it has been discussed and determined that the league host's determination on positional eligibility will be respected and deferred to within the league, even in such a case as Joe Webb last year.)

It's taking advantage of the league host and that's kinda shady. I can see how you can argue it, but it's pretty stupid that ESPN has him listed as a WR in the first place.

Not entirely. He was starting at WR for the Bills for a few weeks this season.

 

[chidoy]

Right or wrong, If he's listed as a WR... then you should be able to use him as a WR... Not like you hacked into ESPN and changed his position to WR.

Similar to Colston's rookie year on Yahoo, he was listed as a TE.

 

[Bronx Bomber]

Do you have fixed roster requirements (e.g. you must carry exactly 4 RBs on your roster)? If so, commish has a point. If not, he doesn't.

We need 3 RB and 4WR which is exactly what I have. See my 10 team PPR in my sign.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Do you have fixed roster requirements (e.g. you must carry exactly 4 RBs on your roster)? If so, commish has a point. If not, he doesn't.

We need 3 RB and 4WR which is exactly what I have. See my 10 team PPR in my sign.

Then no, you can't use him as a WR. You have him rostered as a RB.

 

[jonboltz]

Do you have fixed roster requirements (e.g. you must carry exactly 4 RBs on your roster)? If so, commish has a point. If not, he doesn't.

We need 3 RB and 4WR which is exactly what I have. See my 10 team PPR in my sign.

Looks like you have him listed as a RB in your sig

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Do you have fixed roster requirements (e.g. you must carry exactly 4 RBs on your roster)? If so, commish has a point. If not, he doesn't.

We need 3 RB and 4WR which is exactly what I have. See my 10 team PPR in my sign.

In that case, your commisioner actually has a point. If you have set limits (i.e. 3 RBs and 4 WRs) and Spiller is occupying one of the three allotted RB spots, he's a RB for you. If you start him at WR then one could easily argue that you have 5 WRs on your roster.This really should have been fleshed out more before the season - but not every issue if forseeable I guess.I'd let this one go given all of the information - but if those roster limit rules weren't spelled out then I think you'd have a legit argument.

 

[Bronx Bomber]

Do you have fixed roster requirements (e.g. you must carry exactly 4 RBs on your roster)? If so, commish has a point. If not, he doesn't.

We need 3 RB and 4WR which is exactly what I have. Seem my 10 team PPR in my sign.

Looks like you have him listed as a RB in your sig

So the roster retirements equal where I can use a player? I'm not sure I understand, isn't this like using a RB at flex? That's where taking advantage of the site comes in...but I see your point about having 5 WR in any given week. Ill let it go.

 

[habsfan]

Right or wrong, If he's listed as a WR... then you should be able to use him as a WR... Not like you hacked into ESPN and changed his position to WR.Similar to Colston's rookie year on Yahoo, he was listed as a TE.

Yes, this isn't exactly new to the sites that allow it - Colston, Webb, McCluster, Woodhead. Each league should have a position on the issue if it's in play for their host and landing somewhere on it in August would obviously be preferable to debating it now. In our league we don't allow it even though the host does.

 

[LargeMouthBass]

Your commish obviously picked ESPN so tough luck. You should be able to start him at WR if he is listed as RB/WR. In Yahoo, we have Dexter McCluster listed as RB/WR and none of the managers in my league have problems when he was used as a WR. Tell your commish if he has a problem with it, tell him to take it to ESPN and not you.

 

[DiStefano]

Your Commish is a Doush. You followed the rules, he's changing them. If you'd dropped a QB to pick up an RB, would he then say you could only use the RB as a QB?

 

[ldizzle]

Do you have fixed roster requirements (e.g. you must carry exactly 4 RBs on your roster)? If so, commish has a point. If not, he doesn't.

We need 3 RB and 4WR which is exactly what I have. See my 10 team PPR in my sign.

In that case, your commisioner actually has a point. If you have set limits (i.e. 3 RBs and 4 WRs) and Spiller is occupying one of the three allotted RB spots, he's a RB for you. If you start him at WR then one could easily argue that you have 5 WRs on your roster.This really should have been fleshed out more before the season - but not every issue if forseeable I guess.I'd let this one go given all of the information - but if those roster limit rules weren't spelled out then I think you'd have a legit argument.

In this certain instance your commish may have a point because of roster requirements, which should have been included in the op. I question your commish for letting you break the league rules last week but not this week.Eta. Does your league have a written set of rules, because technically you do have 3rb rostered but i dont see how its your problem if that player can be used at a different position if there is no rule for it

 

[PhantomJB]

Bronx Bomber, you are getting screwed, plain and simple.

The issue lies in determining who has ultimate authority for rulings in the league. Do you defer to the league software or does the commissioner has the authority to determine "what is in the best interest of the league" and override the software? The only objective answer is the former.

Why? Because REGARDLESS OF IT'S FLAWS, at least the league software is OBJECTIVE. If it's the latter then the commissioner is subject to pressure from the other league members when they feel they missed out on the same opportunity you took advantage of. Your league may trust the commissioner implicitly and be fine with his judgment but that's a tough one to swallow if he's also a competitor and has a conflict of interest (i.e. as in this case where his interests are improved by denying you the RB/WR designation).

If it is unclear which is the "uber authority" (software or commish), then the right thing to do IMO is defer to software this year then discuss it next year in an annual rules meeting. At that time you can determine under what circumstance the commish may step in and apply his judgment.

Here's an analogy.

Elias Sports bureau is the ultimate authority on tackles in IDP leagues, for example. I can argue till the cows come home with video evidence that a certain player should get credit for a tackle but if Elias rules it one way, you gotta live with it. But if a commissioner can override Elias then it becomes a slippery slope.

Another simple one is the NFL's new kickoff rules. They were determined before the season started. Even though they suck and people are complaining left and right, you don't see Roger Goodell have the authority to step in and changing the rules mid-season. Honor the process.

 

[solorca]

Now that more info has come out, the answer is simple. You're required to have 3RB and 4WR. Since you dropped a RB for him, he has to be a RB if you want to use him...otherwise, you're over the league limit on WR's.

Your league rules actually seem pretty clear on this one.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm not sure I understand, isn't this like using a RB at flex?

No. If you had a flex position, you could start Spiller as a flex. That's completely different than what you're trying to do.

Now that more info has come out, the answer is simple. You're required to have 3RB and 4WR. Since you dropped a RB for him, he has to be a RB if you want to use him...otherwise, you're over the league limit on WR's. Your league rules actually seem pretty clear on this one.

Right. If they didn't have those roster requirements, I'd totally be on OP's side here. But they do, so he clearly should not be using Spiller as a WR. I don't even see how it's debatable.

 

[RUSF18]

Didn't see this twist coming. Yeah, you can only start him at RB. Your league rules supersede ESPN's software.

 

[Bronx Bomber]

Eta. Does your league have a written set of rules, because technically you do have 3rb rostered but i dont see how its your problem if that player can be used at a different position if there is no rule for it

This is what I thought originally. Now I see the issue about roster requirements, which is a written rule. I should have put that in the OP but didn't even understand where there was an issue, I just thought I had to have him rostered at either spot then I could use him how I saw fit. Thanks for setting me straight.

 

[Joe Summer]

My commish said that since I dropped a RB for him that I have to use him at RB.

Drop Spiller for a WR, then drop that WR for Spiller. Problem solved. Commissioner has to suck on his own logic.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

My commish said that since I dropped a RB for him that I have to use him at RB.

Drop Spiller for a WR, then drop that WR for Spiller. Problem solved. Commissioner has to suck on his own logic.

He can't do that, because that would make his roster illegal. It seems many people railing on the commissioner here are missing the fact that they have rigid roster requirements.ETA: If he were so inclined, he could drop Spiller for a RB, and then drop a WR for Spiller. Then he could start Spiller at WR (but not at RB).

 

[MarcO]

Do you have fixed roster requirements (e.g. you must carry exactly 4 RBs on your roster)? If so, commish has a point. If not, he doesn't.

We need 3 RB and 4WR which is exactly what I have. See my 10 team PPR in my sign.

this is not clear - are these roster min. limits, max. limits, or starting lineup requirements?

 

[griff321]

He is a RB. The ESPN league is wrong. What more, you probably realize that he is a RB. Let it go.

F that. You do know that spiller played wr this year right? Or is is this sarcasm or fishing?

http://www.buffalobills.com/team/roster/C.J.-Spiller/57e42512-c2ee-4ca7-8400-f1d85b3dbfcdSproles and many other RBs split out wide often. Percy Harvin gets several carries from the backfield per game. Let common sense prevail on this one.

Im not talkin splitting wide. He was a wr.Heres an article from pro football talk. Read that third sentence...C.J. Spiller is now a wide receiverPosted by Gregg Rosenthal on October 17, 2011, 5:59 PM ESTGetty ImagesThe Bills haven’t been able to get the ball to 2010 No. 9 overall pick C.J. Spiller much this season.  That hasn’t exactly been a problem, with Fred Jackson leading the league in yards from scrimmage.With Buffalo’s wideout group thin after injuries, head coach Chan Gailey found another way to get Spiller the ball. He started Spiller at wide receiver.Spiller stayed on the field quite a bit in Buffalo’s spread offense, catching five passes for 39 yards. He didn’t have a carry.“He did a good job,” Gailey said via the team’s website. “He did a very good job. I can see that being his role here for a short term.”While Spiller didn’t break any big plays, we were impressed by how natural he looked. He only started practicing at wide receiver last week.  Perhaps he can be the the next Bobby Moore Ahmad Rashad.Gailey relies on overwhelming defenses with receiving options, and Spiller adds another quality pair of hands to the mix.

I'm aware that he played WR earlier this year when they had injuries at the position. Your article date is October 17. Today is December 8. I find this pretty simple-- he's their starting RB, not their WR.

Exactly. When I go to the Bills web site and look at the official roster or depth chart he's listed as a RB and not a WR.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Do you have fixed roster requirements (e.g. you must carry exactly 4 RBs on your roster)? If so, commish has a point. If not, he doesn't.

We need 3 RB and 4WR which is exactly what I have. See my 10 team PPR in my sign.

this is not clear - are these roster min. limits, max. limits, or starting lineup requirements?

I believe they're min and max roster limits. I think most leagues nowadays allow you to carry whatever you want on your bench, but back in the old days (and in OPs league) it was often the case that you had to have exactly a certain number of players at each position on your roster. He needs to carry exactly 3 RBs, one of which is Spiller. He needs to carry exactly 4 WRs, none of which is Spiller.

 

[Bronx Bomber]

all I would have to do is drop a WR and then pick up a RB (I think) then I would have 3 RBs and 4WRs(including Spiller. But I would only be allowed to use him as a WR if I am understanding this correctly. I'll run it by the commish

 

[belljr]

This is easy - drop spiller, pickup any running back.

Drop wr - pickup Spiller as WR.

Now your roster is legal and you can start him.

However, I agree with IE about why he can't be used as a WR currently

 

[jonboltz]

all I would have to do is drop a WR and then pick up a RB (I think) then I would have 3 RBs and 4WRs(including Spiller. But I would only be allowed to use him as a WR if I am understanding this correctly. I'll run it by the commish

Still seems bush league to go through that effort to have be able to play Spiller as a WR.

 

[Sweet Love]

He was playing WR for a significant part of the season. If the software has him listed as both, and no rule was ever in place, I'm on your side of this one. Can't make a rule change retroactively, the time for that has passed. Not to mention, you have relied on the rule already by making the roster decisions you have made.

I agree. I play in one league that uses Yahoo, and back in the day, cleared house by using Colston as a TE. It was the first time we encountered anything like that, and there was no protest, but I brought it up at the end of the year, that maybe we should look into designating multi-position players, at one specific position. No one wanted to bother, so it never came up again until Joe Webb (and I had him too, but never played him). Reality is, you should know your management software's limitations, and have some sort of agreement in place. I think the OP should be able to continue using Spiller as a WR as long as the system keeps him eligible.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

he was being used as a WR earlier this year.

last week, he started at RB but spent much of the 2nd half lined up wide as a WR in a 5-WR formation.

still seems shady to use a starting RB in a WR slot. I don't have a problem with a commish doing something like this.

 

[jackdubl]

This reminds me of that sunny year when I picked up a little known WR/TE named Colston and started him at TE for the whole season. Good times.

Think about it this way: didn't the NE defense still get credit for the interception Troy Brown made back in the day? Pretty sure the answer is yes.

 

[footballnerd]

My Commish told me I can't use Spiller as a WR in my ESPN PPR league where he is listed as RB/WR.. I used him last week at WR and someone protested. My commish said that since I dropped a RB for him that I have to use him at RB. I protested this saying this was not addressed in our rules and had I known that I would have dropped a WR for him and picked up another RB(one that was picked up after I picked up Spiller. I asked if he could retroactively go back and change the pick ups but I doubt that will happen. Should I protest this or just let it go. I told the commish I'd respect his decision either way. But that I'd like to use him as I see fit since this rule was not made known ahead of time.

screw all that you dropped at RB for him so hes an RB, that's straight BS, as long as you meet the roster requirements you're set, and since he's not retroactively changing your score last week to remove Spiller's points at WR, then it is okay for you to continue this week. He can't selectively enforce random rules because people are uncomfortable with it. Needs to be said and enforced from the beginning.

 

[RUSF18]

he was being used as a WR earlier this year. last week, he started at RB but spent much of the 2nd half lined up wide as a WR in a 5-WR formation.still seems shady to use a starting RB in a WR slot. I don't have a problem with a commish doing something like this.

A commish can't go on "shady" when it comes to a decision like this. Either it is a rule or its not. We have a rule that explicitly states "Yahoo determines players’ position eligibility. You may start a player in any roster slot allowed by Yahoo." It seems like in the OPs case, they have their own rule which effectively controls this.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

he was being used as a WR earlier this year. last week, he started at RB but spent much of the 2nd half lined up wide as a WR in a 5-WR formation.still seems shady to use a starting RB in a WR slot. I don't have a problem with a commish doing something like this.

A commish can't go on "shady" when it comes to a decision like this. Either it is a rule or its not. We have a rule that explicitly states "Yahoo determines players’ position eligibility. You may start a player in any roster slot allowed by Yahoo." It seems like in the OPs case, they have their own rule which effectively controls this.

sure, if there's a rule in place you go with that.but most leagues probably don't spell out stuff like this ahead of time. in that scenario, a commish often has to make a case by case decision based on fairness. it's not fair to allow a starting RB to be used in a WR slot.

 

[Joe Summer]

This reminds me of that sunny year when I picked up a little known WR/TE named Colston and started him at TE for the whole season. Good times. Think about it this way: didn't the NE defense still get credit for the interception Troy Brown made back in the day? Pretty sure the answer is yes.

That's a terrible analogy. Troy Brown was actually PLAYING FOR THE DEFENSE when he made the interception. Colston NEVER PLAYED Tight End in the regular season.

 

[Topes]

I'm not sure I understand, isn't this like using a RB at flex?

No. If you had a flex position, you could start Spiller as a flex. That's completely different than what you're trying to do.

Now that more info has come out, the answer is simple. You're required to have 3RB and 4WR. Since you dropped a RB for him, he has to be a RB if you want to use him...otherwise, you're over the league limit on WR's.

Your league rules actually seem pretty clear on this one.

Right. If they didn't have those roster requirements, I'd totally be on OP's side here. But they do, so he clearly should not be using Spiller as a WR. I don't even see how it's debatable.

While I can see how it's debatable, I believe your commissioner's stance is far more reasonable and defensible, given that you are using Spiller as a RB to fulfill your league's roster requirements."My commish said that since I dropped a RB for him that I have to use him at RB."

Absent your disclosure of your league's strict roster requirements, the above statement makes your commissioner sound unreasonable, and given to just making stuff up as he goes along.

"My commish said that since I dropped a RB for him that I have to use him at RB."

In light of your disclosure of your league's strict roster requirements, the above statement suggests your commissioner is stating that "players may only be started in the positions at which they are rostered". Such a stance (or actual rule) is not at all unreasonable if applied universally in a league which has strict roster requirements.

 

[Bronx Bomber]

I'm not sure I understand, isn't this like using a RB at flex?

No. If you had a flex position, you could start Spiller as a flex. That's completely different than what you're trying to do.

Now that more info has come out, the answer is simple. You're required to have 3RB and 4WR. Since you dropped a RB for him, he has to be a RB if you want to use him...otherwise, you're over the league limit on WR's.

Your league rules actually seem pretty clear on this one.

Right. If they didn't have those roster requirements, I'd totally be on OP's side here. But they do, so he clearly should not be using Spiller as a WR. I don't even see how it's debatable.

While I can see how it's debatable, I believe your commissioner's stance is far more reasonable and defensible, given that you are using Spiller as a RB to fulfill your league's roster requirements."My commish said that since I dropped a RB for him that I have to use him at RB."

Absent your disclosure of your league's strict roster requirements, the above statement makes your commissioner sound unreasonable, and given to just making stuff up as he goes along.

"My commish said that since I dropped a RB for him that I have to use him at RB."

In light of your disclosure of your league's strict roster requirements, the above statement suggests your commissioner is stating that "players may only be started in the positions at which they are rostered". Such a stance (or actual rule) is not at all unreasonable if applied universally in a league which has strict roster requirements.

This was mostly me being ignorant to the fact that we can only start players in the position try are rostered. I thought the duel position designation gave me leeway to "determine where Spiller was rostered" on my team and then choose each week if I wanted him to be a RB or a WR despite him technically taking up my 3rd RB spot. So its my fault for not understanding how to use the roster requirements ...and being opportunistic/shady (depending on how you look at it).