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

[ldizzle]

i personally hate it when rules are changed during the season. yea there are certian things that cant be foreseen, but this is not one of them. I can understand if maybe it was your first year of fantasy football but from what im hearing is that it this particular league it was the 2nd year. there were guys like mccluster/spiller/joe webb last year that were multiple positions. if something wasn't said before the season about those types of players then it shouldnt matter how you use that player. however, this league has specific roster requirements so the player should used 3rb 4wr(w/spiller) or 3rb(w/spiller) 4wr.

that is just my opinion, but i really hope this thread can die

 

[Bronx Bomber]

/end thread

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

i personally hate it when rules are changed during the season.

Me too. That's not what happened here, though.

 

[username]

i personally hate it when rules are changed during the season.

Me too. That's not what happened here, though.

oh hai commish.... you suxx.

 

[flapgreen]

Sounds like he's taking fantasy football too seriously.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

i personally hate it when rules are changed during the season.

Me too. That's not what happened here, though.

oh hai commish.... you suxx.

Well said, username.

 

[Saint]

If you knew Spiller was going to be lined up in the backfield all game, then you should start him at running back. To do otherwise violates the spirit of the game, and is a mark on the integrity of the league as a whole. When making these kind of decisions, you have to ask yourself.. What would Tebow do? Then you have found the correct solution to the situation.

Yeah, there aren't always rules in place to cover every possible scenario. Spiller rushed 14 times last week, by any reasonable definition of a RB, that is one.

Didn't Tebow just rush 22 times in Week 12? Maybe he should be listed QB/RB by this logic. Just sain'. IMO, this was pretty simple based on logic requirements. If he's rostered at RB, he's RB. If he's rostered at WR, then he's WR. If there is no rule stating how the website defines the player, the website should have final ruling and with roster requirements, it's a further clarification of the position.

 

[footballnerd]

If you knew Spiller was going to be lined up in the backfield all game, then you should start him at running back. To do otherwise violates the spirit of the game, and is a mark on the integrity of the league as a whole. When making these kind of decisions, you have to ask yourself.. What would Tebow do? Then you have found the correct solution to the situation.

I never considered the ethics involved in this because I thought it was allowed. I feel bad if this was viewed as unethical to some, I genuinely do. I just thought I was having a competitive advantage based on the ESPN site rules. The only reason I dropped a RB for him in the first place was because it was Tolbert and he was my most expendable player, and I didn't think it mattered because Spiller gave me dual eligibility. I thought people were just whining because they didn't have someone on their roster they could use like this: even though Dexter McCluster is available. And by the way I had McCluster rostered at WR back in week 3 or whenever Charles went down. I just never player him at either position/ he never produced enough to create an uproar so the issue was never brought up even though it could have been. I'm convinced that if Spiller had not produced as he did this wouldn't have been brought up.

this is exactly why the commish is BS, they may have had roster requirements to be made, but the whole you dropped an RB for him so he's an RB is a BS mid season rule made up directly at the OP. you can't be pulling off that kind of crap midseason. He fixes his roster by dropping what ever player he needs to balance it. Obviously if they weren't prepared to handle a dual designated player (WR/RB) they wouldn't have a rule already installed about playing one at the position that a player was dropped for.The rest of this thread goes into the Joe Webb/Colston ethics debate, which needs to be addressed at the beginning of the season, or you wait til next year, not after someone actually has good production from one.

 

[Warrior]

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.

I didn't realize his fantasy league was run through the Bills website. Interesting..

 

[flapgreen]

Do you guys have a CBA?

 

[da_budman]

Anybody who says the commish made up a new rule is just wrong. He interpretted a current rule(and in my view interpreted it correctly)

Once you have roster requirements you have roster requirements. OP should not be able to start Spiller at wr any more than he should be able to start a qb he has rostered as such at kicker. The fact that some players play certain plays contrary to their normal position is irrelevant.

The fact that the website has the player listed as a rb/wr would be relevent if not for the roster requirement. League rules ALWAYS trump websites. They are created for the masses. There is a reason in ALL of the ff websites the commish can manually adjust things if its norms does not exactly match up to your league bylaws.

 

[footballnerd]

Anybody who says the commish made up a new rule is just wrong. He interpretted a current rule(and in my view interpreted it correctly)Once you have roster requirements you have roster requirements. OP should not be able to start Spiller at wr any more than he should be able to start a qb he has rostered as such at kicker. The fact that some players play certain plays contrary to their normal position is irrelevant. The fact that the website has the player listed as a rb/wr would be relevent if not for the roster requirement. League rules ALWAYS trump websites. They are created for the masses. There is a reason in ALL of the ff websites the commish can manually adjust things if its norms does not exactly match up to your league bylaws.

the site designates Spiller as a WR or a RB, this was not addressed prior to the season by the commish so it stands that he qualifies for either or. Whether he actually plays either position for the Bills is now irrelevant. The only thing the OP has to do now is drop a WR and pick up a RB to meet roster requirements. Read the OP, nothing was addressed prior to the season. Any of the directions you read from the Commish in the OP, is the commish making stuff up on the spot.as much as people think its ethically wrong to play Spiller at WR, its even more wrong to change rules on someone midseason to selectively enforce something.

 

[jon_mx]

I think I would make a rule that only the first four rushes by a WR counts. That would end some of this nonsense. There are usually a couple of players who allow for some abuse.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

its even more wrong to change rules on someone midseason

I agree. But this didn't happen.

 

[thayman]

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.

end thread.

 

[footballnerd]

its even more wrong to change rules on someone midseason

I agree. But this didn't happen.

 

[da_budman]

Anybody who says the commish made up a new rule is just wrong. He interpretted a current rule(and in my view interpreted it correctly)Once you have roster requirements you have roster requirements. OP should not be able to start Spiller at wr any more than he should be able to start a qb he has rostered as such at kicker. The fact that some players play certain plays contrary to their normal position is irrelevant. The fact that the website has the player listed as a rb/wr would be relevent if not for the roster requirement. League rules ALWAYS trump websites. They are created for the masses. There is a reason in ALL of the ff websites the commish can manually adjust things if its norms does not exactly match up to your league bylaws.

the site designates Spiller as a WR or a RB, this was not addressed prior to the season by the commish so it stands that he qualifies for either or. Whether he actually plays either position for the Bills is now irrelevant. The only thing the OP has to do now is drop a WR and pick up a RB to meet roster requirements. Read the OP, nothing was addressed prior to the season. Any of the directions you read from the Commish in the OP, is the commish making stuff up on the spot.as much as people think its ethically wrong to play Spiller at WR, its even more wrong to change rules on someone midseason to selectively enforce something.

The site can do alot of things that are opposite the league rules. Doesnt mean you HAVE to follow the site if it conflicts with the league rules. Absent the strict league roster requirements I would agree the commish is making up a new rule half way through the season but the 2 are in conflict and IMO league rules trump anything the league website does or does not say. The main league I commish uses strict drafting requirements.When the guys all get here I have 2 sheets for them. Both identical with a line for each player they are to draft (with the position filled in).You really think it would be fair for the guy who decided to draft Spiller to not follow that rule and get back to me as to what he wanted to designate him as? When bye weeks come along given there are strict roster requirements is it really fair to allow a team to circumvent that strict roster requirement by starting a player at a position he didnt draft him at?Bottom line with the site. Its a tool...a very good tool to keep score for you. It DOES NOT, however, have the ability to handle all league rules. Back in the day when these sites were primitive there were lots of particular league bylaws that were unaccounted for. These days there are alot fewer. This dual designation by 1 or 2 of the sites only confuses the situation imho.Bottom line is League rules trump websites. Always. A few years ago there was a really odd play fumbled back and forth and back and forth. We had LENGTHY discussions on this board about...does the offense become the defense? Is this an offensive td or a special teams td? League websites handled this one in different ways. Our league website handled it one way and our league bylaws handled it another. I, as the commish had to manually change the score and it caused an uproar. Bottom line is that the league rules overwrite the tool...the league website.

 

[shnikies]

If you knew Spiller was going to be lined up in the backfield all game, then you should start him at running back. To do otherwise violates the spirit of the game, and is a mark on the integrity of the league as a whole. When making these kind of decisions, you have to ask yourself.. What would Tebow do? Then you have found the correct solution to the situation.

Yeah, there aren't always rules in place to cover every possible scenario. Spiller rushed 14 times last week, by any reasonable definition of a RB, that is one.

Weeks 6 and 8 Spiller had 7 receptions and 0 rush attempts. So, the position you're allowed to play him at changes week to week? Who decides what position he is for the week. The depth chart? Because, I'm pretty sure Spiller was behind Fred Jackson at running back for those weeks. Unless, it was announced before the season that Spiller would only be allowed to play running back then I don't see what's wrong with playing him at receiver. I've played a whole bunch of leagues for a long time and I've never heard anybody complain about something like this and I've been in leagues with the same exact situation as yours. If your league has a wide receiver quantity requirement and you used Spiller for it while at the same time ESPN allows you to play him at running back all the more power to you. Bottom line though is there's nothing you can do but let them know you don't think it's fair. Next year have the league make it more clear what happens in a situation like this. For the people who say you can't be prepared for every rule situation, I think when there are position requirements that something like this should have been addressed otherwise allow the website to determine it's legality. Whether it's allowed by the website should always be the default for rules that weren't thought of before the year.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

its even more wrong to change rules on someone midseason

I agree. But this didn't happen.

You should stop beating your head against the wall, that's probably what's causing all the damage. That might explain why you're incapable of grasping a pretty simple and obvious fact.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

its even more wrong to change rules on someone midseason

I agree. But this didn't happen.

You should stop beating your head against the wall, that's probably what's causing all the damage. That might explain why you're incapable of grasping a pretty simple and obvious fact.

And if you and the rest of your braintrust continue to think I'm wrong, there's a simple way you can prove it: tell me what rule the commissioner changed.

 

[kegger]

Guy's just forget about it, Ignoramus type people only listen to themselves.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Guy's just forget about it, Ignoramus type people only listen to themselves.

So true.