Is it bad sportsmanship to start QB/WR Joe Webb in Week 15? (1 Viewer)

[thehornet]

the poll is pretty clear. 8 of 10 donr see it as a problem.

/thread

 

[DoubleG]

the poll is pretty clear. 8 of 10 donr see it as a problem./thread

Ahh, because getting a large number of people to agree = right. Got it.

 

[thatguy]

the poll is pretty clear. 8 of 10 donr see it as a problem./thread

Ahh, because getting a large number of people to agree = right. Got it.

Actually, he didn't say that. He said 8 out of 10 people think it's right. 2 out of 10 don't. Generally, we can surmise that if the vast majority of people think it's okay (at least when those voting are generally rational people, which I believe to be the case here), it's probably okay. Although, he didn't go so far as to say that. What we have here is a bunch of rational people recognizing the nature of the situation--it's imperfect, yes, but it's allowed by the rules of some leagues, and that's that.--and a few people standing on their proverbial soap boxes. It would be pretty presumptuous, and quite foolish, of any commish to base any league decision on some misplaced sense of moral superiority and make a ruling in direct contradiction to the rules set forth by the league. Again, any owner worth his salt should be well aware of the inflated value that this situation creates, and act accordingly. Just like any owner worth his salt should have been well aware of Arian Foster's great value in pre-season drafts, and drafted accordingly. If one situation is exploitation, then so is the other. But the bottom line is that neither case is an example of exploitation; they are both examples of smart management. Period. The end.

 

[greenline]

This is a really interesting topic and I think it gets even better that Joe Webb plays on MNF.

Some playoff matchups will be hanging in the balance with Webb under the spotlight.

 

[DoubleG]

the poll is pretty clear. 8 of 10 donr see it as a problem.

/thread

Ahh, because getting a large number of people to agree = right. Got it.

Actually, he didn't say that. He said 8 out of 10 people think it's right. 2 out of 10 don't. Generally, we can surmise that if the vast majority of people think it's okay (at least when those voting are generally rational people, which I believe to be the case here), it's probably okay. Although, he didn't go so far as to say that. What we have here is a bunch of rational people recognizing the nature of the situation--it's imperfect, yes, but it's allowed by the rules of some leagues, and that's that.--and a few people standing on their proverbial soap boxes. It would be pretty presumptuous, and quite foolish, of any commish to base any league decision on some misplaced sense of moral superiority and make a ruling in direct contradiction to the rules set forth by the league. Again, any owner worth his salt should be well aware of the inflated value that this situation creates, and act accordingly. Just like any owner worth his salt should have been well aware of Arian Foster's great value in pre-season drafts, and drafted accordingly. If one situation is exploitation, then so is the other. But the bottom line is that neither case is an example of exploitation; they are both examples of smart management. Period. The end.

I'm sorry - I must have missed the part where Arian Foster was listed as a WR in any league. Please post a link to that. TIA."Allowed by the rules" <> good sportsmanship. "Allowed by the rules" = "legal". Just because certain websites have Webb's position listed incorrectly doesn't make it "good sportmanship" to start him in said position.

The poll is not "is this allowed" or is it "legal according to the the rules" - in both cases the answer is clearly yes, in some silly leagues that he is mislabled.

The poll asks if it is "bad sportmanship" - by definition: Conduct and attitude considered as befitting participants in sports, especially fair play, courtesy, striving spirit, and grace in losing.

The bolded parts are the point of this thread. I do not consider it an attitude of fair play or courtesy to attempt to play a player who may benefit from a positional listing mistake (which gives him an unfair advantage, as in most scoring systems QBs outscore WRs). and in leagues where the commissioner were to change his positional listing to "QB" - and the owner who has Webb loses as a result - then that last part of the definition would come into play.

 

[The Noid]

so he is listed as a WR in your league? he is listed as a QB on MFL

I think it is a Yahoo quirk.Karma says that he'll throw 4 picks and be -3 at a WR spot.

That's my thinking. I had a chance all day to grab him, but he could be a disaster. I have Fitz, Wallace and Nicks and wouldn't bench any of them for Webb.But my opponent is weak at WR and picked him up late last night and is in the line-up. Guess we'll see how it works out...

 

[Buffins]

Wow. A lot of holier than thou attitudes in this thread. Every team in a givenleague at one point or another had equal access to guys like Woodhead and Webb, and Colston a few years ago. Smart owners in leagues that give these players multi-position eligibility should be well aware of their enhanced value, and act accordingly--this is no different than smart owners gaining advantage over their competition by drafting better, analyzing talent better, etc. It's just one more tactic in what is ultimately a very tactical game. It really is absurd to suggest that those who intend to play Webb at WR are somehow morally inferior. It is allowed by the rules set forth in Yahoo leagues. Who the hell cares? And FWIW, I don't play in any Yahoo leagues, don't own Woodhead or Webb, and have never owned Colston. I have no horse in this race, but I do believe a lot of you need to take a step down from that soapbox.

For what it's worth, I think this is the best comment on this thread regarding this issue. Well said.

 

[Sid]

I'm in the playoffs in 4 yahoo leagues, one $250 league, one $20, one a trophy league, one a freebie. I picked him up in each league, not because I plan to play him, but to prevent my opponent from doing so. I MIGHT play him in the free league, but in every other league, I'm content with my starters, as opposed to a 3rd string QB vs the Bears in bad weather.

 

[TLEF316]

my main keeper league is run on yahoo. Despite my years of request for a change, we give 1 point per COMPLETION. (rest of our system is pretty standard ppr scoring)

obviously someone picked up Webb and currently has him listed as a starting WR. Even with a terrible performance, he'll likely be the #1 scorer at the WR spot the rest of the way. If he plays slightly above average, he'll outscore pretty much any 2 WR's.

I just posted about it on the league MB, but i'd imagine we're gonna let it go. the rest of the guy's team isn't great this year, but with the ability to start 2 QB's, he'll likely be getting a 30 point head start every week the rest of the way.

 

[Kenny Powers]

I dont think its bad sportsmanship when everyone in a Yahoo league had the same amount of time to pick up Webb and start him at WR. Whoever got him is just the most on top of things.

 

[Jersey35]

I dont think its bad sportsmanship when everyone in a Yahoo league had the same amount of time to pick up Webb and start him at WR. Whoever got him is just the most on top of things.

The fairness (or unfairness) of FCFS waivers and their place in fantasy football is a separate issue.

 

[Donsmith753]

If you want to start a rookie qb/wr on a team that's given up against a strong D in the fantasy playoffs then go ahead. It ain't cheating but it probably ain't smart.

 

[greenline]

If you want to start a rookie qb/wr on a team that's given up against a strong D in the fantasy playoffs then go ahead. It ain't cheating but it probably ain't smart.

Even 9 points though (bad for a QB) is serviceable for a WR3.

 

[zftcg]

I don't have any strong feelings one way or another about the issue. I picked him up and may start him, but if my commish banned it I wouldn't raise a big stink. And I certainly don't judge any other leagues who handle it differently.

But here's the part I don't get: calling it a "loophole". It would be one thing if Webb were listed as a WR due to a typo or something. But Yahoo has decided to set up their leagues to allow certain players to play multiple positions. Now, you can say that's a dumb policy in general, or criticize the way they execute it (only doing it in a very limited number of circumstances, refusing to change it even if it's clearly inaccurate, etc.) But what you can't deny is that the point of the rule is to allow players to be used in different positions. It's a feature, not a bug.

It's an unusual circumstance, sure. But it's not a loophole.

 

[thatguy]

the poll is pretty clear. 8 of 10 donr see it as a problem.

/thread

Ahh, because getting a large number of people to agree = right. Got it.

Actually, he didn't say that. He said 8 out of 10 people think it's right. 2 out of 10 don't. Generally, we can surmise that if the vast majority of people think it's okay (at least when those voting are generally rational people, which I believe to be the case here), it's probably okay. Although, he didn't go so far as to say that. What we have here is a bunch of rational people recognizing the nature of the situation--it's imperfect, yes, but it's allowed by the rules of some leagues, and that's that.--and a few people standing on their proverbial soap boxes. It would be pretty presumptuous, and quite foolish, of any commish to base any league decision on some misplaced sense of moral superiority and make a ruling in direct contradiction to the rules set forth by the league. Again, any owner worth his salt should be well aware of the inflated value that this situation creates, and act accordingly. Just like any owner worth his salt should have been well aware of Arian Foster's great value in pre-season drafts, and drafted accordingly. If one situation is exploitation, then so is the other. But the bottom line is that neither case is an example of exploitation; they are both examples of smart management. Period. The end.

I'm sorry - I must have missed the part where Arian Foster was listed as a WR in any league. Please post a link to that. TIA.

I stopped reading here because it's obvious that you've missed my point entirely. Feel free to keep living atop your soap box. Just be careful, it's bound to come crashing down one day.

 

[DoubleG]

the poll is pretty clear. 8 of 10 donr see it as a problem.

/thread

Ahh, because getting a large number of people to agree = right. Got it.

Actually, he didn't say that. He said 8 out of 10 people think it's right. 2 out of 10 don't. Generally, we can surmise that if the vast majority of people think it's okay (at least when those voting are generally rational people, which I believe to be the case here), it's probably okay. Although, he didn't go so far as to say that. What we have here is a bunch of rational people recognizing the nature of the situation--it's imperfect, yes, but it's allowed by the rules of some leagues, and that's that.--and a few people standing on their proverbial soap boxes. It would be pretty presumptuous, and quite foolish, of any commish to base any league decision on some misplaced sense of moral superiority and make a ruling in direct contradiction to the rules set forth by the league. Again, any owner worth his salt should be well aware of the inflated value that this situation creates, and act accordingly. Just like any owner worth his salt should have been well aware of Arian Foster's great value in pre-season drafts, and drafted accordingly. If one situation is exploitation, then so is the other. But the bottom line is that neither case is an example of exploitation; they are both examples of smart management. Period. The end.

I'm sorry - I must have missed the part where Arian Foster was listed as a WR in any league. Please post a link to that. TIA.

I stopped reading here because it's obvious that you've missed my point entirely. Feel free to keep living atop your soap box. Just be careful, it's bound to come crashing down one day.

Which is ironic - because it was at the point you brought up Foster as a comparison that I realized you had in no way attempted to make any type of a rational argument. In your original post you opened up with this gem "It would be pretty presumptuous, and quite foolish, of any commish to base any league decision on some misplaced sense of moral superiority and make a ruling in direct contradiction to the rules set forth by the league." - how exactly would limiting a players valid position to the position he actually plays be a "ruling in direct contradiction to the rules set forth by the league."? Last time I check most leagues players are assigned the position they actually play. But if it makes you feel better to be "that guy" that wants to circumvent the spirit of the rules (which, incidentally would not be considered by most to be "good sportsmanship") because the letter of the law (albiet flawed) somehow allows it - feel free.

I prefer to play in leagues that use intelligent player classifications and commisioners who are allowed to use common sense and sportsmanship to determine what the rules are or at least interpret them in ways that are fair to all owners. If you prefer free Yahoo leagues - knock yourself out.

 

[TLEF316]

FWIW Dodds has Webb projected for 34.5 points in my league (again, point per completion in addition to typical ppr scoring. been trying to get it changed for years). The highest real WR is projected for 18.3

I posted a message on the league MB. the person who has webb is defending his right to play him. one other person (who missed the playoffs and is never competitive in the league) said he's fine with it. The #1 seed thinks it would be wrong to change the rules mid year but agrees that our scoring system is absurd.

So it looks like my league is gonna let it fly. I'm pretty sure the guy who has Webb is gonna win the league now, despite being the #7 seed during the regular season with a fairly mediocre team.

Pretty crappy situation IMO. But i guess i'll just have to

 

[Jersey35]

FWIW Dodds has Webb projected for 34.5 points in my league (again, point per completion in addition to typical ppr scoring. been trying to get it changed for years). The highest real WR is projected for 18.3I posted a message on the league MB. the person who has webb is defending his right to play him. one other person (who missed the playoffs and is never competitive in the league) said he's fine with it. The #1 seed thinks it would be wrong to change the rules mid year but agrees that our scoring system is absurd. So it looks like my league is gonna let it fly. I'm pretty sure the guy who has Webb is gonna win the league now, despite being the #7 seed during the regular season with a fairly mediocre team.Pretty crappy situation IMO. But i guess i'll just have to

If there is no rule specifically allowing it, a commissioner should step in and make a ruling. Lack of a rule disallowing something does not automatically make it 'legal'. There are plenty of things that can happen throughout the course of the season that might not be anticipated in the rules - for example the possibility of a rescheduled NFL game is something many leagues probably did not consider until this season. Yet, if it occurred, the commissioner would have to do step in and do something.This league's scoring rules make it imperative that a commissioner step in and at least consider the situation.Sheesh, Webb is not 2x better a WR than all others. That's just broken.

 

[nsusaint]

back in 2006 yahoo listed marques colston at tight end the whole year. this year danny woodhead is listed at wr/rb. Reggie bush is only listed at rb, but lines up at wr for half his snaps. it is rare, but i think if he is listed at the position he should be allowed to be used, unless previously stated before the season by league rules.

eric

 

[AngryGorilla]

the first time this guy was active this year....... he was returning kicks....

sour grapes for those who say it's an exploit, because football players only do one thing on the field! c'mon.

 

[DropKick]

the poll is pretty clear. 8 of 10 donr see it as a problem.

/thread

Ahh, because getting a large number of people to agree = right. Got it.

Actually, he didn't say that. He said 8 out of 10 people think it's right. 2 out of 10 don't. Generally, we can surmise that if the vast majority of people think it's okay (at least when those voting are generally rational people, which I believe to be the case here), it's probably okay. Although, he didn't go so far as to say that. What we have here is a bunch of rational people recognizing the nature of the situation--it's imperfect, yes, but it's allowed by the rules of some leagues, and that's that.--and a few people standing on their proverbial soap boxes. It would be pretty presumptuous, and quite foolish, of any commish to base any league decision on some misplaced sense of moral superiority and make a ruling in direct contradiction to the rules set forth by the league. Again, any owner worth his salt should be well aware of the inflated value that this situation creates, and act accordingly. Just like any owner worth his salt should have been well aware of Arian Foster's great value in pre-season drafts, and drafted accordingly. If one situation is exploitation, then so is the other. But the bottom line is that neither case is an example of exploitation; they are both examples of smart management. Period. The end.

I'm sorry - I must have missed the part where Arian Foster was listed as a WR in any league. Please post a link to that. TIA."Allowed by the rules" <> good sportsmanship. "Allowed by the rules" = "legal". Just because certain websites have Webb's position listed incorrectly doesn't make it "good sportmanship" to start him in said position.

The poll is not "is this allowed" or is it "legal according to the the rules" - in both cases the answer is clearly yes, in some silly leagues that he is mislabled.

The poll asks if it is "bad sportmanship" - by definition: Conduct and attitude considered as befitting participants in sports, especially fair play, courtesy, striving spirit, and grace in losing.

The bolded parts are the point of this thread. I do not consider it an attitude of fair play or courtesy to attempt to play a player who may benefit from a positional listing mistake (which gives him an unfair advantage, as in most scoring systems QBs outscore WRs). and in leagues where the commissioner were to change his positional listing to "QB" - and the owner who has Webb loses as a result - then that last part of the definition would come into play.

I agree with you that the question is one of sportsmanship. And, if a player is simply mislabeled by a website, it is just a loophole. There is a big difference between "legal" and "sporting". The former tends to be mostly black and white while the latter is very subjective. I have my opinions of conduct and sportsmanship. Let's not call it a "soapbox" because our opinions differ.Is Webb labeled incorrectly? I don't buy the argument that a single punt return equates to WR status. And a QB lining up as a WR in the wild-cat shouldn't designate him as a WR either... just as a receiver running a reverse doesn't make him a RB. What is Webb? A 3rd string QB who is athletic enough to play multiple positions. Had he actually played a few snaps here and there as a WR, would this thread exist? Probably not. I've seen a couple games recently where an injury caused a position player to kick. No one complained that Welker got a couple extra points. Is this situation so different just because he begins the game as the QB? Does this post have too many rhetorical questions?

Based on who Webb is - a 3rd string QB - and the role he was expected to play for the Vikings this year, I think his WR/QB designation is correct. Now I don't think his fantasy opportunity is exceptional. The move could easily back fire. It's minor compared to Colston's WR/TE designation which really was a misperception of how the Saints might use the rookie. Guys with multiple designations are rare but it happens often enough to have a league rule to explicitly address the situation.

 

[thatguy]

Ahh, because getting a large number of people to agree = right. Got it.

Actually, he didn't say that. He said 8 out of 10 people think it's right. 2 out of 10 don't. Generally, we can surmise that if the vast majority of people think it's okay (at least when those voting are generally rational people, which I believe to be the case here), it's probably okay. Although, he didn't go so far as to say that. What we have here is a bunch of rational people recognizing the nature of the situation--it's imperfect, yes, but it's allowed by the rules of some leagues, and that's that.--and a few people standing on their proverbial soap boxes. It would be pretty presumptuous, and quite foolish, of any commish to base any league decision on some misplaced sense of moral superiority and make a ruling in direct contradiction to the rules set forth by the league. Again, any owner worth his salt should be well aware of the inflated value that this situation creates, and act accordingly. Just like any owner worth his salt should have been well aware of Arian Foster's great value in pre-season drafts, and drafted accordingly. If one situation is exploitation, then so is the other. But the bottom line is that neither case is an example of exploitation; they are both examples of smart management. Period. The end.

I'm sorry - I must have missed the part where Arian Foster was listed as a WR in any league. Please post a link to that. TIA.

I stopped reading here because it's obvious that you've missed my point entirely. Feel free to keep living atop your soap box. Just be careful, it's bound to come crashing down one day.

Which is ironic - because it was at the point you brought up Foster as a comparison that I realized you had in no way attempted to make any type of a rational argument. In your original post you opened up with this gem "It would be pretty presumptuous, and quite foolish, of any commish to base any league decision on some misplaced sense of moral superiority and make a ruling in direct contradiction to the rules set forth by the league." - how exactly would limiting a players valid position to the position he actually plays be a "ruling in direct contradiction to the rules set forth by the league."? Last time I check most leagues players are assigned the position they actually play. But if it makes you feel better to be "that guy" that wants to circumvent the spirit of the rules (which, incidentally would not be considered by most to be "good sportsmanship") because the letter of the law (albiet flawed) somehow allows it - feel free.

I prefer to play in leagues that use intelligent player classifications and commisioners who are allowed to use common sense and sportsmanship to determine what the rules are or at least interpret them in ways that are fair to all owners. If you prefer free Yahoo leagues - knock yourself out.

I love your petty assumptions (good one, calling me "that guy", haha, that's great fun). I've already made it clear in this thread that I don't play in any Yahoo leagues, nor do I own Webb in any leagues. I have no horse in the race, guy. I'm as detached as can be. I'm just giving my opinions on the situation from afar. I'm done arguing with you, though. We disagree, there's no middle ground to be found, and I won't resort to petty insults or assumptions in a meager attempt to gain the upper hand. Peace

 

[Dizzy]

It's clearly exploitation. Any league with a shred of integrity would not allow it to happen.

I'm not meaning to play judge and jury here, but it is pretty obvious what is right and wrong.

That being said anybody can really do what ever they want to... 'cause they'll do it anyway.

 

[Hoosier16]

It's pretty obvious that a lot of the people here are not, nor ever were, commissioners of their own leagues.

I'd bet the majority of people here have commished a league at one time.

 

[Sebowski]

Yet another reason to never have a league on yahoo. Pretty stupid that he is listed as a WR. But, he is, so can't do anything about it. To me it is bad sportsmanship, but I don;t know that there really is sportsmanship in FF. I'm sure we all talk up players and talk down players to league mates to get an advantage in a trade, draft, or lineup. More bad sportsmanship, but part of the fun of FF.

 

[Summer Wheat]

Our league is -3 points for INTs and fumbles. I wish the team I am playing would start him.

 

[JimBob2232]

My opponent is starting Woodhead at WR..so i do NOT feel guilty about starting Webb at WR too

 

[Jersey35]

My opponent is starting Woodhead at WR..so i do NOT feel guilty about starting Webb at WR too

Clearly it's legit in THIS league. Take him down JimBob.

 

[Trey]

I just think it's a pretty ####ty thing to do and I guess it depends on how you feel about your fellow owners.

I personally would never do it. I don't care what he is listed as. He is a QB for today's game that I would be playing at WR. Not cool. And I'm not going to knock a guy out of the playoffs that I've been playing FF with for 5+ years because of a loophole in the website's position classification system.

 

[maksdaddy]

Yahoo is nothing short of crap. If the Vikings have him listed on the depth chart as a QB and the NFL site has him listed as a QB then why is Yahoo the only FF site listing him as QB/WR? Well at least the ones I checked. Of course I am playing against him in a ridiculous PPC league and as most have stated, a horrible outing will still outscore most if not all other WR's.

I was tempted to pick him up to avoid this situation as I assumed Yahoo would update the site but as we all know when you assume you know the rest.

Our commish is speaking with the owner now to avoid any issues or league vote and the owners are long time friends so we'll see.

 

[Trizzler]

Considering I'm down 95-96, and my opponent still has Welker and AP left (and the handcuff of Gerhart if needed), I have no option but to go for the homerun with Joe Webb instead of the sure 6-7 points from Danny Woodhead.

Yes, you play to win. And that's exactly what I plan on doing.

 

[Ty_Webb]

Here is Yahoo's explanation:

Vikings WR Joe Webb playing QB

Last Updated: December 17, 2010

Joe Webb was initially drafted by the Vikings with the intention of converting him from a QB to a WR. Based on Minnesota's roster needs, Webb was moved to QB on their depth chart in the off season after he had been awarded WR eligibility. Once eligibility has been assigned to a player, it cannot be removed during the season under any circumstances. Joe Webb will retain eligibility at both positions for the remainder of the season.

http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/sports/fa...otball-167.html

 

[Sam Quentin]

Well, this one certainly got interesting...

 

[FBG Tuna]

What this really shows is why 10 out of 10 Yahoo leagues suck. Real FF has a trade deadline for such things. If you picked up Joe Webb in prior to week 12, then you are a freakin genius, otherwise it's a no-class move and you deserve to stay with your Yahoo league.

 

[DoubleG]

Here is Yahoo's explanation:

Vikings WR Joe Webb playing QB

Last Updated: December 17, 2010

Joe Webb was initially drafted by the Vikings with the intention of converting him from a QB to a WR. Based on Minnesota's roster needs, Webb was moved to QB on their depth chart in the off season after he had been awarded WR eligibility. Once eligibility has been assigned to a player, it cannot be removed during the season under any circumstances. Joe Webb will retain eligibility at both positions for the remainder of the season.

http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/sports/fa...otball-167.html

Ummmm....why not, Yahoo!? Call your IT guy, I'm sure he can figure out how to change it.