mr. peanut
Footballguy
Never seen a dual eligible player before on CBS for football..... RB and WR.
Bumps his value up a bit for the rest of the year too.
Bumps his value up a bit for the rest of the year too.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
McKissic dual eligible on CBS (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter mr. peanut
- Start date
grateful zed
Footballguy
link?
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
Interesting, he is still sitting on the wire in my 12 team CBS league. I don't have room for him.
JIMGET
Footballguy
nothing shady, CBS sent an email to all commishioners with instructions on how to allow for dual eligibility , leaving it up to the commish. CBS stated that they have made him dual eligible (there is a few other random but otherwise players as well), but the commish needs to enable "dual eligibility" for players.
djmich
Footballguy
Yep, although is looks like there may be some players grandfathered in if they are still a on roster from before cbs made this functionality available.
Interseptopus
Footballguy
how does this boost his value?
I can find 5 WRs on anyone's WW who will score more points than him weekly
I can find 5 WRs on anyone's WW who will score more points than him weekly
djmich
Footballguy
If he gets an uptick in playing time he can be very valuable, at current run rate not much. I personally picked him up betting on an uptick. Rawls and Lacy suck, this guy fits their offense better. Second half of last game he was in much more than Rawls.
5 catches and 5-10 carries per game make home valuable
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
I think in a ‘best case’ situation, McKissic could emerge as the Seahawks Chris Thompson. Lacy/Rawls have been abysmal and McKissic is flashing.
Interseptopus
Footballguy
yes, but not as a WR IMO. a WR who is RB eligible is more valuable than a RB at WR, but I guess it all depends on depthdjmich said:
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
IMO, dual eligibility should only be used for players who legitimately play multiple positions -- not just for "hybrid" players who line up all over the field, and not just for players who are utilized at a different position for a trick play.
Joe Webb is a guy who should have had dual eligibility. He was a QB coming out of college. He switched to WR but was still listed as a backup QB on the depth chart.
But McKissic is listed as a RB on the Seahawks website, and the depth chart does not show him as a backup WR. He shouldn't be eligible at WR unless the Seahawks say he's a WR.
Joe Webb is a guy who should have had dual eligibility. He was a QB coming out of college. He switched to WR but was still listed as a backup QB on the depth chart.
But McKissic is listed as a RB on the Seahawks website, and the depth chart does not show him as a backup WR. He shouldn't be eligible at WR unless the Seahawks say he's a WR.
Interseptopus
Footballguy
djmich
Footballguy
My league is 2rb/4wr/1 flex so generally WR’s at a premium. I think even in 3WR you want guys playing RB that you can plug into WR, not vice versa.
[scooter]
Footballguy
Interseptopus
Footballguy
right. I don't understand what we are talking about, I thought he was giving an example of a guy who was eligible at two positions but his position didn' change on the official epth chart. that would be incorrect as Montgomerys position was changed on the official depth chart. unlike McKissic
