I feel like changing it mid-season is unfair to the people who stashed him for exactly this scenario to play out. If you stashed Taysom Hill because Brees was old and you had no confidence in Jameis and you were hoping for this type of exact scenario to bring you the best line up possible since he's been a WR/QB all-season, it seems only fair to reward those folks who took up a roster spot holding on to him planning for such a time as this. To react otherwise seems to counter act the spirit of fairness of fantasy. Fantasy is about mitigating the risk reward and making decisions based on research and information available to us.
Why would anyone have held a roster spot for any other reason but that the risk-reward of this EXACT scenario playing out?
To change it is like changing the payout of the lottery after the tickets have been sold.
The problem is this was always a possibility the entire year. It's not like they suddenly gave him QB/WR eligibility this week. It's been there the whole year. If a player has QB/any position eligibility, this can happen. Changing it now when some owners planned for this ahead of time and were savvy enough to hold Hill on the roster in the event this happens should get rewarded for that. I remember the exact same thing happening with Joe Webb in 2010 and people playing against him being upset, but if the guy plays both positions and has done so throughout the year and the eligibility has always been there, changing it now two days before a game he may start isn't quite fair. I think Fleaflicker should leave as is and each league commissioner can discuss with their league what to do/take a vote.
I agree with TimMartens --- Changing the pay-out of the lottery after selling the tickets with the payout parameters publically posted seems very unfair to me. The managers who stashed Taysom Hill for this exact scenario are taking on the risk of not having a nother player. The reason they took that risk was motivated by the potential reward for having taken that risk.
Fantasy Football at its core is mitigating risk with information you've been given or found. It's not fair to change the reward AFTER THE RISKS have clearly been taken. Anyone holding on to Taysom Hill, or picking him up as soon as Brees got hurt did so at their own peril of their roster spots, but factored into that decision to pick him up or stash him, among other things, was most certainly his WR/QB status on the site we are on right now. That makes stashing him way more valuable and worth way more RISK!
If a manager could have picked up Ahmed or Hill but chose Taysom Hill instead because of the WR designation, are we going to go back and run waivers all over again and allow that manager the right to choose Ahmed instead? NO, we aren't, so changing his designation AFTER the fact is unfair to the managers who risked taking him to begin with... period.
CMCOCHOFri 11/20/20 10:25 AM
Will Taysom Hill continue to be eligible for QB and WR slot given that he was just announced as a starting QB?
JimNayziumFri 11/20/20 11:22 AM
I feel like changing it mid-season is unfair to the people who stashed him for exactly this scenario to play out. If you stashed Taysom Hill because Brees was old and you had no confidence in Jameis and you were hoping for this type of exact scenario to bring you the best line up possible since he's been a WR/QB all-season, it seems only fair to reward those folks who took up a roster spot holding on to him planning for such a time as this. To react otherwise seems to counter act the spirit of fairness of fantasy. Fantasy is about mitigating the risk reward and making decisions based on research and information available to us.
Why would anyone have held a roster spot for any other reason but that the risk-reward of this EXACT scenario playing out?
To change it is like changing the payout of the lottery after the tickets have been sold.
Apro23Fri 11/20/20 11:35 AM
Nah bro I think its only fair to actually put him at QB/TE cuz those are his ACTUAL positions on the field its only fair
CMCOCHOFri 11/20/20 11:52 AM
Lol. Yeah, would be totally fair to start a QB at your WR spot. FOH
Apro23Fri 11/20/20 11:53 AM
He plays multiple positions if hes athletic enough to do so then its only fair..........
CMCOCHOFri 11/20/20 11:55 AM
I think you’re missing the point
Apro23Fri 11/20/20 11:58 AM
Hes gonna run a lot and maybe even catch passes on sunday hes a QB/TE thats fair
CMCOCHOFri 11/20/20 12:03 PM
What is it about being able to put a named starting QB in a TE spot seems fair to you?
Apro23Fri 11/20/20 12:10 PM
He plays both positions so why should he not be both lol
CMCOCHOFri 11/20/20 1:52 PM
Your elevator doesn’t quite make it to the top, does it?
CMCOCHOFri 11/20/20 2:04 PM
I get it if you’re wanting to make a self serving argument, but don’t try to make it on fairness. A QB in a WR spot isn’t by any stretch fair
TimMartensFri 11/20/20 2:12 PM
The problem is this was always a possibility the entire year. It's not like they suddenly gave him QB/WR eligibility this week. It's been there the whole year. If a player has QB/any position eligibility, this can happen. Changing it now when some owners planned for this ahead of time and were savvy enough to hold Hill on the roster in the event this happens should get rewarded for that. I remember the exact same thing happening with Joe Webb in 2010 and people playing against him being upset, but if the guy plays both positions and has done so throughout the year and the eligibility has always been there, changing it now two days before a game he may start isn't quite fair. I think Fleaflicker should leave as is and each league commissioner can discuss with their league what to do/take a vote.
Apro23Fri 11/20/20 2:42 PM
Yeah but what if we want him at TE then the leauge cant change that unless u can tell me a way that can be changed
JimNayziumFri 11/20/20 2:57 PM
I agree with TimMartens --- Changing the pay-out of the lottery after selling the tickets with the payout parameters publically posted seems very unfair to me. The managers who stashed Taysom Hill for this exact scenario are taking on the risk of not having a nother player. The reason they took that risk was motivated by the potential reward for having taken that risk.
Fantasy Football at its core is mitigating risk with information you've been given or found. It's not fair to change the reward AFTER THE RISKS have clearly been taken. Anyone holding on to Taysom Hill, or picking him up as soon as Brees got hurt did so at their own peril of their roster spots, but factored into that decision to pick him up or stash him, among other things, was most certainly his WR/QB status on the site we are on right now. That makes stashing him way more valuable and worth way more RISK!
If a manager could have picked up Ahmed or Hill but chose Taysom Hill instead because of the WR designation, are we going to go back and run waivers all over again and allow that manager the right to choose Ahmed instead? NO, we aren't, so changing his designation AFTER the fact is unfair to the managers who risked taking him to begin with... period.