Everyone here arguing fairness is just empirically incorrect. It’s an EGREGIOUS advantage to the manager who starts Hill at WR but since ALL TEAM’s were faced with the decision to pick him up or not and each had the equal opportunity to do that, it’s completely FAIR.
Saying starting hill at WR is unfair discounts the roster sacrifices made to acquire Hill to begin with. it would be more UNFAIR to remove after the fact the anticipated advantage one would gain if they chose to acquire him.
It would be akin to arbitrarily deciding a player like Adam Theilen this week is not allowed to be in your FLEX. Changing the rules and designations after the fact is not fair to the managers who used those designations in their decision making process.
Claiming it whining about the disadvantage this totally FAIR MOVE out YOIR team in this week is just sour grapes much like complaining that since your good player Derrick Henry is playing versus a good defense this week. that’s not fair!!!!
Saying it’s not fair is simply not true.
Saying it’s lame. Or cheesy. Maybe so. But you could have done the same exact thing which by definition makes it fair.
That’s not the point. He’s a starting QB being allowed to be slotted in the WR slot. Why is this so difficult to understand? He’s played most of his snaps on ST. Why not just slot him in the DEF/ST spot too?
Obviously JimNayzium you have him on your team LOL. I say put the shoe on the foot of the guy you are playing and how would you feel about it? Of course you can lie to yourself and say you wouldnt let it bother you but we all know that is BS
Again JimN, THAT IS NOT THE PONT of who picked Hill up. The issue is fairness in applying points and allowing Hill to be slotted into a RB/WR/TE Flex when he isn't actually playing ANY of those positions! That's a loophole that needs to be remedied. Every player should have ONE SINGLE POSITION designation. That would fix this issue completely.
Jo Mama Hill did have the position QB till this year with QB/WR but he does so many things for his team which give him the Flex Position Its amazing that whining about it is for there only only recourse for what is a Checkmate Move .
I say do it it makes sense to me but they need to change it at the Start of the year as they did for Hill no midseason changes 2020 might as be as weird as we can make it though .
He was a QB last year. A 3rd string QB in for gadget plays. Skip the draft in empire leagues there. Then, this year in the FA draft for same league, still a QB. Then, in another startup right after rookie draft, he is still just listed as a QB. So, some guy gets him in the last couple of rounds as an emergency QB or a handcuff to Brees. No one else is really going to worry. Then, a few months into the league year he is changed. That is what makes it unfair. I have him in two leagues and I see the unfairness of it. Slash was only ever able to be played as a QB.
He wasn't listed as a QB/WR until training camp when Saints listed him that way. Our startup drafts and rookie drafts were right after the real rookie draft. So, that is before the switch. Also, the new NFL year begins before training camp and therefore he was listed that way at the beginning of the season. The switch was before week 1 but not before the new year began.
I definitely have him in one league. And was beaten to him in another league while picking him up in the first league. I am in multiple leagues. Some I have him in some and some I don't. Some are with him as TE and some WR and some QB only... depending on Yahoo or Espn or Flea-Flicker. I have no problem seeing both sides of it. Any manager who USED the SEASON-LONG designations of QB-WR in evaluating whether to stash him or not should not be unfairly retroactively penalized by an arbitrary decision to change the status AFTER the fact, and ALSO after Flea-Flicker literally published RULES saying they would NEVER do that.
IF, however, it changes, then I would honor that and move ahead without griping about it, as that seems like "rub of the green," to me, somewhat similarly to other managers getting hit with a manager who was savvy enough to stash him in case they get to double-dip him at WR in Flea-Flicker.
No matter what any tries to declare about the FAIRNESS of the situation, it's empirically true that playing Taysom Hill in the WR slot in Flea-flicker is 100 percent FAIR because each manager in every league was presented with the exact same opportunity to take advantage of it. To declare it not fair after the fact is exactly like declaring it unfair that Waller and Kelce are not designated as Receivers when they lead their team in targets and line up flanked out where Wide REceivers line up 70-80 percent of the snaps they play... that is to say, LUDICROUS.
The advantage gained by Hill playing WR may be cheesy, or lame, or stupid, but it's 100-percent FAIR. To say otherwise, no matter how often or harshly you say it, doesn't make it true. No ONE CHEATED to play him at WR. Any manager that is surprised it exisited got out researched and out-maneuvered by managers who did take advantage of it.
And any moves that got made after reading Flea-Flicker's WRITTEN POST on the RULES about how they would NEVER remove a designated status, did so assuming Flea-Flicker would actually DO WHAT THEY SAID THEY WOULD DO give that information. Therefore a move to DROP a player from your bench like say, a stashed Gardner Minshew on IR so you could pick up Taysom Hill to double-dip him may have been worth it at the time, but if you are not allowed to double dip him NOW after the move, it changes things retroactively unfairly.
Imagine if you did your draft with the presumption you were in a STANDARD scoring league so you didn't draft McKissik or Cole Beasley, but then after the draft the commissioner who was in charge declared, "OH YEAH, we are a FULL PPR league." WELL THAT changes everything.
And the PUBLISHED rules on Flea-Flicker's site stated emphatically and without ability to misinterpret what they would do in this EXACT GIVEN situation... and that allowed managers to make their INFORMED decisions. To change it after the fact would be the same logic as selling raffle tickets for 5 dollars per ticket with the posted prize being a 2020 Mini-Van and then having the drawing and designating a winner, and then telling the winner, "Oh we meant a 2020 Mini-Van POSTER," sorry about that, but thanks for your 5 bucks.
I am in four leagues - and don't have him in my main league. Novel or not, I am entitled to my opinion. If Flea Flicker changes their designation I will under ZERO cricumstances change it back or do anything to make sure he gets to play WR in my leagues I have him. I knew the risks when I claimed them. I will maintain that I chose to drop other players on my roster BECAUSE of the upside of double dipping him and changing his roster designation after the fact is going to unfairly affect that... that's just empirically true in this case. My claiming him in free agency while he HAD the double designation, JUST LIKE Cordarral Patterson currently has, was in no WAY, SHAPE, or FORM unfair. But it's perceived as unfair by the folks who got out maneuvered by managers who took advantage of the deisgnation and now want to claim it's unfair.
I have him in the rosters and leagues I have him in and don't in the league I want to win the most! But I will defend the manager who got him in that league to start him at WR over me in the champioinship if he's able to at that time!!
Actually I've seen a lot of people stating they know it's an unfair advantage and refuse to play Hill in their TE or WR slot, when he is playing QB. Some people still have a sense of decency and fairness. But not everyone, I see.
You can judge all you want my decency and sense of fairness. Espeically since we've never met and you chose to do that.. .which proves you are full of decency and fairness! hahahaha --- I have come across players in my league who have told me when I offered to do that that they would under any ciccurmstances NOT play him at WR if they could have. And I find thier sense of fairness to be more in line with how I see it here.
I am happy to not win my games -- I play in leagues were we put in 25 bucks total! hahahah I literally offered anyone who had a problem with it any of it a full refund and offered to pay the winners of the league out of my pocket!
I just truly honestly believe that changing the rules of the game mid-game is MORE unfair than the advantage gained by following the rules of the game as outlined ahead of time and FAIRLY gaining an advantage.
Like I said in other posts, Jo-MAma, if we played in a league together and you proposed a VOTE to make it a rule ahead of time that if a QB was multi-designated and we played him inn our LINEUP we HAD TO play him at QUARTERBACK I would 100-percent of the time vote in favor of that being the rule.
But to act like everyone has to agree with one side of this just because that's your opinion on what constitutes fair play or the true spirit of "fantasy football" is kinda silly, since literally fantasy football is a game of gambling based on information acquired... And you have failed to at least acknowledge how UNFAIR changing that infomration mid-stream is to the side of the argument who have it changed.
Do I think it's stupid to have had him multi-designated to begin with? 100-percent!! I think that's dumb and a hacky gimmicky glitch that will cause players who play by the rules to gain an advantage NOT intended ahead of time. But do I belive we are HONOR BOUND in a GAME to make up our own set of rules to govern the rules that SHOULD BE PRESENT in a game out of some spirit of fairness? WHERE IS THE LINE?
Should we also ONLY COUNT THE FIRST 15 carries of a runningback's day since it's not fair that Derrick Henry may get 30 and another RB1 may only get 17?? That seems "unfair" by all the standards of the people crying "unfair."
No one cheated to claim and obtain Taysom Hill. No one cheated to play him at WR based on his designation.
I may lose my favoritte league because this happened against me in that league and I maintain it's stupid!!!! but not UNFAIR!
I've yet to hear anyone make any argument about acquiring Taysom Hill was done so unfairly. All I have heard is commentary about how playing him at WR is a clear advantage. Which is super obvious and the exact reason ANYONE in their right mind would have gambled any roster value on his spot -- for the added ability to play him AT WR. Why would anyone have picked him up to play over Russell Wilson or Josh Allen? That's ludicrous.
if what we are arguing is how it's dumb. I concede it's dumb. I concede it's "shady" or "lame" or "hacky" but I won't concede anyone is CHEATING to do it. Or that we solud arbitrarily penalize those who have decided to do it out of some larger sense of right and wrong... Get off your high horses people, we are playing a game that tracks the accomplishments of other grown men playing a game we were not talented enough to play ourselves. To act like there is a code of honor surrounding one way of Fantasy Football and some styles of play BREAK that code just illustrates how far we've fallen as grown-men in the world. hahahhahaha....
It's a GAME... it has rules and procedures. Sometimes things work against us and some times they work for us! Dealing with that is what the game literally is.
What i would PREFER is to play in a league where all 9 other managers were trying to take all the advantages I took when I took Hill and played him at WR. That's why I love the league where I could lose to the guy who did it, because we are all on the same page and love that kind of stuff.
If I am in a league where the people think we should go out of our way to FORFEIT advantages that we gave our team with our strategic moves, just cuz they don't LIKE those moves, well that's just a dumb game in my opinion.
On the Saints homepage Taysom Hill is listed as a QB ONLY. Therefore he should ONLY be eligible for QB ir superflex. Fleaflicker changed him from QB to QB WR when the Saints changed him. In all FAIRNESS they should change him back to just QB just as the Saints did. It is UNFAIR to play a player not designated by their team in a position at that position. Otherwise I am going to put all of my offensive scoring to apply to kickers as well and start Josh Allen at QB, Hill at WR, and Derek Carr at K. Let's add Lamar at RB for that argument on here. All on my roster
I agree with the hacky stupid argument... but your arguments are all moot since none of the players you reference in the outlandish scenarios WERE carrying Designations that allowed for that to ever happen. Taysom Hill DID IN FACT carry designation of WR whether you think he should have or not.
I honestly agree with your LOGIC that what SHOULD be the case is to mimic the TEAMS's actual HOMEPAGE and DEPTH CHART... that would be great and it could actually change week to week. That would also be great.
HOWEVER, we've already NOT done that so it's super unfair to START DOING that after the game (the season long game) is in progress! Why no one on the other side even pretends to acknowledge how flawed that is, is actually crazy to me. Everyone wants to cast me aside as a Taysom HIll owner who just wants to win my leagues, which is silly! I am even MORE EMPHATIC in the league where I have to beat the Taysom Hill owner that I should have to BEAT him while playing at WR since the owner got him while he had that designation! I also picked up the player he dropped for Hill, so I feel like I should have to give that player back if we change the designation!
But no one on the other side of the argument even seems to consider how crazy it is. Cordarral Patterson is dual designation player too and after Monty got hurt last week he got like 20 carries and scored 18 fantasy points. Was that unfair to play him at WR then?
Actually the ones not starting Hill in there leagues because of fairness in there minds are the ones I am wondering about the most because in War there is nothing fair about War ,win at all costs because losing at the cost of being nice makes you a Prisoner of War !
When I drafted him, he was JUST a QB - on FF AND on the Saints roster. I played him at QB only. Then, he switched officially on both. I played him at WR. Now, he is named as starting QB and only listed as a QB by Saints. FF should do the same and since they haven't it's sportsmanship to only use him as QB. The reality is FF switched him once, they should switch him again. If they aren't going to do the right thing, I'll play Spike Lee and do it myself.
Well ESPN has officially made him QB only. Fleaflicker would be the only platform to have him at a position other than QB. He’s a QB. Get it right Flea.
Yeah, NFL never even switched him. Which made sense because he didn't switch until after the LEAGUE YEAR began. That was their reasoning. Yes, it was before any games were played but after the offseason started, and free agency, and drafts etc.
Fleaflicker didn't "switch" him. They added the WR designation, which they flat out say in the owners manual that they can/will do. What they say they DON'T do, is REMOVE a designation.
well, you can say they removed all of the DT, DE, and LB designations from a ton of players when they did the whole EDR IL thing. They did that after drafts and such too. However, they did a great out for that with letting owners keep original distinctions. They should do something similar for Hill. Make his designation what it is in real life and allow commissioners an out to keep the dual designation for him.
You guys arguing about something that doesn't matter. You want a real problem check your Optimal Points For as Fleaflicker isn't counting it right for Taysom Hill lineups. He's only being counted at QB for Optimal Points For instead of being counted as a flex play. This will totally affect rookie draft orders if you use that, which most dynasty leagues do. Fleaflicker needs to count Hill in the flex category for OPF so the other QB's rostered can count in the QB spots.
That's all part of why I use inverse standings for draft order. Nonplayoff teams order decided at end of season etc. Playoff teams at end. So much easier, especially with divisions
Disregard what I said, flea flicker already fixed it right after I said that. I don't like inverse order of standings because then you get teams tanking which affects records, division championships, people setting legit lineups, way more drama comes along with that. OPF is the closest thing you can get to actual power rankings for how good a team really is and there's no way to cheat it whether teams start their best lineup or not.
If Saints listed him as a WR in the Presason, Why add WR and not just make Hill a WR at that point? Fleaflicker posts a message In Sept. that we can use Hill as a QB or a WR in September. REPEAT FLEAFICKER POSTS YOU CAN Also PLAY HILL As a RECEIVER IN SEPT. on Facebook ect Now you change the rules at the end of the season???? Your Policy is not to change designations during the season and you change it . What is going on here?
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?
JimNayziumSun 11/22/20 2:36 PM
Everyone here arguing fairness is just empirically incorrect. It’s an EGREGIOUS advantage to the manager who starts Hill at WR but since ALL TEAM’s were faced with the decision to pick him up or not and each had the equal opportunity to do that, it’s completely FAIR.
Saying starting hill at WR is unfair discounts the roster sacrifices made to acquire Hill to begin with. it would be more UNFAIR to remove after the fact the anticipated advantage one would gain if they chose to acquire him.
It would be akin to arbitrarily deciding a player like Adam Theilen this week is not allowed to be in your FLEX. Changing the rules and designations after the fact is not fair to the managers who used those designations in their decision making process.
Claiming it whining about the disadvantage this totally FAIR MOVE out YOIR team in this week is just sour grapes much like complaining that since your good player Derrick Henry is playing versus a good defense this week. that’s not fair!!!!
Saying it’s not fair is simply not true.
Saying it’s lame. Or cheesy. Maybe so. But you could have done the same exact thing which by definition makes it fair.
Sonny_DSun 11/22/20 3:36 PM
That’s not the point. He’s a starting QB being allowed to be slotted in the WR slot. Why is this so difficult to understand? He’s played most of his snaps on ST. Why not just slot him in the DEF/ST spot too?
Mapleleafed56Sun 11/22/20 4:28 PM
Obviously JimNayzium you have him on your team LOL. I say put the shoe on the foot of the guy you are playing and how would you feel about it? Of course you can lie to yourself and say you wouldnt let it bother you but we all know that is BS
Jo-MAmaSun 11/22/20 6:53 PM
Again JimN, THAT IS NOT THE PONT of who picked Hill up. The issue is fairness in applying points and allowing Hill to be slotted into a RB/WR/TE Flex when he isn't actually playing ANY of those positions! That's a loophole that needs to be remedied. Every player should have ONE SINGLE POSITION designation. That would fix this issue completely.
DRD00MSun 11/22/20 10:10 PM
Jo Mama Hill did have the position QB till this year with QB/WR but he does so many things for his team which give him the Flex Position Its amazing that whining about it is for there only only recourse for what is a Checkmate Move .
Jo-MAmaSun 11/22/20 11:27 PM
They need to give Lamar Jackson a QB/RB designation then. He has RG3 come in at QB and Jackson plays RB. Same logic.
DRD00MSun 11/22/20 11:34 PM
I say do it it makes sense to me but they need to change it at the Start of the year as they did for Hill no midseason changes 2020 might as be as weird as we can make it though .
Crom75Mon 11/23/20 11:34 AM
He was a QB last year. A 3rd string QB in for gadget plays. Skip the draft in empire leagues there. Then, this year in the FA draft for same league, still a QB. Then, in another startup right after rookie draft, he is still just listed as a QB. So, some guy gets him in the last couple of rounds as an emergency QB or a handcuff to Brees. No one else is really going to worry. Then, a few months into the league year he is changed. That is what makes it unfair. I have him in two leagues and I see the unfairness of it. Slash was only ever able to be played as a QB.
DRD00MMon 11/23/20 11:54 AM
SackSabbath Hill was listed as a QB/WR to start the year it wasn't done in the middle of the year .
Crom75Mon 11/23/20 1:55 PM
He wasn't listed as a QB/WR until training camp when Saints listed him that way. Our startup drafts and rookie drafts were right after the real rookie draft. So, that is before the switch. Also, the new NFL year begins before training camp and therefore he was listed that way at the beginning of the season. The switch was before week 1 but not before the new year began.
JimNayziumMon 11/23/20 3:34 PM
I definitely have him in one league. And was beaten to him in another league while picking him up in the first league. I am in multiple leagues. Some I have him in some and some I don't. Some are with him as TE and some WR and some QB only... depending on Yahoo or Espn or Flea-Flicker. I have no problem seeing both sides of it. Any manager who USED the SEASON-LONG designations of QB-WR in evaluating whether to stash him or not should not be unfairly retroactively penalized by an arbitrary decision to change the status AFTER the fact, and ALSO after Flea-Flicker literally published RULES saying they would NEVER do that.
IF, however, it changes, then I would honor that and move ahead without griping about it, as that seems like "rub of the green," to me, somewhat similarly to other managers getting hit with a manager who was savvy enough to stash him in case they get to double-dip him at WR in Flea-Flicker.
No matter what any tries to declare about the FAIRNESS of the situation, it's empirically true that playing Taysom Hill in the WR slot in Flea-flicker is 100 percent FAIR because each manager in every league was presented with the exact same opportunity to take advantage of it. To declare it not fair after the fact is exactly like declaring it unfair that Waller and Kelce are not designated as Receivers when they lead their team in targets and line up flanked out where Wide REceivers line up 70-80 percent of the snaps they play... that is to say, LUDICROUS.
The advantage gained by Hill playing WR may be cheesy, or lame, or stupid, but it's 100-percent FAIR. To say otherwise, no matter how often or harshly you say it, doesn't make it true. No ONE CHEATED to play him at WR. Any manager that is surprised it exisited got out researched and out-maneuvered by managers who did take advantage of it.
And any moves that got made after reading Flea-Flicker's WRITTEN POST on the RULES about how they would NEVER remove a designated status, did so assuming Flea-Flicker would actually DO WHAT THEY SAID THEY WOULD DO give that information. Therefore a move to DROP a player from your bench like say, a stashed Gardner Minshew on IR so you could pick up Taysom Hill to double-dip him may have been worth it at the time, but if you are not allowed to double dip him NOW after the move, it changes things retroactively unfairly.
Imagine if you did your draft with the presumption you were in a STANDARD scoring league so you didn't draft McKissik or Cole Beasley, but then after the draft the commissioner who was in charge declared, "OH YEAH, we are a FULL PPR league." WELL THAT changes everything.
And the PUBLISHED rules on Flea-Flicker's site stated emphatically and without ability to misinterpret what they would do in this EXACT GIVEN situation... and that allowed managers to make their INFORMED decisions. To change it after the fact would be the same logic as selling raffle tickets for 5 dollars per ticket with the posted prize being a 2020 Mini-Van and then having the drawing and designating a winner, and then telling the winner, "Oh we meant a 2020 Mini-Van POSTER," sorry about that, but thanks for your 5 bucks.
Sonny_DMon 11/23/20 5:37 PM
JimNayzium Sees both sides of the argument, but posts a novel (numerous posts) on why he should keep his WR designation. Yeah, ok buddy. Lol
JimNayziumMon 11/23/20 5:45 PM
I am in four leagues - and don't have him in my main league. Novel or not, I am entitled to my opinion. If Flea Flicker changes their designation I will under ZERO cricumstances change it back or do anything to make sure he gets to play WR in my leagues I have him. I knew the risks when I claimed them. I will maintain that I chose to drop other players on my roster BECAUSE of the upside of double dipping him and changing his roster designation after the fact is going to unfairly affect that... that's just empirically true in this case. My claiming him in free agency while he HAD the double designation, JUST LIKE Cordarral Patterson currently has, was in no WAY, SHAPE, or FORM unfair. But it's perceived as unfair by the folks who got out maneuvered by managers who took advantage of the deisgnation and now want to claim it's unfair.
I have him in the rosters and leagues I have him in and don't in the league I want to win the most! But I will defend the manager who got him in that league to start him at WR over me in the champioinship if he's able to at that time!!
Jo-MAmaMon 11/23/20 5:53 PM
Actually I've seen a lot of people stating they know it's an unfair advantage and refuse to play Hill in their TE or WR slot, when he is playing QB. Some people still have a sense of decency and fairness. But not everyone, I see.
JimNayziumMon 11/23/20 6:07 PM
You can judge all you want my decency and sense of fairness. Espeically since we've never met and you chose to do that.. .which proves you are full of decency and fairness! hahahaha --- I have come across players in my league who have told me when I offered to do that that they would under any ciccurmstances NOT play him at WR if they could have. And I find thier sense of fairness to be more in line with how I see it here.
I am happy to not win my games -- I play in leagues were we put in 25 bucks total! hahahah I literally offered anyone who had a problem with it any of it a full refund and offered to pay the winners of the league out of my pocket!
I just truly honestly believe that changing the rules of the game mid-game is MORE unfair than the advantage gained by following the rules of the game as outlined ahead of time and FAIRLY gaining an advantage.
Like I said in other posts, Jo-MAma, if we played in a league together and you proposed a VOTE to make it a rule ahead of time that if a QB was multi-designated and we played him inn our LINEUP we HAD TO play him at QUARTERBACK I would 100-percent of the time vote in favor of that being the rule.
But to act like everyone has to agree with one side of this just because that's your opinion on what constitutes fair play or the true spirit of "fantasy football" is kinda silly, since literally fantasy football is a game of gambling based on information acquired... And you have failed to at least acknowledge how UNFAIR changing that infomration mid-stream is to the side of the argument who have it changed.
Do I think it's stupid to have had him multi-designated to begin with? 100-percent!! I think that's dumb and a hacky gimmicky glitch that will cause players who play by the rules to gain an advantage NOT intended ahead of time. But do I belive we are HONOR BOUND in a GAME to make up our own set of rules to govern the rules that SHOULD BE PRESENT in a game out of some spirit of fairness? WHERE IS THE LINE?
Should we also ONLY COUNT THE FIRST 15 carries of a runningback's day since it's not fair that Derrick Henry may get 30 and another RB1 may only get 17?? That seems "unfair" by all the standards of the people crying "unfair."
No one cheated to claim and obtain Taysom Hill. No one cheated to play him at WR based on his designation.
I may lose my favoritte league because this happened against me in that league and I maintain it's stupid!!!! but not UNFAIR!
JimNayziumMon 11/23/20 6:14 PM
I've yet to hear anyone make any argument about acquiring Taysom Hill was done so unfairly. All I have heard is commentary about how playing him at WR is a clear advantage. Which is super obvious and the exact reason ANYONE in their right mind would have gambled any roster value on his spot -- for the added ability to play him AT WR. Why would anyone have picked him up to play over Russell Wilson or Josh Allen? That's ludicrous.
if what we are arguing is how it's dumb. I concede it's dumb. I concede it's "shady" or "lame" or "hacky" but I won't concede anyone is CHEATING to do it. Or that we solud arbitrarily penalize those who have decided to do it out of some larger sense of right and wrong... Get off your high horses people, we are playing a game that tracks the accomplishments of other grown men playing a game we were not talented enough to play ourselves. To act like there is a code of honor surrounding one way of Fantasy Football and some styles of play BREAK that code just illustrates how far we've fallen as grown-men in the world. hahahhahaha....
It's a GAME... it has rules and procedures. Sometimes things work against us and some times they work for us! Dealing with that is what the game literally is.
What i would PREFER is to play in a league where all 9 other managers were trying to take all the advantages I took when I took Hill and played him at WR. That's why I love the league where I could lose to the guy who did it, because we are all on the same page and love that kind of stuff.
If I am in a league where the people think we should go out of our way to FORFEIT advantages that we gave our team with our strategic moves, just cuz they don't LIKE those moves, well that's just a dumb game in my opinion.
Crom75Mon 11/23/20 6:21 PM
On the Saints homepage Taysom Hill is listed as a QB ONLY. Therefore he should ONLY be eligible for QB ir superflex. Fleaflicker changed him from QB to QB WR when the Saints changed him. In all FAIRNESS they should change him back to just QB just as the Saints did. It is UNFAIR to play a player not designated by their team in a position at that position. Otherwise I am going to put all of my offensive scoring to apply to kickers as well and start Josh Allen at QB, Hill at WR, and Derek Carr at K. Let's add Lamar at RB for that argument on here. All on my roster
JimNayziumMon 11/23/20 6:31 PM
I agree with the hacky stupid argument... but your arguments are all moot since none of the players you reference in the outlandish scenarios WERE carrying Designations that allowed for that to ever happen. Taysom Hill DID IN FACT carry designation of WR whether you think he should have or not.
I honestly agree with your LOGIC that what SHOULD be the case is to mimic the TEAMS's actual HOMEPAGE and DEPTH CHART... that would be great and it could actually change week to week. That would also be great.
HOWEVER, we've already NOT done that so it's super unfair to START DOING that after the game (the season long game) is in progress! Why no one on the other side even pretends to acknowledge how flawed that is, is actually crazy to me. Everyone wants to cast me aside as a Taysom HIll owner who just wants to win my leagues, which is silly! I am even MORE EMPHATIC in the league where I have to beat the Taysom Hill owner that I should have to BEAT him while playing at WR since the owner got him while he had that designation! I also picked up the player he dropped for Hill, so I feel like I should have to give that player back if we change the designation!
But no one on the other side of the argument even seems to consider how crazy it is. Cordarral Patterson is dual designation player too and after Monty got hurt last week he got like 20 carries and scored 18 fantasy points. Was that unfair to play him at WR then?
DRD00MMon 11/23/20 7:48 PM
Actually the ones not starting Hill in there leagues because of fairness in there minds are the ones I am wondering about the most because in War there is nothing fair about War ,win at all costs because losing at the cost of being nice makes you a Prisoner of War !
Crom75Mon 11/23/20 7:48 PM
Jo-Mama I'm only playing him at QB or Superflex now that he has been declared starting QB only on the official roster
Crom75Mon 11/23/20 7:55 PM
When I drafted him, he was JUST a QB - on FF AND on the Saints roster. I played him at QB only. Then, he switched officially on both. I played him at WR. Now, he is named as starting QB and only listed as a QB by Saints. FF should do the same and since they haven't it's sportsmanship to only use him as QB. The reality is FF switched him once, they should switch him again. If they aren't going to do the right thing, I'll play Spike Lee and do it myself.
Sonny_DMon 11/23/20 8:01 PM
Well ESPN has officially made him QB only. Fleaflicker would be the only platform to have him at a position other than QB. He’s a QB. Get it right Flea.
Crom75Mon 11/23/20 8:04 PM
Yeah, NFL never even switched him. Which made sense because he didn't switch until after the LEAGUE YEAR began. That was their reasoning. Yes, it was before any games were played but after the offseason started, and free agency, and drafts etc.
SpecialK23Mon 11/23/20 8:11 PM
Fleaflicker didn't "switch" him. They added the WR designation, which they flat out say in the owners manual that they can/will do. What they say they DON'T do, is REMOVE a designation.
Crom75Mon 11/23/20 8:31 PM
well, you can say they removed all of the DT, DE, and LB designations from a ton of players when they did the whole EDR IL thing. They did that after drafts and such too. However, they did a great out for that with letting owners keep original distinctions. They should do something similar for Hill. Make his designation what it is in real life and allow commissioners an out to keep the dual designation for him.
WbozMon 11/23/20 9:31 PM
You guys arguing about something that doesn't matter. You want a real problem check your Optimal Points For as Fleaflicker isn't counting it right for Taysom Hill lineups. He's only being counted at QB for Optimal Points For instead of being counted as a flex play. This will totally affect rookie draft orders if you use that, which most dynasty leagues do. Fleaflicker needs to count Hill in the flex category for OPF so the other QB's rostered can count in the QB spots.
Crom75Mon 11/23/20 10:23 PM
That's all part of why I use inverse standings for draft order. Nonplayoff teams order decided at end of season etc. Playoff teams at end. So much easier, especially with divisions
WbozMon 11/23/20 10:54 PM
Disregard what I said, flea flicker already fixed it right after I said that. I don't like inverse order of standings because then you get teams tanking which affects records, division championships, people setting legit lineups, way more drama comes along with that. OPF is the closest thing you can get to actual power rankings for how good a team really is and there's no way to cheat it whether teams start their best lineup or not.
4GunslingerTue 11/24/20 10:40 AM
If Saints listed him as a WR in the Presason, Why add WR and not just make Hill a WR at that point? Fleaflicker posts a message In Sept. that we can use Hill as a QB or a WR in September. REPEAT FLEAFICKER POSTS YOU CAN Also PLAY HILL As a RECEIVER IN SEPT. on Facebook ect Now you change the rules at the end of the season???? Your Policy is not to change designations during the season and you change it . What is going on here?