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 .

They need to give Lamar Jackson a QB/RB designation then. He has RG3 come in at QB and Jackson plays RB. Same logic.

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.

SackSabbath Hill was listed as a QB/WR to start the year it wasn't done in the middle of the year .

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.

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

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 !

Jo-Mama I'm only playing him at QB or Superflex now that he has been declared starting QB only on the official roster

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?

Taysom Hill is highest projected points player for this week at WR.... Drops Davante Adams to #2... A joke... If you can change him to QB/WR as of two days ago, you can make it right by listing him as QB.

He’s been a QB/WR all season long. Not just two days ago. That’s one reason lots of teams stashed him in case this very thing happened. To change it now would ruin that earlier strategy.

I had to drop 2 useful players to pick up Hill so they better not change it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He was only QB in drafts in the Spring though. Also, last year he was just a QB. In dynasty he was not that valuable with just the QB designation last season once they signed Winston, and before his position switch. Dropped him in two leagues. He was my fourth or fifth QB in one, but would have been third WR. The other, a team I took over, he would have been a top player on my team but was buried behind Carr and Tannehil

l on the QB chart.

To other comments, QB/RB designation is ridiculous. There has always been running QBs that get their points equally or more on the ground and just labeled QB. Cunningham, Vick, Newton, more before that too I know but I am sticking more modern era. Nowadays dual threat QBs are becoming the norm. Hell, even my man Carr is running more than ever. What, are we going to make every mobile QB a QB/RB?

I agree SackSabbath and I think you are missing the point I am seeing. Which is IF LAMAR was already a RB/QB designation when you drafted him, it CHANGED the value of his output potential and caused you to value him much HIGHER than normal quarterbacks... and to have it changed after the fact cannot UNDO your already spent logic on the earlier decision to have drafted him higher based on that designation.

THERE SHOULD NEVER EVER BE A DUAL POSITION DESIGNATION! For any player.

Hill should be changed to QB or WR or TE position immediately before week 12.

Problem solved.

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. Otherwise their logic for the first change is invalid AND VIOLATES all of their position policies.

If flea flicker changes it I will gladly and MOST humbly play along. You won't see me crying about it the way the first wave of managers have cried about it.. that's for sure. I will just before that -- Flea Flicker anticipated exactly what I am arguing for -- based on their initial RULES of "we will never remove a status designation after it's been posted" declaration on their rules page... so I agree it's a cluster-eff nightmare because they gave him a WR / QB double designation to begin with.

I am 100 percent fine to submit to flea-flickers app on their change should they make it. I will just maintain forever I think their decision was WRONG based on their already PUBLISHED RULES and unfairly dictates dollars being awarded in home leagues all over who chose to research and follow those rules THEY posted to begin with!

Yahoo got it the MOST Right I think by just making him a QB only to begin with. (To be clear. That's what I truly think.) But given the dual designation, I just think it's most fair to keep it there since we cannot UNDO all the player adds and drops to acquire him and didn't have the PREFACE as ESPN leagues had ahead of time that "we may change this designation later..." Had there been that designation then I woudn't have posted one message because then Flea Flicker could make the change willy nilly and I would have READ THAT AHEAD OF TIME.

And to be clear .... OF COURSE I have Taysom Hill at WR in 3 leagues!! But again, in the league I want to win the most -- I don't have him and think I should have to beat the team who does have him at WR with my team!

I get your point. Likewise I have some where it helps and some where the QB playing WR absolutely kills it for me. It's just that they already changed the status. To begin the league year he was still a QB only. They had him that way for drafts and such. Then they changed him during training camp. Yes, before any regular season games were played but a. It still was changed and b. It was changed after the nfl year and off-season, and therefore many dynasty leagues, began the 2020 season

What the hell do projected points even matter?

Just remember that whatever stat appears sequentially first with similar description (for every plain, after reaching, for the first) in your league's scoring rules that satisfies his roster slot will add to his score.

BOTTOM LINE QUESTION: Can an owner play Taysom Hill in a FLEX SPOT (RB/WR/TE) even though he is announced as the starting QB and thus an owner would be starting TWO QBs.....One at the normal QB position, plus Hill in the FLEX. I agree with DBon that a team cannot be allowed to start TWO QB's!

We need a logical explanation Flea. Your cut&paste below is weak.

The logical explanation is he’s been a multi designation player all season. That means owners who stashed a roster spot anticipating this very scenario gained their advantage this week when it did indeed come to fruition. Everyone in your league had the fair opportunity to risk this for their team. To change it now would damage your league in ways you’re not realizing. The owners who stashed HILL a week or two ago may have instead claimed players on waivers that you ended up claiming. But instead used the multi designation in their factors in deciding who to claim.

If you remove the ability to place Hill in WR after the fact then you unfairly hurt the managers who made their decisions based on anticipating the ability to do this.

Those who don’t like it are missing the above issues in the strategic play to have stashed him.

That is terrible logic. Nobody had him stashed. Nobody. Hill was a quick pickup this week bc owners saw a loophole. An illegal loophole. Players need to carry ONE designated position. Lamar Jackson should be designated as a RB/QB with your logic. Play him at flex and another QB as usual.... Why not that?

No that's not even relevant to the argument Jo-MAma. My logic and argument is more like, IF LAMAR WAS ALREADY designated as a RB/QB and you had your draft, wouldn't it CHANGE HIS VALUE drastically if you drafted him and then it got taken away? Surely you see that's what I am saying, right?

Thank you for the response

So are you now back-tracking on this? You just tweeted you may change it, which is terrible. Waiver bids were made based on your site saying you don't remove position eligibility.

If you don’t change it this week you can’t change it next week

You can't change it after saying this, you're opening up a can of worms here

This was a joke. I lost cause my opponent had hill in a wr spot this week. Hope it doesn’t cost me a playoff spot.

Once he was announced as the starting QB it should've changed this week. It's basically a cheat code. Fix it.

Also, enough of the guessing. If the NFL says he is a QB then he's a QB. Do we allow every WR that gets hand offs regularly to be cross-designated RB? No. We don't.

Why are you on here responding to questions you don’t know the answers to? So much for your BS claim. Just say you don’t know next time. Moron.

FLEA FLICKER ADMIN?? -- I guess the whole "we don't remove status designations mid-season" was just a made up rule that was not a set in stone type thing?

I guess the last four days of decisions made on trades and waivers and negotiations with team members are all just now a waste of time and retroactively changed??

Why not just post -- "Previously our stated position has been this rule here --- but everyone needs to hesitate and pause any decisions sicne we could literally just MAKE UP NEW RULES MID SEASON since we may cave to the pressures put on us by the 9-1 ratio of managers crying how stupid and unfair it is since they got out manuevered by other managers willing to take advantage of the rules as they were written!"

But TE is his actual position if anything I think they should make him eligible for QB/WR/TE this week cuz thats fair for everyone

Not the point. The point is will he be QB only?

yeah I dont want that I want QB/TE