I would personally like to see this eliminated all together. If the team has them labeled as a LB, that is what they should be here.
I have a problem with the fact that players like Terrell Suggs, Elvis Dumervil and Tamba Hali have this label. If it is going to be this way for them, it needs to be this way for all of the 3-4 linebackers that play the same way. DeMarcus Ware, James Harrison and even Clay Matthews come to mind as a few linebackers that primarily rush the quarterback. There are a lot more of them but these are just a few examples. With so many NFL teams going to the 3-4 defense, there will be many more in the future.
I am trying to set up a very detailed scoring system here on FleaFlicker, that is set up using different stat multipliers for each position. This DL/LB position really limits what I can do with the stat categories and keep everything balanced.
Basically it seems like it would be an easier fix for FleaFlicker to just eliminate, or at least give the commissioner of the league the option to change this DL/LB labeling. The players position should match whatever the NFL teams call them.
Another problem with this DL/LB labeling is that these guys count against your roster maximums at both positions. I play in a few leagues where the commissioners are pretty tight with the maximum amount of player you can have at one position and this screws this up too. This really needs to be fixed. There is a lot wrong with this set up.
I disagree with this. Anybody picking up a guy like Suggs already knows that he will count twice against the maximums. It is part of the deal when drafting him, or any other player with dual eligibility. Suggs, in some scoring systems, scores more than an average DL, but that added production comes at a price, especially when there are really tight position maxes.
I also disagree with the original post about eliminating the dual position eligibility. There are certain players, like Suggs, who truly play two positions. There was a big fuss over Suggs prior to the start of the 2009 season. I argued that he should maintain his DL/LB status and one of my biggest reasons was the number of plays he lined up at each position. In 2008, Suggs lined up 55% of the time at DL and 45% of the time at LB (those numbers are probably a percent or two off, it has been over a year since I looked at them). If you get rid of one of his position eligibilities, which would you get rid of seeing that he lined up more often at DL than LB? The argument to make guys like Ronnie Brown eligible at QB is just silly. He didn't even take 10% of the snaps at QB. There would need to be a minimum of 33% of plays played at a certain position to grant dual eligibility.
I can understand the idea behind giving commishes control over dual eligibility, but it will never happen. That is far too technical for the programmers to figure out. I think this place is on the verge of being put on auto-pilot (if it isn't already) and adding that will just not happen.
My problem is not so much that there is dual eligibility. It does completely screw up the scoring system that I am trying to build,but I can work around it if I have to. My problem is more so, that it is only like 5 players that have it Suggs, Hali, Scott, Dumervil and Orakpo. There may be one or two more. There are a lot more players that play more than one position. Why should these five players get this designation and not every 3 - 4 defense LB that plays the same role? I completely disagree with you about the percentage of plays at a position having anything to do with it. If you play more than one position and other guys in the league get this luxury of being listed that way, then all of them should. The differences of opinion are the exact reason why making this a switchable option would be the best solution.
I haven't been on FleaFlicker that long so I will take your word on the fact that this or any other changes for that matter are very unlikely to happen.
And Jason Taylor and Jarrett Johnson and Lorenzo Alexander and Andre Carter. There are a lot of guys that get listed at the wrong position and there are some that get switched mid-season.
This is why I think it might be a good idea to make this an option that the commissioner of the league can switch. The fact that FleaFlicker could be working on something else instead of worrying about scanning rosters every week to see who is playing where, would be a win-win for all involved. We as commissioners could make sure that the positions were correct either at the beginning of the season and even possibly change during the middle of the season if the league felt is was necessary. If the commissioner and the league felt a player such as Reggie Bush or Dexter McCluster should have a flex roster position such as RB/WR than you could do it. I could argue that there are hundreds of players that could use a flex position. There are TEs like Chris Cooley that play quite a bit of H-Back or FB, the Wildcat has brought RBs like Ronnie Brown and WRs like Brad Smith into a QB role. There are a lot of them if you think about it. I don't want to waste everyone's time by listing them all.
I could also argue that there should be one source of roster designation. I think that should be the NFL. Considering that the NFL is recognized worldwide as the organization that all these teams and players fall under, then they should be the go to source of everything NFL related, including roster designation. What they say should go in my opinion.
The option of changing this by the commissioner would do a good job of leaving it up to the fantasy league. If you league likes flex positions you could add them. If your league doesn't like them, scratch them all. This should be up to the league and it's commissioner.
Does anyone else think this would be a good idea? I know you will always have the commissioners that should be banned anyway, using this as just another way to cheat, but they are going to cheat anyway, so don't try to use this as a reason of why this shouldn't happen. Thanks for any additional comments.
Da18thLetter28Wed 10/27/10 12:02 PM
I would personally like to see this eliminated all together. If the team has them labeled as a LB, that is what they should be here.
I have a problem with the fact that players like Terrell Suggs, Elvis Dumervil and Tamba Hali have this label. If it is going to be this way for them, it needs to be this way for all of the 3-4 linebackers that play the same way. DeMarcus Ware, James Harrison and even Clay Matthews come to mind as a few linebackers that primarily rush the quarterback. There are a lot more of them but these are just a few examples. With so many NFL teams going to the 3-4 defense, there will be many more in the future.
I am trying to set up a very detailed scoring system here on FleaFlicker, that is set up using different stat multipliers for each position. This DL/LB position really limits what I can do with the stat categories and keep everything balanced.
Basically it seems like it would be an easier fix for FleaFlicker to just eliminate, or at least give the commissioner of the league the option to change this DL/LB labeling. The players position should match whatever the NFL teams call them.
Da18thLetter28Wed 11/3/10 11:16 AM
Another problem with this DL/LB labeling is that these guys count against your roster maximums at both positions. I play in a few leagues where the commissioners are pretty tight with the maximum amount of player you can have at one position and this screws this up too. This really needs to be fixed. There is a lot wrong with this set up.
VoltWed 11/3/10 4:06 PM
I disagree with this. Anybody picking up a guy like Suggs already knows that he will count twice against the maximums. It is part of the deal when drafting him, or any other player with dual eligibility. Suggs, in some scoring systems, scores more than an average DL, but that added production comes at a price, especially when there are really tight position maxes.
I also disagree with the original post about eliminating the dual position eligibility. There are certain players, like Suggs, who truly play two positions. There was a big fuss over Suggs prior to the start of the 2009 season. I argued that he should maintain his DL/LB status and one of my biggest reasons was the number of plays he lined up at each position. In 2008, Suggs lined up 55% of the time at DL and 45% of the time at LB (those numbers are probably a percent or two off, it has been over a year since I looked at them). If you get rid of one of his position eligibilities, which would you get rid of seeing that he lined up more often at DL than LB? The argument to make guys like Ronnie Brown eligible at QB is just silly. He didn't even take 10% of the snaps at QB. There would need to be a minimum of 33% of plays played at a certain position to grant dual eligibility.
I can understand the idea behind giving commishes control over dual eligibility, but it will never happen. That is far too technical for the programmers to figure out. I think this place is on the verge of being put on auto-pilot (if it isn't already) and adding that will just not happen.
Da18thLetter28Wed 11/3/10 5:44 PM
My problem is not so much that there is dual eligibility. It does completely screw up the scoring system that I am trying to build,but I can work around it if I have to. My problem is more so, that it is only like 5 players that have it Suggs, Hali, Scott, Dumervil and Orakpo. There may be one or two more. There are a lot more players that play more than one position. Why should these five players get this designation and not every 3 - 4 defense LB that plays the same role? I completely disagree with you about the percentage of plays at a position having anything to do with it. If you play more than one position and other guys in the league get this luxury of being listed that way, then all of them should. The differences of opinion are the exact reason why making this a switchable option would be the best solution.
I haven't been on FleaFlicker that long so I will take your word on the fact that this or any other changes for that matter are very unlikely to happen.
tool-geekTue 11/2/10 3:35 AM
oh ninkovich and hunter are listed as DL but play LB, great steal for IDP leagues
Da18thLetter28Tue 11/2/10 10:00 AM
And Jason Taylor and Jarrett Johnson and Lorenzo Alexander and Andre Carter. There are a lot of guys that get listed at the wrong position and there are some that get switched mid-season.
This is why I think it might be a good idea to make this an option that the commissioner of the league can switch. The fact that FleaFlicker could be working on something else instead of worrying about scanning rosters every week to see who is playing where, would be a win-win for all involved. We as commissioners could make sure that the positions were correct either at the beginning of the season and even possibly change during the middle of the season if the league felt is was necessary. If the commissioner and the league felt a player such as Reggie Bush or Dexter McCluster should have a flex roster position such as RB/WR than you could do it. I could argue that there are hundreds of players that could use a flex position. There are TEs like Chris Cooley that play quite a bit of H-Back or FB, the Wildcat has brought RBs like Ronnie Brown and WRs like Brad Smith into a QB role. There are a lot of them if you think about it. I don't want to waste everyone's time by listing them all.
I could also argue that there should be one source of roster designation. I think that should be the NFL. Considering that the NFL is recognized worldwide as the organization that all these teams and players fall under, then they should be the go to source of everything NFL related, including roster designation. What they say should go in my opinion.
The option of changing this by the commissioner would do a good job of leaving it up to the fantasy league. If you league likes flex positions you could add them. If your league doesn't like them, scratch them all. This should be up to the league and it's commissioner.
Does anyone else think this would be a good idea? I know you will always have the commissioners that should be banned anyway, using this as just another way to cheat, but they are going to cheat anyway, so don't try to use this as a reason of why this shouldn't happen. Thanks for any additional comments.
tool-geekTue 11/2/10 3:35 AM
fantrax.com