49erAddict-08 Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 I use myfantasyleague.com to host our league. An owner in my league has requested that I make Danny Whitehead a RB/WR instead of just a RB. Apparently he says that ESPN and Yahoo have him listed as a RB/WR, but I don't see that on the Patriots depth chart. Is he really a RB/WR? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Stanky Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 He's listed that way in Yahoo, but I don't see why you would change it for you league site if it's currently set to RB. I'm not sure why he's listed as RB/WR in Yahoo anyway. He's listed as a RB by the Pats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskey Pimp Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 I've never understood why some sites (yahoo, etc) have some players listed at 2 different positions. Sure some guys line up in different spots but a player is drafted with 1 position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 Some of the confusion comes from when he was with the Jets, he had a WR designation and a number in the 80's. I beleive he is wearing 39 in NE, and is listed as an RB. MFL as usual, has it right... Yahoo has it wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 I wouldn't change it. I believe that yahoo and espn have him listed as both because he played different positions for the 2 teams he's been on this year. I'm not sure who has it right or wrong, but I'm not a fan of changing basic league/site configurations like that. If you do that, you're opening up a really slippery slope because a lot of RBs line up out wide every now and again and a lot of WRs take multiple snaps per game as a RB. I can't think of anyone else off the top of my head who actually switched positions mid-season like Woodhead has effectively done this year - he's an odd case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskey Pimp Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 (edited) I wouldn't change it. I believe that yahoo and espn have him listed as both because he played different positions for the 2 teams he's been on this year. I'm not sure who has it right or wrong, but I'm not a fan of changing basic league/site configurations like that. If you do that, you're opening up a really slippery slope because a lot of RBs line up out wide every now and again and a lot of WRs take multiple snaps per game as a RB. I can't think of anyone else off the top of my head who actually switched positions mid-season like Woodhead has effectively done this year - he's an odd case. Sure but when he was on the Jets he should have been listed as WR, now that he's wearing 39 and on the Pats and they list him as a RB that's what he should only be listed as...a RB. The sites had to change his team, schedule and bye so they should have switched his position too. Edited October 28, 2010 by Whiskey Pimp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 Sure but when he was on the Jets he should have been listed as WR, now that he's wearing 39 and on the Pas and they list him as a RB that's what he should only be listed as...a RB. The sites had to change his team, schedule and bye so they should have switched his position too. I don't see why his uniform # should have anything to do with this. The guy has legitimately played (and can still play) both positions this season, which can't really be said for too many players. I'm not bothered by the designation. Like I said though, I also don't favor either designation - I wouldn't change it just because the Woodhead owner asked me too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
49erAddict-08 Posted October 28, 2010 Author Share Posted October 28, 2010 Thanks guys! I think I'm going to go ahead and trust MFL on this one as you guys mentioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 I actually asked this question in another thread, because I was amazed that Yahoo would be that dumb to have him listed as a WR too. The guy is getting about 8-10 carries a game, and has 30 carries to 9 catches. That's a RB, just like he's listed for the Pats, and it's not particularly close. Seems the only reason he was listed as a WR with the Jets is that they needed him as an emergency backup while Holmes was on suspension. This isn't to say that he might not have had a WR role/label with the Jets, but in New England, there is no doubt how they're using him. Even if he splits out wide every now and then and catches passes, you just can't get 8-10 carries a game and be WR eligible. It's just absurd. But all that aside, is there any precedence or rule that you go by what Yahoo has them listed as? I would hope not, because YFF is certainly not the authority on how players should be listed. Tell him, that it's crap like this why he should be glad you're with MFL instead of Yahoo. It would set a horrible precedent to allow owners to pick and choose which eligibility they want, just because another site has it blatantly wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 It would set a horrible precedent to allow owners to pick and choose which eligibility they want, just because another site has it blatantly wrong. I agree. What happens if an owner sees Ronnie Brown line up at QB? Does he get to demand to be able to start him as a QB? Stick with what your site has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 Seems the only reason he was listed as a WR with the Jets is that they needed him as an emergency backup while Holmes was on suspension. This isn't to say that he might not have had a WR role/label with the Jets, but in New England, there is no doubt how they're using him. Even if he splits out wide every now and then and catches passes, you just can't get 8-10 carries a game and be WR eligible. It's just absurd. The Jets only kept 4 WRs out of camp and he was one of them - on the other hand, they kept 5 RBs. In short, he was kept as a WR, not a RB. On a related note, do you think Cribbs should also not be a WR? He's got just as many rushing attempts as he has receptions. What about McCluster or Percy Harvin, each of whom get a fair amount of carries out of the backfield? Granted, these guys aren't as severe a case as Woodhead (30 carries to only 9 catches) but this is the type of slippery slope I was talking about earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeachBum Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 Thanks guys! I think I'm going to go ahead and trust MFL on this one as you guys mentioned. I would guess that Yahoo carries over a designation from the previous year. That's what they do in Baseball - a catcher last year turned first base this year is kept eligibole at both until he goes a season without any starts at the old position. They're probably doing the same in football, based on Danny's WR spot with the Jets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 (edited) The Jets only kept 4 WRs out of camp and he was one of them - on the other hand, they kept 5 RBs. In short, he was kept as a WR, not a RB. On a related note, do you think Cribbs should also not be a WR? He's got just as many rushing attempts as he has receptions. What about McCluster or Percy Harvin, each of whom get a fair amount of carries out of the backfield? Granted, these guys aren't as severe a case as Woodhead (30 carries to only 9 catches) but this is the type of slippery slope I was talking about earlier. My league actually formulated a rule because of McCluster, that the guy has to have 50% of his touches be carries to be ELIGIBLE a RB, and vice versa. This doesn't mean that you're forced to use Cribbs as a RB, even if it's over 50% (since he's still listed as a WR), but this is the only way an owner can lobby to have his status changed. However, because distribution can change week-to-week (and so would his eligibility, under this rule), this might not have been as well-thought out as I had originally thought and may need to be tweaked, but is about the only other fair way I can think of, other than just going by what the team or site has them listed as. But I personally think it should go by what the team has them listed as. What does it matter if the Jets saw him as a better fit for their WR4 spot? He's not on the team anymore. NE is using him as their RB2, and all of the numbers fully support that. Personally, I think the opposite, that it's a slippery slope to allow a clear RB to gain WR status because of a technicality. McCluster's status was a RB when he was in college, but the Chiefs drafted him as a WR. I don't see how that's really any different than Woodhead's situation, other than a pure technicality. (ETA: but of course, if you're in a Yahoo league that doesn't have a rule otherwise, then I'm 100% in supoort of going with what they have listed. But I think we're in agreement that it doesn't apply to how MFL has him designated). Edited October 28, 2010 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUMbotron Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 To take a page from Big John's playbook.... http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?show...woodhead++thing Honestly, I can't believe any commissioner would allow Woodhead to be deployed as a WR. It's some sort of Yahoo glitch run amok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 Personally, I think the opposite, that it's a slippery slope to allow a clear RB to gain WR status because of a technicality. McCluster's status was a RB when he was in college, but the Chiefs drafted him as a WR. I don't see how that's really any different than Woodhead's situation, other than a pure technicality. But the slippery slope doesn't matter when it's a server that's making the designation (because there's nothing you can do about it) - if an individual commish starts making changes to the server's designations, however, that's when it becomes dangerous. I actually don't think McCluster's and Woodhead's situations are very different (you'll be shocked to hear that Yahoo gives the former dual eligibility as well). They're unique cases where each guy has been legitimately tagged to play both positions - that's why I have no issue with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 To take a page from Big John's playbook.... http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?show...woodhead++thing Honestly, I can't believe any commissioner would allow Woodhead to be deployed as a WR. It's some sort of Yahoo glitch run amok. you would be surprised at how many owners start bitching and crying when the commish in a Yahoo/ESPN league starts trying to make changes that can't actually be reflected on the site. The rules are the rules - if Yahoo doesn't give you the ability to change something, it can't be changed without enduring hours of listening to people bitch and moan. This is why Yahoo sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL Fan Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 This brings to mind the Kordell Stewart "Slash" days. How was he listed then? IIRC he was listed as a QB in our league and the owner was bitching about it then, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Stanky Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 We had a huge debate about this in my league during Colston's rookie year. He's was a TE in college, but we all know that he played WR as a rookie. I think Yahoo has a designation that if a player plays a position for 4 or 5 weeks then he gets that designation. The league was up in arms because it just so happend that the only team that was really hurting at TE at the begining of the year was able to snag Colston. Colston ended up being the #1 or #2 TE for the year that year, when he was really playing WR. Since Yahoo had him listed that way we allowed it, but thinking back I don't think that we should have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeerLeagueQB Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 Why does this matter anyway? The only way you play Woodhead is in the flex position anyway. Is your WR roster that slim that you'd actually plug him in there? The guy's a flex play at best, therefore the WR/RB should really have no bearing on your decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 This brings to mind the Kordell Stewart "Slash" days. How was he listed then? IIRC he was listed as a QB in our league and the owner was bitching about it then, too. Why? Did he ever really accumulate enough stats in his RB/WR role to be usable at other positions in fantasy? Surely the guy at issue wasn't trying to play him at WR when he was actually the starting QB . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 Why does this matter anyway? The only way you play Woodhead is in the flex position anyway. Is your WR roster that slim that you'd actually plug him in there? The guy's a flex play at best, therefore the WR/RB should really have no bearing on your decision. All depends on the depth and type of league you're in. We have 3 WRs and a flex in one of my leagues, so he certainly merits WR3 consideration these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 We had a huge debate about this in my league during Colston's rookie year. He's was a TE in college, but we all know that he played WR as a rookie. I think Yahoo has a designation that if a player plays a position for 4 or 5 weeks then he gets that designation. The league was up in arms because it just so happend that the only team that was really hurting at TE at the begining of the year was able to snag Colston. Colston ended up being the #1 or #2 TE for the year that year, when he was really playing WR. Since Yahoo had him listed that way we allowed it, but thinking back I don't think that we should have. I recall that as well. Being commish, my experience has always been that you're better off just letting the Yahoo designations go as is . . . UNLESS you state clearly at the beginning of the year that no player will be eligible to play a position that they're not actually playing. Problem is that this has never really been an issue that anyone has cared about in my league, so there's been no need to institute that rule on day 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL Fan Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 Why? Did he ever really accumulate enough stats in his RB/WR role to be usable at other positions in fantasy? Surely the guy at issue wasn't trying to play him at WR when he was actually the starting QB . . . Yeah, he was because he also had Manning and was weak at WR. And in our league (most leagues?) even an average QB is more consistent that a WR3, especially in the days before PPR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 Yeah, he was because he also had Manning and was weak at WR. And in our league (most leagues?) even an average QB is more consistent that a WR3, especially in the days before PPR. That's just a ridiculous argument though - at least there's some gray area between scat back and slot WR . . . QB and WR? Madness - I hope he was laughed at when he made this request. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 Why does this matter anyway? The only way you play Woodhead is in the flex position anyway. Is your WR roster that slim that you'd actually plug him in there? The guy's a flex play at best, therefore the WR/RB should really have no bearing on your decision. I actually don't think McCluster's and Woodhead's situations are very different (you'll be shocked to hear that Yahoo gives the former dual eligibility as well). They're unique cases where each guy has been legitimately tagged to play both positions - that's why I have no issue with it. These statements got me to thinking, what would happen if Green-Ellis were to go down? That would mean that the guy who's already getting 8-10 carries a game would see his RB role expand to full-on RB, worthy of at least RB2 consideration in fantasy, particularly in PPR. Now what would happen if Jones or Charles went down? Maybe McCluster might see a few more carries, but he's only had 11 carries all season. IMO, it is clear that McCluster is used as a hybrid WR, whereas Woodhead is used more as a hybrid sort of RB, due to the sheer volume of the carries. I think that's an important distinction to make, because despite the % of carries to catches, one clearly has a much larger primary role as a RB. That's why I have to change my stance (and rule in the off-season) and agree with JUM on this one. Even in Yahoo, I think the commissioner should not allow Woodhead to have WR eligiblity. This seems one of the rare cases where commissioner discretion is needed to overturn Yahoo's idiocy. If it looks like a RB, smells like a RB, gets double-digit carries and is rostered as a RB, then guess what... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.