Duchess Jack Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samboy Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 I added Colston to my team in week 2 as a TE / WR (this designation was made by yahoo) I have been useing him as both a WR and a TE. I started 0-4 and since have caught on fire and I am now 6-4. With that said I played the commissioner this week and he called me zSunday to tell me COlston could not be my TE.....I went nuts b/c this is week 11 and I didnt make the rules or set Colston as a TE /WR. What are your thoughts on this issue??? When I added Colston, I traded Gates away immediately for RB depth.... I just assumed that the platform that I was using knew better about what his position was than I so I arranged my lineup accordingly prior to fully investigating the situation (before week 2). My fingers are still crossed that I will come across a player with WR,QB,K eligibility. Tell your commish to go ahead and make alternative plans for the playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpie Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 Colston is not a TE. You've been getting by playing him at that position for a long time, so you should be happy to that point. However, if this was not changed weeks ago, it should not be now. I'm in a Yahoo league which starters 3WR and 1TE. When I looked at the guy using Colston as a TE. I went through his options: His other TE Shockey, his 3rd WR behind A. Johnson and J. Walker = Henry, Berrian or Reg. Williams. So, he could be playing Shockey at TE and Colston at WR or Colston at TE and Henry at WR. To me it was about a wash and I'm sure in most leagues, unless they coach is deep with solid WRs, they are down to a WR that is about as good as a decent TE. I wonder who your starting TE and (then benched) WR would be if you moved Colston to the WR spot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 When I added Colston, I traded Gates away immediately for RB depth Yeah. This sucks. This is one of those situations that sucks for everyone. I could see keeping Colston as a TE here because you traded Gates away. If I were commish of this league, I'd allow it - but the moment you traded him, I would make him WR only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpie Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 (edited) When I added Colston, I traded Gates away immediately for RB depth.... I just assumed that the platform that I was using knew better about what his position was than I so I arranged my lineup accordingly prior to fully investigating the situation (before week 2). My fingers are still crossed that I will come across a player with WR,QB,K eligibility. Tell your commish to go ahead and make alternative plans for the playoffs. Hmmm...really? That is a lot of confidence to have in a guy...even a TE that catches 4 passed for 49 yards and a TD in week one. I have to figure you drafted Gates in the 3rd or 4th round only a week prior to this trade. You must have had a heck of a lot of forsight to think Colston would perform well enough to move Gates after his week one performance. I'm sorry but I'm not buying this one. Edited November 15, 2006 by Sharpie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 If you are using Colston as a TE then you are only cheating yourself and if you win your championship it will be a hollow championship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 (edited) I purchased sportsline really early because we've used the same scoring system for 5 years now and wanted to get everything in line....so I have the version that still has Colston at TE... he's done extremely well for me, but I wish that I could just play him at WR since it gives me more flexibility... Edited November 15, 2006 by Avernus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xMRogers Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 You gotta deal with it. Trust me - I know the feeling. Got in a league this year with a guy thats never commished before. I got an adjustment added to my team this past week: -6 points. WTH??? Turns out that my KICKER (Feely) was given -6 because his kick got run back for a TD. He said that since QB int return for TDs are -6 for the QB, that this should apply to my kicker. Huh? Its not even in our rules! Hell, fumble returns for TDs don't even go against individuals, so there's no basis to this logic. He put it up to league vote, and the morons voted to have me lose 6 points. I still won, but its the principal of the matter. I'm second in points scored (wonder if that didn't factor into that joke of the vote?), and the points total winner gets 70% of the FA pot. I if I lose that 70% of the pot $$ by 6 points or less I'm gonna take a dump in his hot tub... The only thing you can do is either leave the league after seasons end, or bring up the issue at the league meeting after the season to make sure idiocy like that doesn't take place again.... This colston argument was old 5 weeks ago, and this post is one of those "everyone arguing is right" as the commish definitely screwed the pooch, but at a certain point in about week 3, the owner should have brought this up to the league so it didn't wait till now. However, this kicker thing that Wolv had happen is unbelievable - I've seen some bad commissioning, but this may be the worst single decision I've every heard of. I'm assuming since it didn't impact the game, it wasn't so much greed/devious related, but just what the commisioner thought was right. Which makes it even more laughably bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PocketRockets55 Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 Slickvick makes a good point. The scouting reports on Colston said his best chance at making it in the NFL would be to bulk up 25 lbs or so and be a TE and not as a WR. Earlier in the year when i had the opportunity to claim either Berrien or Colston on waivers I prioritized Colston because he was considered a flex player between the two positions. I remember C Cooley being listed as a RB/TE last year and in lges that reward 1pt per reception you could have slotted him in as your #2 RB. Granted he didnt have the same impact in the stats as Colston has but hey thats how it goes. Im sure next year he will be listed exclusively as a WR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AO Posted November 15, 2006 Author Share Posted November 15, 2006 Colston is not a TE. You've been getting by playing him at that position for a long time, so you should be happy to that point. However, if this was not changed weeks ago, it should not be now. I'm in a Yahoo league which starters 3WR and 1TE. When I looked at the guy using Colston as a TE. I went through his options: His other TE Shockey, his 3rd WR behind A. Johnson and J. Walker = Henry, Berrian or Reg. Williams. So, he could be playing Shockey at TE and Colston at WR or Colston at TE and Henry at WR. To me it was about a wash and I'm sure in most leagues, unless they coach is deep with solid WRs, they are down to a WR that is about as good as a decent TE. I wonder who your starting TE and (then benched) WR would be if you moved Colston to the WR spot? Witten Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MothAudio Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 I wonder who your starting TE and (then benched) WR would be if you moved Colston to the WR spot? I've started either B.Watson, LJ. Smith or De. Clark @ TE. Rotating them off the WW each week playing match ups [it's an 8 man league]. I'm really stacked at WR. Ro. Williams, Wayne and Colston. The other WRs I've owned/own are Berrian, Jennings, L.Evans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samboy Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Hmmm...really? That is a lot of confidence to have in a guy...even a TE that catches 4 passed for 49 yards and a TD in week one. I have to figure you drafted Gates in the 3rd or 4th round only a week prior to this trade. You must have had a heck of a lot of forsight to think Colston would perform well enough to move Gates after his week one performance. I'm sorry but I'm not buying this one. Not that this is proof, but here is the copy and paste. I was wrong about RB depth, the trade was for Chris Chambers... If I had only known what a panty waste he was going to be.... The logic here was to scrap my solid TE for a stud wideout because I was sold on Colston... If you still don't believe me, I WILL email you screen shots. These dates may or may not correspond with my original email, but still are early enough that you probably won't believe it. Sep 12 10:48pm Marques Colston (NO - WR,TE) Add Free Agents Inigo Montoya LXX Sep 25 12:32pm Drew Bennett (Ten - WR) Antonio Gates (SD - TE) Trade Inigo Montoya LXX SuckMyBallsDabek Sep 25 12:32pm Chris Chambers (Mia - WR) Trade SuckMyBallsDabek Inigo Montoya LXX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoyboy Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 (edited) Hmmm...really? That is a lot of confidence to have in a guy...even a TE that catches 4 passed for 49 yards and a TD in week one. I have to figure you drafted Gates in the 3rd or 4th round only a week prior to this trade. You must have had a heck of a lot of forsight to think Colston would perform well enough to move Gates after his week one performance. I'm sorry but I'm not buying this one. I'm sure a lot of people did this. My #2 and #3 RB's were L. Jordan and M. bell. After week 1, I realized this was not gonna get it done. I picked up Colston and traded Shockey for Edge. Granted Edge sucks, but over the first half of the season, he was leaps and bounds better than Jordan and M. Bell. Seeing that the average TE gets 30-60 yards and a TD here and there, the potential upside of playing even a #2 WR at the TE was worth any risk. EDIT: Your commish sucks. Once rules are set, you should stick with them the whole season. There are number of moves you could have made if Colston was not TE eligible before now. Edited November 16, 2006 by yoyboy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 so basically, Marques Colston is a TE... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpie Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Not that this is proof, but here is the copy and paste. I was wrong about RB depth, the trade was for Chris Chambers... If I had only known what a panty waste he was going to be.... The logic here was to scrap my solid TE for a stud wideout because I was sold on Colston... If you still don't believe me, I WILL email you screen shots. These dates may or may not correspond with my original email, but still are early enough that you probably won't believe it. Sep 12 10:48pm Marques Colston (NO - WR,TE) Add Free Agents Inigo Montoya LXX Sep 25 12:32pm Drew Bennett (Ten - WR) Antonio Gates (SD - TE) Trade Inigo Montoya LXX SuckMyBallsDabek Sep 25 12:32pm Chris Chambers (Mia - WR) Trade SuckMyBallsDabek Inigo Montoya LXX Well that makes all the difference! Sorry, I read your 1st email to indicate you traded Gates after week one when it is clear now it was after week 3. At that point Colston's production along with Gates' lack-there-of, it made sense. 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.