Horseshoe Blue PPR 2020

[Narcosys]

12 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I'm fine with it honestly.

A possible compromise would be to negate only passing yards. 

[Bluefire4]

4 hours ago, Narcosys said:

Due to an unprecedented situation, I am initially putting it up to league vote, however I must ensure fair competition at all times.  

 

Should I negate any points earned from T. Hill if played in the TE position. 

 

Please be absolutely unbiased and look at the situation. 

 

Arguments of leaving it alone is that you should allow the reward for someone playing the game within the game and thinking ahead. That you shouldn't punish someone after the fact since they used a waiver on him.  Its also likely only one week. 

 

Im currently of the position that outside the context of waivers and that anyone could have done it,  it is wholly unfair to allow a person to receive points in a position from a player designated as starter in another position. The key words here are designated starter.  Hill has been listed as a QB, TE all year while he was backup in both. 

 

What is everyone's thoughts

 

@Lucky Colts Fan, @BPindy, @Bluefire4, @Btown_Colt, @Jared Cisneros, @WarGhost21, @onebad150

 

Edit: a compromise could be negating passing yards only. 

It's a difficult situation, but I'm in favor of just leaving everything the way it is. 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

13 hours ago, Narcosys said:

Should I negate any points earned from T. Hill if played in the TE position.

 

That's actually a pretty savvy move.  I'm not even mad.

 

I wish I had thought of it!  

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

That's actually a pretty savvy move.  I'm not even mad.

 

I wish I had thought of it!  

I used that same move years ago with Marques Colston. I think he was listed as a TE/WR for his first two or three seasons. 

[Narcosys]

6 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

That's actually a pretty savvy move.  I'm not even mad.

 

I wish I had thought of it!  

 

5 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

I used that same move years ago with Marques Colston. I think he was listed as a TE/WR for his first two or three seasons. 

 

16 hours ago, Bluefire4 said:

It's a difficult situation, but I'm in favor of just leaving everything the way it is. 

 

 

What about moving forward if ESPN doesn't change it

[crazycolt1]

1 minute ago, Narcosys said:

 

 

 

 

What about moving forward if ESPN doesn't change it

Good question. Personally I would stay with what ESPN does with it.

If you took a vote it would be automatically be turned down then that would penalize who rostered him? 

[Narcosys]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

Good question. Personally I would stay with what ESPN does with it.

If you took a vote it would be automatically be turned down then that would penalize who rostered him? 

ESPN made a statement at the beginning of the year that they would remove his TE eligibility if ever named the starter. 

 

ESPN is also the only major fantasy league that hasn't changed him. 

 

To me i don't see it being about penalizing a player or rewarding smart play; I take the manager and players out of it and look at it solely based on the fairness of play in our league.  Our league is a 1QB league, with him being named as official starting QB, that means Hill should only be played in the QB position,  regardless of what ESPN says. 

 

Im not sure what you meant in your last statement. 

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, Narcosys said:

ESPN made a statement at the beginning of the year that they would remove his TE eligibility if ever named the starter. 

 

ESPN is also the only major fantasy league that hasn't changed him. 

 

To me i don't see it being about penalizing a player or rewarding smart play; I take the manager and players out of it and look at it solely based on the fairness of play in our league.  Our league is a 1QB league, with him being named as official starting QB, that means Hill should only be played in the QB position,  regardless of what ESPN says. 

 

Im not sure what you meant in your last statement. 

I guess I didn't word my comment exactly with my intentions.

Look at in the eyes of the owner who made the move to roster him. 

 

You are the one who brought up the question. 

If you already knew what you were going to do, then why ask for advice? 

Sometimes you confuse me. 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

4 hours ago, Narcosys said:

 

What about moving forward if ESPN doesn't change it

I guess if it becomes an “unfair” advantage (like their TE position is scoring three or four times as many points as anyone else’s TE), then maybe we consider designating him QB-only, despite how ESPN lists him.

[Narcosys]

 

2 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

I guess I didn't word my comment exactly with my intentions.

Look at in the eyes of the owner who made the move to roster him. 

 

You are the one who brought up the question. 

If you already knew what you were going to do, then why ask for advice? 

Sometimes you confuse me. 

I brought up the question because it's an unusual situation. 

 

I don't know what I am going to do,  I only know what I "believe" to be the correct course of action,  but my belief may not be shared by others, therefore I seek out other opinions before making a decision.  

 

In this situation you have a person who could realistically get 20+ points a week for the remainder of the season, rostered in a spot they are not play in real life. Heck even just 10-15 points a week makes him a top 3 "TE."

 

I apologize I confuse you, but I think you misunderstand my intent in this situation,  as I can separate my personal beliefs from that of my responsibilities as commissioner to ensure a fair and even playing field across the league, but within the confines of what the league approves, unless it's an otherwise egregious situation.  Of which I find this one borders on. 

 

Yes,  it would a raw deal to the one person who owns him,  but it's a raw deal to the rest of the league to face a team that is getting points from a player who doesn't play the position. 

[Narcosys]

40 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

I guess if it becomes an “unfair” advantage (like their TE position is scoring three or four times as many points as anyone else’s TE), then maybe we consider designating him QB-only, despite how ESPN lists him.

Even 15 points a week makes him a top 3 TE from here on out. 

[onebad150]

On 11/20/2020 at 9:03 PM, Narcosys said:

Due to an unprecedented situation, I am initially putting it up to league vote, however I must ensure fair competition at all times.  

 

Should I negate any points earned from T. Hill if played in the TE position. 

 

Please be absolutely unbiased and look at the situation. 

 

Arguments of leaving it alone is that you should allow the reward for someone playing the game within the game and thinking ahead. That you shouldn't punish someone after the fact since they used a waiver on him.  Its also likely only one week. 

 

Im currently of the position that outside the context of waivers and that anyone could have done it,  it is wholly unfair to allow a person to receive points in a position from a player designated as starter in another position. The key words here are designated starter.  Hill has been listed as a QB, TE all year while he was backup in both. 

 

What is everyone's thoughts

 

@Lucky Colts Fan, @BPindy, @Bluefire4, @Btown_Colt, @Jared Cisneros, @WarGhost21, @onebad150

 

Edit: a compromise could be negating passing yards only. 

I say leave it alone, he was on waiver wire all year as a TE/QB the option to put him was on your bench was there for all. I am just disappointed that I did not think of it. I am disappointed in my first round draft choice too, should I get compensated because he is on IR. Just my 2cents

[Btown_Colt]

On 11/20/2020 at 9:03 PM, Narcosys said:

Due to an unprecedented situation, I am initially putting it up to league vote, however I must ensure fair competition at all times.  

 

Should I negate any points earned from T. Hill if played in the TE position. 

 

Please be absolutely unbiased and look at the situation. 

 

Arguments of leaving it alone is that you should allow the reward for someone playing the game within the game and thinking ahead. That you shouldn't punish someone after the fact since they used a waiver on him.  Its also likely only one week. 

 

Im currently of the position that outside the context of waivers and that anyone could have done it,  it is wholly unfair to allow a person to receive points in a position from a player designated as starter in another position. The key words here are designated starter.  Hill has been listed as a QB, TE all year while he was backup in both. 

 

What is everyone's thoughts

 

@Lucky Colts Fan, @BPindy, @Bluefire4, @Btown_Colt, @Jared Cisneros, @WarGhost21, @onebad150

 

Edit: a compromise could be negating passing yards only. 

Yea I mean it’s not right, he would be a top scoring TE and still get to play a QB...it would be one thing if he was a even a starter/streaming quality player at TE, but he isn’t. The only reason he would now be in a lineup is because he is playing QB.

 

The bigger concern for me is the managers not setting their lineups...I wish you reach out or fix that. This league has been so good the last couple years and it’s because it’s been complete and everyone stays engaged. I know this year sucks...but man atleast set your lineup with someone who hasn’t been ruled out all week.

[Btown_Colt]

1 minute ago, Btown_Colt said:

Yea I mean it’s not right, he would be a top scoring TE and still get to play a QB...it would be one thing if he was a even a starter/streaming quality player at TE, but he isn’t. The only reason he would now be in a lineup is because he is playing QB.

 

The bigger concern for me is the managers not setting their lineups...I wish you reach out or fix that. This league has been so good the last couple years and it’s because it’s been complete and everyone stays engaged. I know this year sucks...but man atleast set your lineup with someone who hasn’t been ruled out all week.

Dang auto correct...competitive not complete.

[Narcosys]

3 hours ago, Btown_Colt said:

Yea I mean it’s not right, he would be a top scoring TE and still get to play a QB...it would be one thing if he was a even a starter/streaming quality player at TE, but he isn’t. The only reason he would now be in a lineup is because he is playing QB.

 

The bigger concern for me is the managers not setting their lineups...I wish you reach out or fix that. This league has been so good the last couple years and it’s because it’s been complete and everyone stays engaged. I know this year sucks...but man atleast set your lineup with someone who hasn’t been ruled out all week.

To the first point,  then if he is scoring as a QB then he should only be slotted as QB, we shouldn't make an exception just because he's a bad TE.

 

To the second,  I haven't seen an instance where a team did not adjust their lineup for consecutive weeks where a player was ruled out. As has been the case in the past, the people who do that are not allowed back in the league.  

 

It did happen once in the first couple of years of the league and has not been an issue since, so most probably are not aware of it.  

[Lucky Colts Fan]

@Narcosys  It obviously wasn't an unfair advantage this week since hulce lost the game anyway.  (Congrats Amber)

 

But it is weird seeing a "TE" get 24 points without catching a single pass...  If the Scranton Stranglers hadn't had a beast of a day yesterday, this issue would probably be a bigger deal.

 

With only two games left in our season, hulce could end up with the #2 seed at best.  Is hulce guaranteed a playoff spot at this point?  I feel like that's where the rubber will meet the road with this issue: will this be an unfair advantage during the playoffs?

 

Hill got 9 points for his passing yesterday, which is what this issue boils down to.  If hulce makes the playoffs, and Hill throws 4 TDs and hulce gets like 30 "passing" points from the TE spot... I think I'd have a problem with that.  Being able to play two QBs during playoff games would be unfair.

[Narcosys]

9 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

@Narcosys  It obviously wasn't an unfair advantage this week since hulce lost the game anyway.  (Congrats Amber)

 

But it is weird seeing a "TE" get 24 points without catching a single pass...  If the Scranton Stranglers hadn't had a beast of a day yesterday, this issue would probably be a bigger deal.

 

With only two games left in our season, hulce could end up with the #2 seed at best.  Is hulce guaranteed a playoff spot at this point?  I feel like that's where the rubber will meet the road with this issue: will this be an unfair advantage during the playoffs?

 

Hill got 9 points for his passing yesterday, which is what this issue boils down to.  If hulce makes the playoffs, and Hill throws 4 TDs and hulce gets like 30 "passing" points from the TE spot... I think I'd have a problem with that.  Being able to play two QBs during playoff games would be unfair.

I knew someone would say that. 

Win lose or draw,  it doesn't change the fact that a player was able to play in a position when they were designated a starter elsewhere.  That is,  and always has been,  my point of contention.  The context of arguments one way or the other are irrelevant, and therefore is an issue.  

 

But you do make a fair point about passing yards,  and I think an agreeable solution would be to only negate the passing yards.

 

Fortunately ESPN has stated Hill will only be slotted as a QB.

[Narcosys]

@Lucky Colts Fan, @BPindy, @Bluefire4, @Btown_Colt, @Jared Cisneros, @WarGhost21, @onebad150

 

It's still a bit early,  but as we near the playoffs, I would like everyone to think back to previous seasons and playoff formats and compare it to this year's (one division vs two, 6 team playoff bye vs four teams, etc). 

 

Did it play out better, was it a more competitive playoff, do the points need adjusted? Go ahead and start thinking if these things and post then here.  I will consolidate all the comments and we can discuss at the end of the season. 

[onebad150]

On 11/29/2020 at 6:34 PM, Narcosys said:

@Lucky Colts Fan, @BPindy, @Bluefire4, @Btown_Colt, @Jared Cisneros, @WarGhost21, @onebad150

 

It's still a bit early,  but as we near the playoffs, I would like everyone to think back to previous seasons and playoff formats and compare it to this year's (one division vs two, 6 team playoff bye vs four teams, etc). 

 

Did it play out better, was it a more competitive playoff, do the points need adjusted? Go ahead and start thinking if these things and post then here.  I will consolidate all the comments and we can discuss at the end of the season. 

Not sure what the exact question here is, The reg season has gone down pretty smooth. It has been a challenging year to say the least, with bye weeks, IR, Susp, and covid it has very challenging to set your weekly line up, but what we have in place has worked. 

So, decide now what the rules for the play-offs are, stick with that decision and not be tempted to do a little fine-tuning after the play-offs begin.

It has been a fun year, despite the challenges. Hope everyone's friends/family are well and safe Good luck to everyone in the playoffs  Mike

[Narcosys]

13 hours ago, onebad150 said:

Not sure what the exact question here is, The reg season has gone down pretty smooth. It has been a challenging year to say the least, with bye weeks, IR, Susp, and covid it has very challenging to set your weekly line up, but what we have in place has worked. 

So, decide now what the rules for the play-offs are, stick with that decision and not be tempted to do a little fine-tuning after the play-offs begin.

It has been a fun year, despite the challenges. Hope everyone's friends/family are well and safe Good luck to everyone in the playoffs  Mike

I'm not talking about changing the rules before the playoffs.

 

Im talking about after,  and comparing it to how the previous seasons played out, since this is a complete change to our playoff structure. 

[Narcosys]

Dang, four playoff spots up got grabs between six teams.  

[Lucky Colts Fan]

Holy cow @Jared Cisneros, 200+ points!!!

 

Is that a record @Narcosys?

[Narcosys]

9 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

Holy cow @Jared Cisneros, 200+ points!!!

 

Is that a record @Narcosys?

We've had a couple 200+ points in past seasons. I think maybe only a couple other times. 

 

Team Trueblood (which I believe is @Btown_Colt) had 215.46 last year, as well as @BPindy having a 200.6

 

@BPindy had a 203.78 score in 2018, he also had the highest season PF at 2172 that season

 

@BPindyhas the highest at 219.28 back in 2017

[BPindy]

On 12/8/2020 at 11:45 PM, Narcosys said:

We've had a couple 200+ points in past seasons. I think maybe only a couple other times. 

 

Team Trueblood (which I believe is @Btown_Colt) had 215.46 last year, as well as @BPindy having a 200.6

 

@BPindy had a 203.78 score in 2018, he also had the highest season PF at 2172 that season

 

@BPindyhas the highest at 219.28 back in 2017

didn’t realize I had a streak to maintain. Suffice to say it won’t continue 

[Narcosys]

@Bluefire4

 

Thank goodness we had a bye

[Yoshinator]

Down to 4! GL guys next week. Two games for the championship!

[chad72]

I hate PPR leagues. In what reality is a 1 yard dump off more valuable than a hard fought 10 yards from the RB? I am curious if a 3rd down catch or 3rd down rush can be quantified in leagues that result in a 1st down, that would definitely be more important to me.

 

I see most platforms moving to just half-PPR eventually. 

[Narcosys]

On 12/17/2020 at 12:23 PM, chad72 said:

I hate PPR leagues. In what reality is a 1 yard dump off more valuable than a hard fought 10 yards from the RB? I am curious if a 3rd down catch or 3rd down rush can be quantified in leagues that result in a 1st down, that would definitely be more important to me.

 

I see most platforms moving to just half-PPR eventually. 

That's a good suggestion and something we can bring up. We should also then change the defense scoring to half point per deflection. 

[Narcosys]

@onebad150

 

Looks like you're getting this one because Russell Wilson forgot how to play football lol 

 

Knew I should have started Tannehill. 

[Narcosys]

20 hours ago, Narcosys said:

@onebad150

 

Looks like you're getting this one because Russell Wilson forgot how to play football lol 

 

Knew I should have started Tannehill. 

Well that didn't age well.

 

Was not expecting that.

[chad72]

On 12/20/2020 at 3:47 PM, Narcosys said:

@onebad150

 

Looks like you're getting this one because Russell Wilson forgot how to play football lol 

 

Knew I should have started Tannehill. 

I could have told you that based on matchups. I started Herbert over Wilson getting twice what RW got. It’s time to discard the “go with the guys who got you there” philosophy and take some calculated risks come playoff time. That’s what I’ve gathered from years of studs underachieving come playoff time in bad matchups.
 

Similarly I benched Robert Woods vs Patriots and Lockett vs WFT in another league, turned out to be right decisions.

[WarGhost21]

Gotta love how I’ve been the highest scorer in the past 2 weeks and am not even in the playoffs

[Narcosys]

3 hours ago, chad72 said:

I could have told you that based on matchups. I started Herbert over Wilson getting twice what RW got. It’s time to discard the “go with the guys who got you there” philosophy and take some calculated risks come playoff time. That’s what I’ve gathered from years of studs underachieving come playoff time in bad matchups.
 

Similarly I benched Robert Woods vs Patriots and Lockett vs WFT in another league, turned out to be right decisions.

Ya, I was thinking that too, but i figured Henry would be the main offense in that game instead of them doing nonsense trick plays with Tannehill at the goal line. 

[Narcosys]

@Bluefire4

 

Going to be an interesting game. While you have Mahommes and Kelce that have carried most of the points for your team (with some Jones sprinkled in there), I have Hill to counter Mahommes.

Will you have CMc back, along with McKissic, to compete with some solid matchups for D. Henry and A. Jones?

 

On a week to week basis of scores, if we went head to head, I'd only be ahead of you 8-7. But you're projected more than me this week, but it's projections and how often do.

 

Will this be another 2nd place finish for me?  Wouldn't be the first time, nor the second, or even third.  Since 2015, I have gotten second in the playoffs three times! But this will be a good win for you if you pull it off and you've had a pretty consistent team with your win's always coming in over 130pts (we wont look at wk 12). 

 

Good Luck my friend, and thanks for being a part of this league.

 

[Narcosys]

@Btown_Colt, @Lucky Colts Fan, @Bluefire4, @BPindy. @onebad150, @Jared Cisneros, @WarGhost21

 

Thanks to all of you for playing this year, and although some of our seasons didn't go as well as planned (looking at you @BPindy),  it was a tight race until the end for most of us.  It has been an enjoyable and distracting part of everything that has gone on around us this year, and I continue to appreciate the effort you all put into this. Whether you're managing one league or four, I thank you for choosing this league as one to be a part of. 

 

I want to wish you all a Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanzaa, and a prosperous New Year. 

[chad72]

1 hour ago, Narcosys said:

Ya, I was thinking that too, but i figured Henry would be the main offense in that game instead of them doing nonsense trick plays with Tannehill at the goal line. 

 

Yep, that is why I played Kyler Murray over Tannehill too, thinking that about the Lions' run D. However, they were just 2 to 3 points apart, depending on the league you played in.

 

My pet peeve is divisions in fantasy football. A guy that was #6 in the standings, with 5 of them in the other division better than him had Josh Allen. He got the #2 seeding and bye week because he was division winner. He thus avoided Josh Allen vs the Steelers matchup in the wild card round but feasted against me vs the Broncos because he had the bye week and was a big factor in him winning along with Waller who also had a bad matchup vs the Colts in the wild card round but feasted vs the Chargers, thus causing my playoff exit.

 

To say that he would not be alive for the semis is an understatement. I can accept losing to someone who earned their seeding amongst all teams instead of just a weak division. The FF commish loves an underdog story, someone that is 6-7 that goes all the way to the championship, than just rewarding the best 6 teams with the best 6 seeds, even if it is not fair. Those were his words. I even suggested guaranteeing just the playoff spot but reseeding based on overall record. He says he will reshuffle the divisions next year but he is just shifting the problem to a different set of GMs. Oh well, it is his league. I might not play in that league again. NFL divisions and Fantasy football divisions are not the same, there are no rivalries to maintain when there is enough turnover from year to year, so divisions are pointless, IMO.

 

Similarly, I hate playing in 12 team leagues where 8 teams make the playoffs. What is the point of the regular season then? The #8 seed goes on a run to win it all and makes a mockery of the whole thing. 

 

  #DoneVenting

[Narcosys]

1 hour ago, chad72 said:

 

 

 

My pet peeve is divisions in fantasy football. A guy that was #6 in the standings, with 5 of them in the other division better than him had Josh Allen. He got the #2 seeding and bye week because he was division winner. He thus avoided Josh Allen vs the Steelers matchup in the wild card round but feasted against me vs the Broncos because he had the bye week and was a big factor in him winning along with Waller who also had a bad matchup vs the Colts in the wild card round but feasted vs the Chargers, thus causing my playoff exit.

 

Similarly, I hate playing in 12 team leagues where 8 teams make the playoffs. What is the point of the regular season then? The #8 seed goes on a run to win it all and makes a mockery of the whole thing. 

 

  #DoneVenting

 

That's why we tried out doing a single division, to prevent those situations. But we also have 6/10 in the playoffs with the top two seeds getting a bye.  This is our first year doing it and this year was pretty competitive. Seeds 3-6 were still up in the air the week before the playoffs. We had six teams competing for the last four spots. 

[chad72]

Just now, Narcosys said:

 

That's why we tried out doing a single division, to prevent those situations. But we also have 6/10 in the playoffs with the top two seeds getting a bye.  This is our first year doing it and this year was pretty competitive. Seeds 3-6 were still up in the air the week before the playoffs. We had six teams competing for the last four spots. 

 

Well done indeed!!! Commish folks that listen to ideas, even if it goes against any pre-conceived "set in stone" principles of theirs, are good ones, and you my friend are a good one.

[Narcosys]

Just now, chad72 said:

 

Well done indeed!!! Commish folks that listen to ideas, even if it goes against any pre-conceived "set in stone" principles of theirs, are good ones, and you my friend are a good one.

 

Well it's the league that votes it, I try to get a super majority while I abstain. We've also been pretty fortunate when it comes to turnover. We still have six people from the inaugural season in 2015, and eight of the same managers since then.  

 

I've got you already on the list for dibs if a spot opens up next year lol.

[chad72]

5 minutes ago, Narcosys said:

 

Well it's the league that votes it, I try to get a super majority while I abstain. We've also been pretty fortunate when it comes to turnover. We still have six people from the inaugural season in 2015, and eight of the same managers since then.  

 

I've got you already on the list for dibs if a spot opens up next year lol.

 

Are you changing it to half-PPR? Like I said before, I don't believe in PPR leagues reflecting on field performance accurately enough.