Kingram Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 @TheKillerNacho please add Ja'Lynn Polk (NE) and cut CB Koolaid McKinstrey Start Polk at WR2 and put Jaxson Smith-Njigbs on the PS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKillerNacho Posted August 20 Author Share Posted August 20 Just now, Kingram said: @TheKillerNacho please add Ja'Lynn Polk (NE) and cut CB Koolaid McKinstrey Start Polk at WR2 and put Jaxson Smith-Njigbs on the PS I can do this for Week 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingram Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 Players still available for trade RB: Austin Ekeler (WAS), Brian Robinson (WAS) WR: Jaxon Smith-Njigba (SEA), Tank Dell (HOU)* OG: Tyler Smith (DAL) C; David Andrews (NE) DE: Leonard Floyd (SF) DT: Christian Barmore (NE) MLB: Pete Werner (NO) HC: Sean Payton (DEN) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingram Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 Just now, TheKillerNacho said: I can do this for Week 9 Does that change JSN keeper tag status Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TL-TwoWinsAway Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 Just now, TheKillerNacho said: as I said I do not recall this conversation nor can I find it in my PMs but if I gave you that impression I probably got confused. This isn't a new rule, though. Nacho: it must be a new rule. The rules don't state anything about it at all. If you search those words in the S26 and S27 threads, you get zero results. We can't change rules based on private conversations, not update the actual posted rules and enforce those rules that other owners aren't made aware of. I'm only asking that, until the rule is actually changed, we enforce the rules that are currently written. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKillerNacho Posted August 20 Author Share Posted August 20 Just now, Kingram said: Does that change JSN keeper tag status afraid so... but the deadline was nearly 5 hours ago. I gave people a bit of leeway this week since I was so late last week & hadn't started simming games yet, but now I have... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LAOJoe Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 2 minutes ago, TheKillerNacho said: I can do this for Week 9 No you can't. Polk is on my roster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKillerNacho Posted August 20 Author Share Posted August 20 Just now, LAOJoe said: No you can't. Polk is on my roster. That too lol @Kingram 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TL-TwoWinsAway Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 It's not like I'm actually benefitting from this at all. LaPorta sucks as a FB. I'd love to not start him there in the future, and now I don't need to. That's great news. But, if I knew that this other rule existed, I wouldn't have started LaPorta at FB for the first 6 games of this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKillerNacho Posted August 20 Author Share Posted August 20 13 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said: Nacho: it must be a new rule. The rules don't state anything about it at all. If you search those words in the S26 and S27 threads, you get zero results. We can't change rules based on private conversations, not update the actual posted rules and enforce those rules that other owners aren't made aware of. I'm only asking that, until the rule is actually changed, we enforce the rules that are currently written. I'm sorry the rules listed in the OP did not properly define what a tier means & that I may have given you bad information at any point, but I don't think it would be fair to allow you to do something I've told others over the last two years that they couldn't do. The rules in the OP being rough in a few areas is definitely my fault. Quite a bit of it could be worded better but given most owners have been here awhile and know how things work, investing the time into improving it seems like wasted effort. 10 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said: It's not like I'm actually benefitting from this at all. LaPorta sucks as a FB. I'd love to not start him there in the future, and now I don't need to. That's great news. But, if I knew that this other rule existed, I wouldn't have started LaPorta at FB for the first 6 games of this season. As you said, you already had him at FB for 6 games so you still have avenues to keep him for a single tag, at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TL-TwoWinsAway Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 Wait, what? @TheKillerNacho: did you really go and edit the rules after this conversation started? That's absolutely insane. I copy and pasted directly from the OP when I made my first post at 3:46 PM. It said this: "Players count as the tier they spent the majority of the previous regular season as. In the event of a tie, the higher value is used." Now, it says this: "Players count as the tier they spent the majority of the previous regular season at or above. In the event of a tie, the higher value is used." You changed the rules mid-conversation about those very rules? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LAOJoe Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 36 minutes ago, TheKillerNacho said: I don't recall the exact conversation, but if I said anything contrary to this at any point I'm sorry. Tiers not only include listed positions, but also count towards lower tiers, as well. The cost is then the highest amount that would have majority at or above that level. In this case, the player would cost 2 tags: 5/16 games at a 3-tag position or higher = not majority 10/16 games at a 2-tag position or higher = majority For a player to be kept at 1 tag, they must spend a great amount of time at a 1-tag position than anything higher. The purpose of this is to avoid that exact exploit (a player being played at higher tier actually causing them cost less). If it were 7 at WR, 3 at TE and 6 at FB would it also be 2 tags because 7/16 isn't a majority? And would benching reduce the amount needed to get a majority? So it'd be 2 tags with 16 games played but if 3 of the FB games were benched instead then it'd bt 7/13 at WR for a majority? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKillerNacho Posted August 20 Author Share Posted August 20 2 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said: Wait, what? @TheKillerNacho: did you really go and edit the rules after this conversation started? That's absolutely insane. I copy and pasted directly from the OP when I made my first post at 3:46 PM. It said this: "Players count as the tier they spent the majority of the previous regular season as. In the event of a tie, the higher value is used." Now, it says this: "Players count as the tier they spent the majority of the previous regular season at or above. In the event of a tie, the higher value is used." You changed the rules mid-conversation about those very rules? Yes, as I said I was going to: 28 minutes ago, TheKillerNacho said: I've told people this standard previously already who have asked, as it was an intended part of the change to positional tiers... as I said, I don't recall the exact conversation we had but I'm inclined to put a stop from further exploitation of the FB position. The rules on the OP definitely don't explain it well enough, I'll see what I can do. Unfortunately the whole system has gotten more convoluted than I would've liked. I've honestly been tempted to just make it "highest tier they spent even one game" just for simplicity's sake (but that's something I'd definitely disclose a season ahead of time). I do not deny it originally said what you claimed it said - I merely updated that line to hopefully avoid future confusion. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuskieTitan Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TL-TwoWinsAway Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 Just now, TheKillerNacho said: Yes, as I said I was going to: No, the rules explained it exactly as you told me they did. Then, you had conversations behind the scenes, decided to change those rules without announcing it to the forum or changing the rules themselves, and are now trying to enforce those new rules on owners that had no idea they changed. 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.