I swear this not a joke. If Lamar comes back a little gimpy with his hamstring impeding his ability as a runner, I may start Flacco over him. He is developing rapport with Chase and Higgins.
“I’m proud of all my records.” - Eli Manning
Okay, fuck me, I did it again. This time I’m going to ask the group for an exception.
Just went to check my roster and saw that the Europe game had already kicked off, which I totally spaced. Unfortunately Puka is listed in my starting lineup and apparently he is out. I would like to replace him with someone who hasn’t kicked off yet.
Mercy for a dumbass?
EDIT: Michael Pittman, specifically.
We’re going to have to make a hard rule on this for the sake of consistency. earlier this year RNATB asked me to make a retroactive change about 20 minutes after the game started. I said that I try to be as accommodating as possible but that I didn’t want to make changes after the games had started. That situation was different in that he wanted me to swap out two active players who had started their games. Your situation is different in that you retroactively want to un-start a player that was not active.
Given the early start of the game and the fact that there’s no ambiguity that you wouldn’t want to start an inactive player and the fact that no other game has started yet (and therefore you aren’t picking a replacement that is already in an active game), I would normally say okay and remove Puka from the starting slot. I don’t think there’s any way you could be doing this to game the system, and we’re not swapping out players that already have game time under their belts.
But I don’t want people to remember that I didn’t allow RNATB to make (a different sort) of switch and think I’m being arbitrary.
I will also remind you that you could’ve made a conditional statement if you weren’t going to be around (if Puka is inactive, start so and so) before the game started, we’ve always accommodated that.
In my view, your situation is so unambiguous (inactive player, no potential replacement has started their game) that it makes sense to un-start puka for you, no harm no foul, but I also don’t want to upset anyone else who feels like I’m being too accommodating or somehow uneven in trying to accommodate people.
Does anyone object to me un-starting an inactive/injured Puka from Ellis’ roster so he can put someone else in the slot? (Something he would’ve done had this been a normal 1pm game)?
If don’t object, but if we’re changing lineups then let’s have a rule about it. Jaylen Warren was an unannounced scratch a couple of weeks ago in the London game and I didn’t bring it up because I thought we agreed not to change lineups anymore. (I recall someone who isn’t Ellis saying in the past that if you leave in a questionable player and they don’t play, that’s on you.) If we adopt a rule to allow changes of unannounced inactive players, that’s fine, but it should be a rule.
That is absolutely fair, and if we want to keep it simple by simply saying no roster will be changed after game time for any reason for the sake of simplicity I’m okay with that. Most leagues would work that way, I’ve just tried to always tried to help people overcome screwups when it doesn’t hurt the competitive balance, but I can understand where that could be a problem for some people.
I could see a carve-out exception for players who are out in these Sunday morning games.
If not now for me, starting next season at least. Maybe that’s the proper way to go about it anyway. Have a proper vote next season to add such a carve out.
I’m kind of pissed at myself that I keep fucking up my roster. It’s starting to mess with the amount of fun I’m having with this league.
My season is effectively over even though I have a pretty good team. I’m sixth in scoring but second in points against (and Dale has only had more points against because he had to play me). The Jaylen Warren thing just made me lose to Jules by 14 instead of 5 in week 4.
I thought I was done after Tua’s negative point game and didn’t check back in until this morning after watching zero football this week.
So luckily Ellis Dee lost by enough that whether or not we allowed him to unstart the inactive player didn’t decide the game.
Since no one ended up responding to the discussion, I’m going to just make up a rule that seems reasonable.
In the event that you have someone on your starting roster who is INACTIVE for the game and after the game starts, you can ask for that player to be pulled out of that starting slot. However, the only player you can replace them with is someone who starts in a later game. I will not swap out an inactive player for a player whose game has started.
Example: You forgot to set your roster for the Thursday night game. Your normal starting WR was a late scratch and is inactive. Normally they’d be locked in to their slot even though they never participated in a game, but upon request I will unstart them so that you can start someone who plays on Sunday or Monday.
However, if the same thing happened on Sunday for the early games, and all your WRs are playing in the Sunday early games, I would not swap out any of them for the inactive player because their games had started. I won’t put a player who is actively playing a game, even if they only have 0 points so far, into an active slot. You could ask to have the player unstarted to empty the slot and then pick up some player in a later Sunday/MNF game if you wanted.
I think that’s a pretty clear specific scenario where nothing is really served by having an inactive player basically erase a starting spot that week, but since there are no substitutions for other players who are actually playing games, it’s really just sticking the inactive player on the bench.
In the event that I’m not around (I usually will be), you can tell me who from a future game on your roster you intend to start. So you can say “I started player X and they’re inactive and I didn’t catch it in time, could player Y from the Sunday night game be substituted?”
I know some of you would probably prefer we just don’t have these sorts of rules and it’s your responsibility to make sure you’re good to go, and that’s totally fair, but I do like to try to help people out even if it’s protecting them a bit if there’s no harm to the balance of the league and can’t be exploited in any way. But if you’d like, you can advocate for a no adjustment/no helping people out/just do it like every other league rule if you prefer.
Makes sense to me.
Seems like a fair resolution.
That’s what I was thinking. But keep in mind you could technically sign a free agent who plays Monday night. They don’t have to already be on your roster.
And boy, did it ever turn out to be moot for my circumstance. I got absolutely rolled. All’s well that ends well.
My thinking is basically if an “out” player accidentally starts a game, requests for that out player to be pulled from that starting spot would be accepted. Whether or not the manager has a suitable replacement is their own problem and not the concern of the commissioner.
…I’m assuming the commissioner can just unset a roster spot, leaving it blank. If not, the manager would need to go ahead and sign somebody if they need to before posting the request.
Can I get in on this? Drake London got scratched roughly an hour before the game and I was at work, so I couldn’t swap him out in time.
My only option appears to be Roman Wilson on my bench, but it’s better than a 0.
Yes, that qualifies. I swapped out Drake for Wilson. If you end up wanting to start another player I think you could still swap out Wilson for someone else.
I could, but the Player List is pretty close to bare.
Yes, excellent. This is a good change.
Meanwhile, I checked and rechecked and then double-checked and third-checked that Quentin Johnston was going to be active on Thursday. Then kickoff came and I sat down to watch the game.
I found myself repeatedly checking Yahoo to make sure he wasn’t ruled out at the last minute. Hell, I could see him on the field lining up on various plays. Nowhere near every play, though.
At the final whistle to end the game Johnston had no catches. He didn’t even have targets. I’m pretty sure Herbert barely even looked at him the entire game. I went to Yahoo and their assessment of the zero targets was “this is very concerning for fantasy owners.” You can say that again!
I don’t think I’ve ever had that experience before in fantasy football. I’ve had receivers who started but gained 0 yards, of course. But I don’t think I’ve ever studiously watched a game specifically for a single receiver, and then the quarterback never even looked his way all game long. It was unsettling.
We haven’t spoken much of the Hamlet situation but it is concerning
Holy crap! Seems like Hamlet’s team took the poor showing last year personally and are making a statement this year. Yikes.