Cordarelle Patterson legitimately qualifies for both WR and RB. When Sony Michel was injured and since he returned, Belichick utilized him lined up as a RB. He had several games playing as the ground attack for NE. He also has played as a WR - his standard position.
I would use Kamara as a prime example of someone who probably should have RB, WR eligibility granted he is frequently lined up as a WR - especially more so since Ingram returned. The Saints probably would never say he is a WR since that would give him more leverage for pay when his contract is set to expire.
If you click on his name yahoo has already fixed the problem.
Just fix the problem within the fantasy games before the weekend starts....
Interesting Post and Comments. One last thing to add and as mentioned, one of my leagues is a private league that has defense players, linebackers, safety/corner backs & def-lineman.
One of the players in our league had ChiBears, DL Akeem Hicks-- A couple weeks ago he scored a TD from the RB spot, and yep, he got six points for the TD. Big time difference in that game it was. And he for sure was not listed as a RB. I had the Chicago Defense --- and alas, I and my Defense-playing RB did not get credit for Hicks' TD. ;-/
I actually don't see a problem with this as teams randomly give OL and DL players opportunities at 1 yard TDs. The person who had Hicks should have received those points. It did not change his position as a DL. He was used in a one-time during a game situation and might not see that happen again as a RB. The argument wouldn't be if someone did something out of their position (which is controlled to some extent by game conditions and coaching strategy) but rather someone clearly not playing within a position he is labeled as and that not being honored. If they ran Hicks like that often enough, then sure grant him the eligibility and he would be a DL, RB.
That is a ridiculous analysis and stance on this topic by you and Yahoo, if that is truly its position. Like fantasy football, a player's position should be judged fluidly, not that a player "won’t lose their original designation" as you say. Makes no sense. This guy, literally, has not lined up as a tight end and you think it is okay for this platform to keep him there just because it was an "original designation?" Who made the original designation? Your explanation shows a lack of flexibility and a great deal of stubborness supported by no real logical reasoning. It was like that so we have to leave it like that? What business has ever succeeded with that mind set?
Why don't you all (Yahoo) take a look at the Pittsurgh Steelers official website and see how they designate Samuels? You will see it says, running back. I hope you're not intimating that you know better than the team? Make it right, Yahoo.
Fair Point. And I agree.
And yet given all the discussion and interesting as it is--shifting fantasy gears;
Yahoo Baseball also has players with multiple positions where teams list players as C-1B, or C-OF for instance....although the majority of, if not all their games at a position other than advertized. When it's a 'Catcher which like TE is a thin position, a manager can really take advantage of the situation, hence it's a very valuable piece of info to consider when drafting players.
Anyways, back to football: Not sure how this will be rectified to everyone's satisfaction as managers who took Samuels of the Waiver Wire following established rules; then dropped players, getting a player back?? or the used a 'waiver wire rank restored'??, etc; how restitution of lost players, waiver wire status etc, to these yahoo managers. Hard to manage changing the basic rules mid-season.
Complicated given everything