Welcome to the new Beta version of the MyFootballNow website! Please note that while using the Beta website, some features may not work correctly and other features are not complete. Some elements, such as notifications and chat, may act strangely during the time that both versions of the site are available. If you need to return to the old version, click on the button below.
I was looking over some stats and noticed a RT among the leading receivers. James Riley of Denver is listed as a RT yet he caught 47 for 588 yards and 2 TDs. I assume he plays some TE, and personally I am fine with this.
If you are fine with this as well, simply say nothing or post here. If you don't like this, you can either post here or send me a PM.
When I look to make a rule, it's to stop exploits and I don't think this qualifies. Now if someone was using a WR as a TE, that's a different story.
Re: Does anyone have a problem with a RT as a TE?
by
raidergreg69
@
12/31/2021 11:41 am
The WR @ RB is a different story. Seth's stats show it's no longer much of an exploit, which is why I opened it up for vote. I'm willing to allow it, but only if the majority of the league wants it. So far, you guys don't want it so that rule will stay.
This situation isn't even a vote because I don't think it's a big deal at all. I'm just trying to find out if we all think it's no big deal.
Re: Does anyone have a problem with a RT as a TE?
by
vcr5150
@
1/01/2022 9:35 am
Just to shed some light on this particular instance - The TE/RT in question is getting a position change for next season. He had been designated as a TE until Denver's playoff loss.
I was able to find a couple suitable TE's via free agency, but not any OL - thus the position change.
Re: Does anyone have a problem with a RT as a TE?
by
raidergreg69
@
1/01/2022 12:30 pm
vcr5150 wrote:
Just to shed some light on this particular instance - The TE/RT in question is getting a position change for next season. He had been designated as a TE until Denver's playoff loss.
I was able to find a couple suitable TE's via free agency, but not any OL - thus the position change.
Even so, if you also want him as your TE #3 I'm fine with that. I'm only trying to get rid of exploits, and I don't think this is one. I guess nobody else does either since nobody has said word one about it.
