What the rule with WRs at running back? he had this screen play where he would have welker in the backfield as the RB and would just screen to him, either way i couldnt stop him but i just wasnt sure if that was allowed, casue if it is i might make some changes in my depth chart
I also wanted to add that the Raiders have a fullback as their #1 and #3 TE on the depth chart. I know fullbacks were not specifically discussed as not being able to be put there, but it has the same effect as putting TEs out wide when looking at his chosen personnel for the next play. It would show 3 RB or even 4 RB plays instead of showing there was 1 or 2 guys lined up at TE. It wasn't a big problem for me, but if we aren't allowing TEs out wide, I don't think this should be allowed for the same reason.
Neither of these things is ok. This is the final warning
on depth chart issues, guys. As Konfusion said, it creates...well, confusion (not to mention a completely unrealistic, unfair advantage). Defenses don't call their plays totally blind and just guessing what players are going to be on the field. If you have an offensive player at a position on the depth chart he shouldn't be, it's going to be a strike starting in week 2. As stated in the rules in the OP, it's one thing if a TE is your #6 receiver...or even your #2 fullback.
But having FBs as a #1 TE creates a problem (for arguments sake, I'm guessing that's not a position that can be edited can it? If it can...that would solve the issue). As for the 3rd down back, I think putting a receiver there is crap. It's cheesy and garbage...especially to run screen plays out of. If that persists, some people could just get a straight up boot. This league isn't here for people to be cheap as shit. It's called 3rd down BACK for a reason.
Again, I'll reiterate these are DEPTH CHART issues. Designed plays have been and will continue to be exempt. But if you're pulling cheap crap with your depth chart, the hammer is coming.