Commissioner Corner Message Board
what three giants had sacks in week 8? yahoo added 2 more sacks and i can't find out who got them or even if lemon was actually taken down that many times. the box score says 1 sack and it was fred robbins.
... nfl.com says 2 sacks - one by mitchell and one by robbins.
This is how the correct score should be calculated according to the box score on NFL.com.....
The stat change to the Giants D/ST week 8 score is incorrect according to the official box score of NFL.com. According to NFL.com there were 10 pts allowed, 2 sacks (K.Mitchell, F.Robbins), 3 fumbles recovered on Defense (R.McQuarters, M.Strahan, G. Wilson), and 1 fumble (R.McQuarters). Therefore, the Giants D/ST score should be 10 points for week 8. See calculation below:
10 Points allowed +4
2 sacks +2
3 Fumbles Recovered +6
1 Fumble -2
My friend who benefits from the change staying says that in Yahoo leagues you only get points taken away for fumbles lost. So in this case R.W. McQuarters muffed the punt (fumble) and then recovered it (fumble recovery). Therefore, he lost no points for fumbling the ball, but got 2 points for recovering it. How the hell are you going to give points for recovering your own fumble and not take away points for the fumble. That's bullsh*t.
The Yahoo! score is still wrong even if this is the case and the score would be 12 not 11. I don't even care at this point...either way the current Yahoo! score of 11 for the NY Giants D/ST in week 8 is wrong.
How can we get Yahoo to fix their mistake? so which one is correct
NFL = 2 sacks
ESPN = 1 sack
Yahoo = 1 sack
Go to yahoo fantasy home page.
Scroll all the way to the bottom.
Click on help which is in little blue letters.
Then click on the contacts link.
This will bring up an area where you can report box score errors.
- 1 Reply to Kevin M
Anyone who got screwed by this or just cares enough to want things right needs to hammer this issue to Yahoo and make sure it gets corrected. At least in our league it changed the outcome of a game between two teams that are very much in playoff contention. Without this being corrected it is likely that our season outcome will be changed drastically. Everyone, please email Yahoo and lets get this damn thing fixed.
On Yahoo's NFL stats (not the fantasy area) it says that the Giants had one sack in week 8. NFL.com which is suppose to be the official nfl stats, says they had two sacks in one section of the box score and only one in another part of the box score. I have found nowhere where anyone other than yahoo fantasy has said the Giants had 3 sacks.
Those of you in a "plus league" may have more leverage to get this thing fixed....
I have checked Box scores on ESPN, NFL, Giants official site and Yahoo. Everyone shows 1 sack except NFL which shows 2. Evan Yahoo Box score shows giants defense should only have 9 points not 11 in my league. I went from winning 91 to 90, to losing 91 to 92. I sent Yahoo an email for the error on Box scores. I suggest everyone do the same!
- 1 Reply to Kevin M
How do I protest that I ended up with a tie after clearly beating my opponent because he got a sack added November 1 and another added November 2nd for his N Y Giant defense? How do I protest to Yahoo? There is clearly an error on the stats. Who do I send the email to so I can protest? By the way, the Giants also should lose some points due to Miami's QB being awarded 10 yds for rushing on November 2nd. Yahoo is in error.
Go to NFL.com and view the play-by-play log of the game. The Giants did have three sacks. One each from Strahan, Mitchell, and Robbins. In the Yahoo play-by-play, they seem to have the Mitchell sack credited as a rush of no gain, although they say Cleo Lemon fumbled the ball and then recovered the fumble. At the start of the play, it was 2nd-and-2. The next down was 3rd-and-4. So Lemon obviously lost two yards, making it a sack. But I reckon that's where the confusion happened.
- 1 Reply to Michael Dell
I guess the official stats are what really matters, but I was watching the game and I saw all three sacks. I was wondering what was taking so long for the correction. lol I did have the giants DEF and I may have been a bit bias.
i got the same problem in our league
espn box score says 1 sack
yahoo box score says 1 sack
actually i havent checked nfl.com but i take your word
mitchell & robbins are credited with a sack in yahoo if if you called up individual player stats but thats all.
i dont know who the mystery player is that got credited
maybe a british fan
- 1 Reply to John
thanks for all the replies everyone. i will take your word for it about the nyg website since i personally haven't checked, but as far as espn, yahoo, and nfl.com go, none have 3 sacks.
i went from winning a very close game that is rather "detrimental" to my league by 2 points, i now have a tie which really ruins everything for not only myself, but for 8 other people in the league as well.
as unfortunate as it is for me to say, i'm glad i'm not the only one with this problem. although doubtful, i wish that this could be somehow corrected. i don't care if the giants get 2 sacks, or 1 sack like originally recoreded. 3 seems to be not only incorrect, but makes me lose (which sucks, hahaha).
it's really not Yahoo's fault, if nfl updates the stats then they need to be updated correctly. I understand why many of you would be mad if you lost now, but how would you feel if you had the Giants DEF and you felt robbed because they didn't give you a sack?
Actually, in my league sacks are worth 2 and so are fumble recoveries...If you go to NFL.com it does say there were only 2 sacks..but if you look at the recovered fumbles it says there were 3 recovered fumbles and only 2 sacks..so either way there will be a 4 point add on in my league
- View More Messages
Expert Fantasy Advice
Julio Jones is in limbo again, but at least he faces a 1 pm ET start on Sunday. … More »
DeMarco Murray's broken hand muddies the waters in an otherwise great matchup against the Colts. … More »
Titles are on the line, which means one thing and one thing only, tune into 'Fantasy Football Live.' … More »