*TIL playing Defensive Tackle makes you ineligible for Defensive Tackle awards

[qWest]

So would someone be able to explain why last season I was eligible and this season not? I was in the same defensive scheme both seasons.

Was last season I shouldn't have been? Or this season I should have been?

Or is the rule just that janky that each season it's just up for whatever someone ends up deciding is good or not?

I think these are pretty legitimate questions on how the process works.

Sorry for confusion there, I went back and checked the S25 collator. We've remained consistent with our interpretation of 3-4 RDT/LDT. You were used as the NT for OCO last season (if not always, at least significant enough to retain at least the 60% eligibility) whereas you were not the NT this season. This is the reason Wheezer got kicked off the ballot last season, he was in the same position you are this season.

Thanks for the explanation.

So what exactly was I eligible for? Because Zamir said I would have been eligible for DE of the year, but from talking to others it appears that's not the case because... I played too much at DT.

Yeah sorry Zamir jumped in there and confused it.

From what I can quickly see you fall into an unfortunate gap that too many players fall into: you were ineligible for all positional awards by rule. Given that OCO pretty much always ran you as DT in Nickel and DE (RDT) in 3-4, you fall into a 50/50 split between the two positions and thus do not meet the 60% requirement for any position. This has consistently happened to more and more of the leagues DTs as the 3-4 scheme has become popular. Additionally, a number of gadget RBs that play 50% at WR and 50% at RB have this same problem, as we saw with KKM. Ideally, with the move to the 3-4/3-3-5 and 4-3 Nickel schemes that teams will be forced to pick between in DDSPF 21, this issue will disappear. To that end, if players will be more consistently forced to play one position almost all of the time, I hope to see the 60% rule abolished by GMs.

I'm sorry to see that you got caught up in this weird in between land that the rules didn't properly prepare for, as many other players have the last few seasons. I've consistently raised concern and disdain for this rule (including the previous version that declared all players that play a single snap out of position to be ineligible, which them required an emergency vote to overturn), but perhaps I should've been more vocal to change the rules earlier.