Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Taysom Hill as TE on ESPN (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Jail
- Start date
Deamon
Footballguy
Well then I'm sure you'll come around on this one. 39 touches at QB... 6 touches at all other positions combined.
Almost every site listing him as QB except for one, yet they are all wrong.... and the 1 that is right is one in which you benefit from playing in and owning him in. Riiiiiiigggghhht.
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
Deamon
Footballguy
Oh so your definition of a QB is only when he throws a pass. Gotcha.
The QB position is the player that accepts the snap from the Center. He has touched the ball 39 times in this position, and only 6 in ALL OTHER POSITIONS COMBINED. But you're right... 99% of reputable sports sites have it wrong, and espn fantasy has nailed it.
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
3 more passes than Edelman or Landry...
Deamon
Footballguy
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
Deamon
Footballguy
You just used "passes thrown" as a measure of how his position should be defined, and ignored "snaps from the center standing where the quarterback stands" as a measure of his position.
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
I think ESPN realized heading into the season (maybe especially after the Winston signing and Hill new contract).....realized that Hill was a unique player and just across the board labeling him as a QB would not be an accurate designation of what he does on the football field.....and IMO they got that right.....and as the season goes on will probably be contiued to show as actually the "correct" designation....because as soon as Brees comes back....Hill goes back to being almost anything but a QB.....
Deamon
Footballguy
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
34 rushes....your call...if you want to fall back on where he lined up and not what he actually does...
Deamon
Footballguy
Quarterbacks run the ball too....
EDT: If you're going to use his rushing stats, then he is by far and away a RB instead of a TE. So ESPN still has it wrong.
Last edited by a moderator:
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
lol...and its been fun.....after all this....I think there is a 90% chance....or more.....Winston ends up being the "QB"....whatever definition you go by....peace out...
Deamon
Footballguy
90% chance winston is starting at QB? This is very wrong. And if you believe this, you wouldn't be flexing Hill.
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
ESPN actually gave this guy an opportunity to be a potential play in FF like he was actually being used......
Deamon
Footballguy
Has not been used as a TE as much as a RB or a QB this year. So no ESPN did not give him an opportunity to be a play like he was being used. Wrong again.
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
we will see come Sunday......as we know the word "starter" doesn't really mean anything......Peyton could "start" me at QB .....and still win the game....I actually picked up Hill as more of a keep away move (cause in that free ESPN league) I do have Kelce and other TE's.....I just didn't want the competition to get the "advantage"....I have zero confidence playing Hill at any position....I can see why others weak at TE might.....but he could very easily just be the same ol same ol....
Deamon
Footballguy
You have zero confidence playing hill in your flex, yet you're doing it anyways. Ok.
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
he wasnt really being used as a QB or a backup QB.....depending on how attached to the "where he lined up thing" or whatever....RB might have been more accurate.....but again anybody's call from their perspective....but I would guess if he was played....it was probably at TE more than QB since he had both designations.....
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
I currently have him in my flex....but I have some other good options.....honestly good chance he rides my bench....but at least he won't be somebody else's TE....
Deamon
Footballguy
He was being used as a Rushing QB.
Sure RB may have been more accurate, but that's not what they put him as and you said they put him at the proper position.
It was not TE more than at QB... Even if you're ONLY calling him a QB when he throws a pass (which is not true), he's thrown more passes than times he's played TE. He has 6 catches, and most of those he was lined up at WR.
TE makes ZERO sense in ANY scenario you try to grasp at yet you're still grasping.
Deamon
Footballguy
90%+ chance that he doesn't play QB, yet you don't want anyone else to start him in their TE spot.
Right, cause that makes sense.
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
I thought I have pretty much said that TE or whatever is a little more accurate designation than QB.....granted TE is actually probably behind RB/WR.....but ahead of QB....so to speak...
Deamon
Footballguy
So you agree ESPN screwed up and he should not be allowed to play TE this week.
Ok then. Slowly but surely coming around.
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
correct....I currently am in control of what I do with him....if I want to roll the dice that he actually can give me "QB type points" at TE or Flex....I may do that .....but if I get the feeling that it is smoke and mirrors and and Hill really just assumes the same role and Winston gets the majority of the Saints QB points.....I may not start Hill at all....and I if I swing and miss by not starting him.....at least he is blowing up on my bench then being in somebody else's lineup as a TE......FF 101....
Last edited by a moderator:
Deamon
Footballguy
Your 90% doesn't sound very confident. If I was 90% sure he wouldn't put up many points, I certainly would be okay with him on somoene else's line up.
I'm predicting that your "90%" number was just in order to argue, and that pregame on Sunday he will be clearly warming up as the starting QB, and you will play him in your flex spot.
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
ESPN designated him based on preseason thoughts....which we had very little of this year......shots in the dark....I don't think anybody thought he was really the QB and after the Winston signing not even the backup QB.....but based on the contract he received and how he was used in the past, they felt he deserved some other type of designation.....as it turns out was TE the best....?...probably not....but I think most would agree QB only wouldn't be real accurate....
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
I'm not confident one way or the other....I heard Shefters reports were premature and according to Rotoworld Peyton has said that he still hasn't announced a starter....so yeah I'm not sure....and my 90% is just IMO.....I think you have to throw the ball, and I question Hill's actual passing ability.....and I don't think Peyton actually does give Hill the majority of the "QB" snaps....Hill may "start" but not sure he is the primary QB......I could care less about who actually "starts".....again if I swing and miss and Hill puts up QB1/high 2 numbers at I miss using him as my TE....so be it.....but at least he isn't playing against me as a TE or putting up those tie breaker total points as a TE for somebody else....
Deamon
Footballguy
Just checking some career stats here.
46 games
passing: 10/18 for 205 yards, 0 TD 1 INT
rushing: 98 for 538 and 4 TD
receiving: 28 for 312 and 7 TD
So he runs the most, catches the second most, and throws the least. That doesn't sound like a QB to me. No other QB I can think of runs and catches more than he throws.
Clearly the most accurate way to describe him is, he's a hybrid player that doesn't fit neatly into any of these boxes. But gun to my head, I'd probably label him a RB. The fact that he takes direct snaps doesn't make him a QB. Lots of RBs were taking snaps back when the wildcat was all the rage. That didn't turn them into QBs. TE would be the next option I'd pick, followed by WR. QB would be the last option/least accurate label.
46 games
passing: 10/18 for 205 yards, 0 TD 1 INT
rushing: 98 for 538 and 4 TD
receiving: 28 for 312 and 7 TD
So he runs the most, catches the second most, and throws the least. That doesn't sound like a QB to me. No other QB I can think of runs and catches more than he throws.
Clearly the most accurate way to describe him is, he's a hybrid player that doesn't fit neatly into any of these boxes. But gun to my head, I'd probably label him a RB. The fact that he takes direct snaps doesn't make him a QB. Lots of RBs were taking snaps back when the wildcat was all the rage. That didn't turn them into QBs. TE would be the next option I'd pick, followed by WR. QB would be the last option/least accurate label.
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
90% is just me....but in FF I'm going with the "flow" and what others might think /value....I think my feelings would be pretty accurate with the masses right now.....we really don't know...Hill is more valuable to me right now (in ESPN) on my bench then in somebod'y elses lineup....that might change like you say come game time....but I'm not sure yet....
Last edited by a moderator:
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
why risk the 10% biting you in the ### if you have the opportunity to eliminate it....?
Deamon
Footballguy
Sure then either way ESPN has it wrong.
What do you think would be the most accurate label THIS WEEK? QB.
There are a lot of QB's in college that run more than pass. I would say he's still more QB than any other position, be it an unconventional qb who lines up all over the field. But this week for sure qb.
Deamon
Footballguy
I never said it was the wrong move for you to hold him given the terrible ESPN designation. This is not a you problem, you're doing nothing wrong. ESPN is the one messing up.
And I mention the 90% because you said 90 or more chance he's not the qb, but yet you're 'not confident' on it. That's not consistant.
A guy's position designation shouldn't change from week to week.
I wouldn't agree that ESPN has it wrong. He isn't used as a QB. Drew Brees is the Saints' QB. They use Hill in a different role. As I said, RB seems closest to accurate IMO, but TE is reasonable also.
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
Deamon
Footballguy
It shouldn't change from week to week? So if Brady breaks his arms but is a great kicker and tampa announces he's their kicker, you shouldn't be allowed to use him in the kicker spot?
Deamon
Footballguy
Again, you're dancing around it and playing the "no one knows that for sure" card as your safety net.
yes he took all the passing reps in practice, he's going to be the starting qb. Even though you think there's only a 10% chance of that. We'll see if you're right on Sunday... but you've built yourself a perfect little safety net where you're either "right" that Winston starts, or you get to use an incorrect positioning by ESPN for your advantage. You have nothing to lose here.
We will keep the common ground that ESPN screwed up his position and that he is not a TE, never was a TE, and shouldn't be listed as a TE.
Players can gain eligibility at new positions during the season, but cannot lose eligibility at any position during the season.
Deamon
Footballguy
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
you may be right that he "starts"....I am more worried about "primary" and the stats that come along with both....
and I haven't danced around ####......because you are right that "no one knows for sure".....would you bet a mil that he starts right now....?.....or in fantasy more importantly that he gets the "majority of the NO QB points" this week ......?.....didn't think so....
Last edited by a moderator:
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
Deamon
Footballguy
i would 100% bet a million dollars that he starts this week.
Wouldn't you bet 1 mill that Winston is the QB?
Deamon
Footballguy
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
Deamon
Footballguy
You're telling me that something you're over 90% sure of you wouldn't bet a Million on to win a Million?
I guess we are different types of betters.
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
convenient you left out this part...."he is not a TE, never was a TE, and shouldn't be listed as a TE."
I never said that and I was never on "common ground" with what you said.....now you are just flailing in the wind....and making #### up to fit your narrative....
I never said that and I was never on "common ground" with what you said.....now you are just flailing in the wind....and making #### up to fit your narrative....
Last edited by a moderator:
