playin4beer
Footballguy
#### ESPN, #### Hill..
I played against him in the TE slot.. Lost 101.98 - 101.96...
I played against him in the TE slot.. Lost 101.98 - 101.96...
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 (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Jail
- Start date
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
there is no arguing that Hill's usage since he came into the league has been closer to "anything but QB" then "QB only"....."QB only" would have been a TERRIBLE designation at any point....a disservice to what he actually does....(no matter what the team "listed" him as)....he wasn't even the backup QB on his team the week before he started and the backup QB in front of him was not listed as "injured/out" the following week.....the hang up is people wanted his designation immediately changed when it appeared that maybe he leapfrogged the true backup QB.....so the ones saying he should have only been able to play QB, refuse to give him any credit for his previous designation, and feel that "taking all of the practice reps" is the SOLE justification for an immediate drastic change in his eligibility.....
every owner had the option to roster Hill at any point in the season and use this to their advantage (albeit maybe for only a week) if it ever came to fruition....well it did....they shouldn't be looked down upon for that......FF is a game.....like many others, and owners should always been looking for ways to gain an advantage, use the rules to their advantage, beat others to the punch, whatever.....if you don't, you are doing it wrong.....and you ain't trying hard enough....when an opportunity is available to everybody, there are no cheap wins or whatever.....keeping Hill's designation the same for week to see how things really played out was very reasonable.....with waivers usually running Tuesday or Wednesday in most leagues (TUE in the one ESPN league I am in)......and Thursday games being played.....and Peyton doubling back and saying he never announced a starter....people had to make roster decisions based on the way things were.....not just who was getting "reps"....Tuesday when waivers run in ESPN is usually the players "day off" so there were no reps.....not making a drastic change in the middle of the week was reasonable....
Last edited by a moderator:
Synthesizer
Footballguy
Now ESPN needs to figure out how to force Hill out of the TE spot for teams that don't change their lineups this week. They brought this upon themselves.
styleride85
Footballguy
Where are you getting that the majority have been at Tight End? Tight end is 3rd. He has more snaps at QB this year than TE.
styleride85
Footballguy
This is a terrible point. So it's QB vs the field? "Anything but QB" isn't a position. His snaps at QB have been more than any other position. His touches at QB have been more than any other position. He is listed as a "QB ONLY" on ALL official team and NFL literature. He is listed as QB ONLY on every major fantasy site out there except for ESPN. Yet again, you're doubling... tripling down on that "QB ONLY" would be a TERRIBLE decision (even though everyone but espn did that). You also said 90%+ chance that Winston was the QB... wrong again. You are extremely defensive over the fact that you started him this week in your flex position when he was a QB this week and not a flex player. Again, congrats on your cheap win.
To your 2nd point, the starting QB being out, the backup struggling, and Taysom doing everything to become the starter is 100% reason for a drastic change in his eligibility. He wasn't playing TE this week. Everyone knew this. You probably knew this but for the sake of argument, decided to go on rants and make predictions that Winston could/would be the starter. So yes, if a players position is going to drastically change, then so should his eligibility. Starting QB's should not be allowed in the Tight End position. Period.
To your third point, no one is blaming the owners for starting Hill there. I would have if I played on a terribly run ESPN site too. You did nothing wrong. The fact that you're defending something so hard that no one is accusing you of is a little sad. There's a reason 85% of unbiased voters voted that he should have been listed as a QB, and a very obvious reason you don't feel that way (you got away with starting a QB in a TE spot).
ESPN continues to show how bad of a fantasy site they are. Luckily for you, you benefited from their negligence.
styleride85
Footballguy
Yep. People are still trying to take advantage from ESPN's terrible decision to allow this. Again, there's a reason they were the only site to allow this, and now they are getting justified criticism for it (except from those who own Hill and got away with the clear starting qb in a position that should not be able to have a starting qb in)
Twenty-Four Eighty-Four
Footballguy
Commissioners should be telling teams to get him out or they themselves should pull him out of the TE spot.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure what you're struggling with here.
WR and TE: 83 snaps (59%)
QB 40 (28%)
RB 18 (13%)
Your stats.
WR/TE is the most logical designation, based upon snap counts.
And inasmuch as almost all of those "QB" snaps were actually wildcat runs, those probably belong in the RB bucket.
Synthesizer
Footballguy
So you combined WR and TE into one position? How about this breakdown instead? 
....
QB/RB (41%)
WR (35%)
TE (24%)
....QB/RB (41%)
WR (35%)
TE (24%)
Joe Summer
Footballguy
styleride85
Footballguy
Hahahah Exactly. Clearly trolling at this point because he's been proven wrong. There is not a SINGLE reason for TE to be included for Hill any which way. None. Yet he was able to be used in the TE position (one that is hard to find good starters), the week he was the starting QB.So you combined WR and TE into one position? How about this breakdown instead?
QB/RB (41%)
WR (35%)
TE (24%)
Most touches this year were out of the QB position.
Most snaps this year were out of the QB position.
The fact that he combined WR/TE into one to try to show that TE is higher than QB is laughable.
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
when I said "anything but QB" it meant that "only QB" would have been a TERRIBLE designation heading into the season....and into last week.....(especially when made preseason and based on his past usage).....anything else would be "somewhat better"...."QB only" would have been one of the last options heading into the season and up until last week....should it have been TE.....maybe not....would WR or RB been better...probably....but for sure...."QB only" was not the best option.....you really can't argue that....multiple positions would probably have been best....as that is what he plays.....QB/RB/WR/TE and then let owners decide each week where to plug him in.....again based on past usage and current designations and what he had actually been doing....although listed as QB by the team, he wasn't even functioning as their backup....
some other daily betting sites had him listed as TE or another combination....it wasn't just ESPN in the fantasy world...
I thought there was a good chance Winston would get more PT at QB....that was just IMO and I stated as much....I was really unsure...and I was wrong.....I'm probably not alone there.....I'm sure anybody that actually plugged him in at "QB" had at least some little bit of hesitation....no matter what the reps were... anybody that said they didn't is probably lying....
and you ignored and didn't comment on the big part of my post (intentional on your part I'm sure).....which unfortunately is something we have to deal with in this fantasy game we play even though real football doesn't care.........timelines....days when WW runs....and roster decisions need to be made .....(TUE for ESPN leagues)....even after ESPN roster decisions need to be made Peyton came out and said he hadn't announced a starter yet...TUE are usually days off in the NFL....so usually no reps....so you had to decide before going to bed TUE what you are going to do.....none of us or ESPN knew going to bed on TUE who the starter was going to be....the head coach came out and said he didn't announce it yet....you can't have owners making WW and roster decisions based on MON/TUE designations and have waivers run and THEN change a designation ......so again....waiting a week was reasonable.....
turkishkamel
Footballguy
Twenty-Four Eighty-Four
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
styleride85
Footballguy
QB only would not have been "CAPS LOCK- TERRIBLE". Almost every major fantasy site is not "TERRIBLE".
You keep saying "ah maybe not TE but definitely not QB". Any reputable site should not be relying on a "lesser of two evils" approach. There's zero reason for TE designation based on anything at all. So yes, they are wrong for QB/TE.
You can really argue that QB only was the best designation. He was listed at QB everywhere.
So you combined WR and TE into one position? How about this breakdown instead?
QB/RB (41%)
WR (35%)
TE (24%)
Has to beat that point.
Hahahah Exactly. Clearly trolling at this point because he's been proven wrong. There is not a SINGLE reason for TE to be included for Hill any which way. None. Yet he was able to be used in the TE position (one that is hard to find good starters), the week he was the starting QB.
Most touches this year were out of the QB position.
Most snaps this year were out of the QB position.
The fact that he combined WR/TE into one to try to show that TE is higher than QB is laughable.
The snap data makes very clear that the thing Taysom Hill does the most is split out and run pass routes. He does this on 59% of his snaps. How we allocate these snaps between "Tight End" "Wide Receiver" and "Slot Receiver" is arbitrary and unimportant.
The thing he does the next-most is run the ball out of the wildcat formation.
He played basically no QB at all prior to Drew Brees getting hurt.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
Tight Ends are not Wide Receivers.
Wide Receivers are not Tight Ends.
If you have to combine the two positions to prove a point, then the point is not worth proving. It's either a fishing attempt or a last desperate grasp to win an illogical argument.
styleride85
Footballguy
Quarterbacks don't run pass routes. Not regularly anyway.
Taysom Hill runs pass routes more than anything else.
styleride85
Footballguy
I love that "notsmart" is the only one liking your posts lol
So "pass route running' is now a position? LOL
styleride85
Footballguy
Careful. By that logic, then Travis Kelce is a WR. So is Mark Andrews. And Jimmy Graham. Gesicki. Ertz. You get the point.
Lots of guy that are used primarily out of the slot and out wide are considered TEs.
Regardless, the point remains the same as it's always been -- guys that spend most of their time tight/slot/wide are not QBs.
styleride85
Footballguy
Guys that spend the most of their time in the backfield as a qb or rb are not considered TE. Big reach here dude... you're in the vast minority for a reason.
Hill doesn't spend most of his time in the backfield. He spends most of his time tight/slot/wide.
We can do this all day. The numbers are not on your side.
styleride85
Footballguy
And again, you're combining positions for no reason for your sake. You've been called out on it by many others but are refusing to let up. Some people just can't seem to admit they might be wrong. Good luck with that. You're in the vast minority for a reason. TE is his LOWEST spot by the numbers, it never made sense. ESPN is getting lit up for this for good reason. Keep fishing though. Goodnight.
Huh. Just one post back you were all about "guys that spend the most of their time in the backfield as a qb or rb". Sounds like you're combining positions there.
Doesn't really matter though. As your stats make clear, Hill isn't one of those guys.
styleride85
Footballguy
playin4beer
Footballguy
When does ESPN make stat changes? I lost to the Hill owner 101.98-101.96.. When stat corrections came out Wednesday, Hill went from 51 rushing yards to 49. It shows 49 on nfl.com but still shows 51 on ESPN.
Those 2 yards will give me the victory
Those 2 yards will give me the victory
Fear The Turtle
Footballguy
I'll try to quickly slip in something of an answer to your question before the guys who lost out on picking up T. Hill last week chime in and use your question as an opening to rip ESPN's free fantasy site, while pretty much ignoring your question.
I've used ESPN for a few years now and my feeling is that the scoring changes I've seen usually show up overnight, at least in the league I'm in. One contributor to this thread did say that he lost a title years ago when ESPN made a change a few days after, though. My "feeling" is that, since the new NFL week has begun, the ship has sailed, but I am not certain. Maybe the fact that it's a holiday week might throw that off. I would definitely check with ESPN about it.
styleride85
Footballguy
There isn't really an answer here.I'll try to quickly slip in something of an answer to your question before the guys who lost out on picking up T. Hill last week chime in and use your question as an opening to rip ESPN's free fantasy site, while pretty much ignoring your question.
I've used ESPN for a few years now and my feeling is that the scoring changes I've seen usually show up overnight, at least in the league I'm in. One contributor to this thread did say that he lost a title years ago when ESPN made a change a few days after, though. My "feeling" is that, since the new NFL week has begun, the ship has sailed, but I am not certain. Maybe the fact that it's a holiday week might throw that off. I would definitely check with ESPN about it.
And I didn't lose out on picking up Hill. If you look at the poll, 5-1 unaffected owners (don't play espn) thought he should be QB. But I guess as someone who did start a QB in a TE spot, you wanted to chime in quickly
styleride85
Footballguy
Damn, you got doubly screwed. Hopefully your league moves on from that disaster of a hosting site next year.
playin4beer
Footballguy
I'm not sure it shouldn't be changed still.. I am the commissioner but would still put it to a vote. NFL and Yahoo both show him having 49 yards rushing. ESPN is the only one showing 51 yards. The Saints haven't played again yet, so it shouldn't be official.
Fear The Turtle
Footballguy
Going down a slippery slope there, esp. since you're commissioner. If previous similar situations haven't been dealt with by a vote or a commissioner act, then it's going to look awfully self-serving. However, if you can point to a situation where you did it for another team, then you're on much firmer ground.
I like your point about the Saints' next game. I would get on ESPN if i were you.
Roy L Fewks
Footballguy
https://fantasy.espn.com/football/statcorrections
PLAYER
STAT
CHANGE
Taysom Hill
NO QB
Rushing Yards (YDS)
-2
If you are the commissioner of your league, you may need to adjust the score manually, by clicking the "Scoreboard" tab and then clicking "Adjust Scoring."
playin4beer
Footballguy
Fear The Turtle
Footballguy
Sweet. Congrats. You're moving closer to the big $ prize, a prize inflated by the $150 your league did NOT spend on an unnecessary (according to many) pay site.ESPN finally changed it.. I win 101.96 - 101.78
Twenty-Four Eighty-Four
Footballguy
I know someone who still has Hill as his TEnon ESPN. Hasn't changed his lineup, hasn't made any free agent moves. Just rolling with it. Still a relevant lineup.
Twenty-Four Eighty-Four
Footballguy
He's got another thread about him, this one was just used for people talking about him being a TE in ESPN. You might find more info in one of his other threads.
VikingFrog
Footballguy
QB Taysom Hill, NO
I'm down bad after njoku played 90% of the snaps and got one target. Considering holding to see if targets catch up to %, swinging for the fence on Hill, or someone safe like Logan Thomas. I'm leaning swinging for the fences with Hill.
forums.footballguys.com
We’ve been discussing him here a little.
Just sharing so we aren’t spread across two threads.
