Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Taysom Hill as TE on ESPN


Jail

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

As bad as the TE position has been this year, he'll be no lower than the 2nd highest scorer this week.  What a free roll at that position.  Knowing his skill set, he probably should have been stashed a lobg time ago.  If you started him on a bye week and he got you a 0, no different than starting Gelsicki, Fant, Doyal, etc.

true....and again just being devils' advocate....let's say you were an owner that has been carrying him all year and maybe plugging him in as your TE because the position has been such a wasteland and you figured he is as good as any other roll of the dice.....now you could be looking at him losing his TE designation after this week......is that "fair" to that guy....?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stinkin Ref said:

I'm really just playing devils advocate here......but what should his designation have been.....he hasn't been a starting QB, he hasn't even been the backup QB.....he has mostly played RB/TE/WR......

The Saints recently signed him to a 2 year $21 million deal as a backup QB. That’s what he’s listed on in the team depth chart. Let’s be real hear. Congrats on playing this loophole this week in your ESPN league, but there is no reason to carry water for ESPN based on their incompetence. They are a trash platform that was asleep at the wheel on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Johnny Utah #9 said:

The Saints recently signed him to a 2 year $21 million deal as a backup QB. That’s what he’s listed on in the team depth chart. Let’s be real hear. Congrats on playing this loophole this week in your ESPN league, but there is no reason to carry water for ESPN based on their incompetence. They are a trash platform that was asleep at the wheel on this.

so he should have been designated as a QB only at the start of the season and that could never change......and there should be no changing of any players designation once week one starts....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

As bad as the TE position has been this year, he'll be no lower than the 2nd highest scorer this week.  What a free roll at that position.  Knowing his skill set, he probably should have been stashed a lobg time ago.  If you started him on a bye week and he got you a 0, no different than starting Gelsicki, Fant, Doyal, etc.

To bank on that, I think it really has to be a true starting QB, Winston holding a clipboard all game situation.   Most likely, there will be at least 2 TEs going for 18 plus.   I actually think there's a good chance that all of this fuss results in a boring 8.5 point game at the TE situation:

7/13   90 yards passing,   5/30 rushing,  1 reception for 15 yards.   

If he throws, rushes, or catches a TD, then you have very good TE production.   2 TDs and you're getting everything you dreamed/ feared.

Edited by sushinsky4tsar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Johnny Utah #9 said:

The Saints recently signed him to a 2 year $21 million deal as a backup QB. That’s what he’s listed on in the team depth chart. Let’s be real hear. Congrats on playing this loophole this week in your ESPN league, but there is no reason to carry water for ESPN based on their incompetence. They are a trash platform that was asleep at the wheel on this.

you could argue that based on what he actually does/has been doing..... that they actually have had his designation closer to the truth then designating him as a QB.....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sushinsky4tsar said:

To bank on that, I think it really has to be a true starting QB, Winston holding a clipboard all game situation.   Most likely, there will be at least 2 TEs going for 18 plus.   I actually think there's a good chance that all of this fuss results in a boring 8.5 point game at the TE situation:

7/13   90 yards passing,   5/30 rushing,  1 reception for 15 yards.   

If he throws, rushes, or catches a TD, then you have very good TE production.   2 TDs and you're getting everything you dreamed/ feared.

I don't think he's going to blow up or play all the snaps.  But I think he has a decent chance of running it in the red zone and possibly scoring a TD.  You won't start him over a stud TE, but if you have one of the many average ones, then your odds with Hill may be slightly better...


On a side note, this is gonna impact NO WR options fairly negatively...

Edited by MikeApf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stinkin Ref said:

technically nothing has changed.....any owner could have picked him up all year and played him at either QB/TE/Flex......and this really shouldn't be a surprise if you have been paying attention, he has always had this designation on the site and I am sure it has been on people's radar.....its just that now it is coming into play because he may get more PT at one of the positions he has always been eligible for....as soon as Brees got hurt, this should have been something every owner should have considered.....so IMO quit crying....it is what it is for this week....

with that said.....just because he has been announced as the "starter at QB" doesn't mean thats how things will play out.......Winston could VERY easily lead the team in QB snaps this week when all is said and done......IMO it is kind of a risky move to play him in some respects....

This 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Neil Beaufort Zod said:

1. Did every team in the league know he had a QB/TE designation?
2. Did every team have a shot at drafting/claiming him? 

If both answers are yes, nobody should complain. It's unusual but absolutely fair (all teams had a shot at the guy). And he might not do much, anyway. 

Disagree.  It's technically a 'typo'... he has never been a TE the last two years, there is ZERO reason for him to be a TE.  What if ESPN had Kyler as a RB/QB all year and everyone knew about it and had the same shot... still fair?  There's absolutely no excuse for ESPN to have this massive blunder.

And he will absolutely do much.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MikeApf said:

 You won't start him over a stud TE,

 

6 hours ago, Stinkin Ref said:

IMO it is kind of a risky move to play him in some respects....

He is a no risk option at TE imo.  I would start him over every TE in the nfl this week.  Willing to bet he outscores Kelce this week.  I'd say he definitely has an over 50% shot of outscoring an average "stud" TE this week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are a lot of people in here that didn't pay attention to this possibility and missed out on him.  I purposely grabbed him in leagues only to see the designation switch from TE to QB only. I am not upset I dropped someone because I was trying to take advantage of the fact he may play QB in my TE slot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, smbkrypt24 said:

I think there are a lot of people in here that didn't pay attention to this possibility and missed out on him.  I purposely grabbed him in leagues only to see the designation switch from TE to QB only. I am not upset I dropped someone because I was trying to take advantage of the fact he may play QB in my TE slot.

I don't play in ESPN so have no vested interest.  Just think it's entirely unfair for ESPN to have him in a position that he has never really been in with the Saints.  This is the equivalent of a typo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Deamon said:

I don't play in ESPN so have no vested interest.  Just think it's entirely unfair for ESPN to have him in a position that he has never really been in with the Saints.  This is the equivalent of a typo.

He is a utility player so he is designated many different positions.  Carrying him on your roster this was kind of what was hoped for.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, smbkrypt24 said:

He is a utility player so he is designated many different positions.  Carrying him on your roster this was kind of what was hoped for.

Well there's many many fantasy platforms out there and ESPN is the ONLY one that doesn't designate him as a QB.... so no, he is not designated many different positions and should not be designated anything but a QB.  ESPN screwed this up by having a typo in his position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Deamon said:

Well there's many many fantasy platforms out there and ESPN is the ONLY one that doesn't designate him as a QB.... so no, he is not designated many different positions and should not be designated anything but a QB.  ESPN screwed this up by having a typo in his position.

Wrong.  Before this week Yahoo had him as Qb and TE.  Fleaflicker has him currently as WR and QB.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, smbkrypt24 said:

Wrong.  Before this week Yahoo had him as Qb and TE.  Fleaflicker has him currently as WR and QB.  

So why did Yahoo change it?  Because they realized it was a mistake?

CBS
MFL
Yahoo
NFL.com
ESPN
Sleeper

Are the big 6 and only 1 of 6 has him not as just a QB.  Yet this isn't an error?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Deamon said:

So why did Yahoo change it?  Because they realized it was a mistake?

CBS
MFL
Yahoo
NFL.com
ESPN
Sleeper

Are the big 6 and only 1 of 6 has him not as just a QB.  Yet this isn't an error?

I don't work for Yahoo so I can't answer why they changed it.  You are asking the wrong person.

Thanks for the list of your big 6 fantasy sites.  It is not an error.  They have their reasons for it.  I am not sure why they are choosing not to, but for one example in baseball they require a player be in a position for so many games before switching designations.  Perhaps they could be waiting on him to actually play QB before switching, but this is just one possibility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, smbkrypt24 said:

I don't work for Yahoo so I can't answer why they changed it.  You are asking the wrong person.

Thanks for the list of your big 6 fantasy sites.  It is not an error.  They have their reasons for it.  I am not sure why they are choosing not to, but for one example in baseball they require a player be in a position for so many games before switching designations.  Perhaps they could be waiting on him to actually play QB before switching, but this is just one possibility. 

Not "my" list, those are the most used.  As for why Yahoo changed it, it's clear that it's because a player playing QB should not be allowed to be used in a non QB position as it is an unfair advantage.

You have skin in this game, I do not... so you are clearly biased towards it being fair.

ESPN has always been a pretty bad fantasy site to use, this is the icing on the cake though.  Hopefully commissioners step in and do not allow it, but I'm not sure many will.  It isn't the commissioners fault, but it is definitely ESPN's fault for allowing this typo to exist. 

Bottom line is Hill is not a TE this week, so using him in a TE spot is not right... not sure what you're missing here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, sushinsky4tsar said:

Okay, apparently we're talking about a Mike Clay tweet from April that said we reserve the right to strip his TE eligibility if he becomes the starter.

ESPN Fantasy should be fixing this quick, unless it's complete and utter trash, which I kind of suspected was already the case.

 

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Stinkin Ref said:

you could argue that based on what he actually does/has been doing..... that they actually have had his designation closer to the truth then designating him as a QB.....

You could argue that, but you’d be wrong. Do you want ESPN to change the designation of any player when they happen to take some snaps out of their natural position? So you want Deebo and Aiyuk to have RB eligibility now that they draw up some runs for them? How about Claypool as well since they run sweeps with him at the goaline? Hell, Nick Foles ran the Philly Special that one time, let’s get him some WR eligibility while we are at it.

If you are arguing Taysom is not a QB, and that ESPN is correctly designating his position, then I don’t know what to tell you. I guess they must know better than the Saints, that have Hill listed as a QB on their official depth chart (and everywhere else you look). Somebody should let the Saints know though, because paying Hill $21 million for 2 years to be a some kind of secret TE seems a bit rich. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was able to pick Hill up on four of my five teams. I already owned him in the other. So this isn’t a sour grapes owner. None of my leagues use ESPN. If they did, I would not start Hill as a tight end. I just think it’s unfair and it’s taking advantage of a technicality.

Edited by Cjw_55106
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Deamon said:

Disagree.  It's technically a 'typo'... he has never been a TE the last two years, there is ZERO reason for him to be a TE.  What if ESPN had Kyler as a RB/QB all year and everyone knew about it and had the same shot... still fair?  There's absolutely no excuse for ESPN to have this massive blunder.

And he will absolutely do much.

 Hill has always been labeled a TE, so everyone has played that way through 10 weeks. Changing it now would be unfair imo. 

If everyone knows about it and has the same shot with Kyler, yes, it's fair. Everyone has the same chance at the guy. It's unusual but fair. 

Besides, Hill has more receptions than pass attempts. He's a WR/TE based on usage. Maybe RB based on usage. Definitely not a QB based on usage. QB is actually his least-justifiable spot based on what he's done on the field. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Johnny Utah #9 said:

If you are arguing Taysom is not a QB, and that ESPN is correctly designating his position, then I don’t know what to tell you. I guess they must know better than the Saints, that have Hill listed as a QB on their official depth chart

Exactly.  And Apparently ESPN knows better than all the other major fantasy sites too.
 

1 minute ago, Neil Beaufort Zod said:

Besides, Hill has more receptions than pass attempts. He's a WR/TE based on usage. Maybe RB based on usage. Definitely not a QB based on usage. QB is actually his least-justifiable spot based on what he's done on the field. 

You could argue this, but the actual team labels him as a QB.

And this week, he is 100% a QB based on usage, correct?  So should he not be labeled the position he is going to be playing in your opinion?  Yahoo recognized his 'position switch" and changed him to a QB this week.... don't you think ESPN should do the same?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Cjw_55106 said:

 I would not start Hill as a tight end. I just think it’s unfair and it’s taking advantage of a technicality.

That's admirable.   It's funny though because it's not even a 'technicality'.  TECHNICALLY, he is a QB.  All official team data, websites, etc. have him as a QB.  I would call ESPN calling him a TE a 'mistake" rather than a "technicality"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Deamon said:



And this week, he is 100% a QB based on usage, correct?  So should he not be labeled the position he is going to be playing in your opinion?  Yahoo recognized his 'position switch" and changed him to a QB this week.... don't you think ESPN should do the same?

They have said they will if he ends up playing most of his snaps at QB.

At this point in time he hasn't, and this "switch" (fakeout?) occurred after they ran waivers for the week. Really can't argue with their stance at this point, they have been totally upfront.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Truebluey said:

They have said they will if he ends up playing most of his snaps at QB.

At this point in time he hasn't, and this "switch" (fakeout?) occurred after they ran waivers for the week. Really can't argue with their stance at this point, they have been totally upfront.

Has he not played the majority of his snaps at QB this year?  (I know most of the times he runs with it).

Feel like this is a terrible stance even if my above assumption is wrong.  He is CLEARLY going to be a QB this week, and every official piece of literature from both the team AND the nfl all year has had him listed as a QB.  ESPN is straight trash.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Deamon said:

Exactly.  And Apparently ESPN knows better than all the other major fantasy sites too.
 

You could argue this, but the actual team labels him as a QB.

And this week, he is 100% a QB based on usage, correct?  So should he not be labeled the position he is going to be playing in your opinion?  Yahoo recognized his 'position switch" and changed him to a QB this week.... don't you think ESPN should do the same?

first bolded.....its not an argument....based on what he has actually been doing.....ESPN designation is actually more accurate then even the Saints.....

second bolded......we have no idea......Peyton could say "he is our starting PK".....does that mean he should now only get PK eligibility.....

Hill hasn't actually played as a starting QB or even a backup QB yet......Winston came in when Brees went down.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Deamon said:

I don't play in ESPN so have no vested interest.  Just think it's entirely unfair for ESPN to have him in a position that he has never really been in with the Saints.  This is the equivalent of a typo.

he has been more of a RB/WR/TE then a QB or even a backup QB......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stinkin Ref said:

first bolded.....its not an argument....based on what he has actually been doing.....ESPN designation is actually more accurate then even the Saints.....

second bolded......we have no idea......Peyton could say "he is our starting PK".....does that mean he should now only get PK eligibility.....

Hill hasn't actually played as a starting QB or even a backup QB yet......Winston came in when Brees went down.....

What are his snap counts lined up at QB vs TE?

What meeting room is he is during practices?  I'm willing to bet QB.  On their official depth chart what is his official position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Deamon said:

Well there's many many fantasy platforms out there and ESPN is the ONLY one that doesn't designate him as a QB.... so no, he is not designated many different positions and should not be designated anything but a QB.  ESPN screwed this up by having a typo in his position.

even tho QB is the position he has played the least.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stinkin Ref said:

let's just say.....he is more flex eligible.....does that help

So he gets to count as 3 positions than?  Even if QB was the position he played the most?  In college as well?

So are you saying that Jalen Hurts for the Eagles should be classified as a RB as he has ran the ball more than he has thrown it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Deamon said:

That's admirable.   It's funny though because it's not even a 'technicality'.  TECHNICALLY, he is a QB.  All official team data, websites, etc. have him as a QB.  I would call ESPN calling him a TE a 'mistake" rather than a "technicality"

the saints list him as a QB.....but thats not what he has been playing.....he hasn't even been presented as the backup QB......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cjw_55106 said:

None of my leagues use ESPN. If they did, I would not start Hill as a tight end. I just think it’s unfair and it’s taking advantage of a technicality.

Pahleese. I guess that it is technically unfair and unethical for a head coach to target throws towards a defensive back that is obviously hobbled on the field. But, it is wise.

This is not a character issue. This is a game. You play to win the game, and give your opponent the business every chance you get. No hard feelings, but no quarter to the enemy either.

Now if a league Commish were to use his powers to pick up a player for his team before he cleared waivers, then that would be unfair and taking advantage of the technicality that allows him managerial powers. However, to pick up and start a free agent player, that is legally listed as a TE by your league host site, is simply savvy gamesmanship and nothing more.

Edited by Stat Correction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stinkin Ref said:

the saints list him as a QB.....but thats not what he has been playing.....he hasn't even been presented as the backup QB......

How has he not been playing QB?  He has taken 39 snaps as the QUARTERBACK this year.  He has caught 6 catches as a WR/TE, and taken 0 hand offs as a RB.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Deamon said:

Has he not played the majority of his snaps at QB this year?  (I know most of the times he runs with it).

Feel like this is a terrible stance even if my above assumption is wrong.  He is CLEARLY going to be a QB this week, and every official piece of literature from both the team AND the nfl all year has had him listed as a QB.  ESPN is straight trash.

this is not true either as apparently  Shefter report was premature and Peyton hasn't announced a starting QB.......Hill could be same ol same ol......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stinkin Ref said:

this is not true either as apparently  Shefter report was premature and Peyton hasn't announced a starting QB.......Hill could be same ol same ol......

Coach Speak.  He took all the first team QB reps in practice.  He is the starting QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Deamon said:

What are his snap counts lined up at QB vs TE?

What meeting room is he is during practices?  I'm willing to bet QB.  On their official depth chart what is his official position?

first bolded....I have no idea....honestly I am assuming he is like a pinball machine in that building....

second bolded.....in FF nobody really cares......we don't play by their designations....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stinkin Ref said:

sorry....I was responding to all your other inaccuracies......to answer your question....I have no idea....look it up....not doing unnecessary homework for you....

What other inaccuracies? 

Listed as QB:
ESPN
NFL.COM
TEAM SITE
CBS.COM
YAHOO.COM
NFL.COM FANTASY
CBS FANTASY
YAHOO FANTASY
SLEEPER FANTASY
MFL FANTASY
EVERY OTHER SITE OUT THERE

Listed as TE:
ESPN FANTASY

Are you suggesting that the first list is WRONG to list him as QB and ESPN is RIGHT to list him as a TE?

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Deamon said:

So he gets to count as 3 positions than?  Even if QB was the position he played the most?  In college as well?

So are you saying that Jalen Hurts for the Eagles should be classified as a RB as he has ran the ball more than he has thrown it?

first bolded....on ESPN yes he can be played at QB/TE/Flex.....

I have no idea about college or Hurts or whatever....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stinkin Ref said:

first bolded....on ESPN yes he can be played at QB/TE/Flex.....

I have no idea about college or Hurts or whatever....

You have quite the way of dancing around questions by calling anything that may be a counterpoint to you as "irrelevant" or that you 'don't know"

Only a matter of time before you come around and realize you were wrong just like you eventually did in the collusion thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Deamon said:

What other inaccuracies? 

Listed as QB:
ESPN
NFL.COM
TEAM SITE
CBS.COM
YAHOO.COM
NFL.COM FANTASY
CBS FANTASY
YAHOO FANTASY
SLEEPER FANTASY
MFL FANTASY
EVERY OTHER SITE OUT THERE

Listed as TE:
ESPN FANTASY

Are you suggesting that the first list is WRONG to list him as QB and ESPN is RIGHT to list him as a TE?

bolded....I am suggesting that Hill has been more of a flex than he has been a QB.....he has not been a starting QB......nor has he even been the backup QB....the team that lists him as a QB played Winston as the backup......many teams don't even "activate" a third string QB.....Hill is active because he plays other positions and has the ability to play QB "if needed"....and a do it all gadget type of guy.....limiting him to a QB is actually an insult to him and what he does/can do....

Edited by Stinkin Ref
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stinkin Ref said:

bolded....I am suggesting that Hill has been more of a flex than he has been a QB.....he has not been a starting QB......nor has he even been the backup QB....the team that lists him as a QB played Winston as the backup......many teams don't even "activate" a third string QB.....Hill is active because he plays other positions and has the ability to play QB "if needed"....and a do it all gadget type of guy.....limiting him to a QB is actually an insult to him and what he does/can do.....

Ok, so in your opinion, ESPN got it right and the 100+ other sites got it wrong? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Deamon said:

You have quite the way of dancing around questions by calling anything that may be a counterpoint to you as "irrelevant" or that you 'don't know"

Only a matter of time before you come around and realize you were wrong just like you eventually did in the collusion thread.

I'm not dancing around anything I have commented on everything....

  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Deamon said:

Ok, so in your opinion, ESPN got it right and the 100+ other sites got it wrong? 

yes....I think based on what Hill's roll has actually been on his team up to this point that ESPN designation is more accurate to what he does in real life than just "QB".....so far he is closer to a TE/RB/WR/FLEX than a QB.....even tho the Saints "list" him as a QB....

 

Edited by Stinkin Ref
forgot to include WR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stinkin Ref said:

yes....I think based on what Hill's roll has actually been on his team up to this point that ESPN designation is more accurate to what he does in real life than just "QB".....so far he is closer to a TE/RB/FLEX than a QB.....

 

Even though he has touched the ball 39 times as a Quarterback this year, and 6 times as a non QB.  Ok.

Well I guess ESPN fantasy is correct then and the 99% of other sites out there that have a "QB" beside his name are wrong. 

Very clear case of a bias here as you are starting him in your flex spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Deamon said:

You have quite the way of dancing around questions by calling anything that may be a counterpoint to you as "irrelevant" or that you 'don't know"

Only a matter of time before you come around and realize you were wrong just like you eventually did in the collusion thread.

unlike some....I have no problem admitting when I was wrong.....I have been humbled on this site many many times since the early 90's.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...