What's new
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 (1 Viewer)

Stinkin Ref said:
convenient you left out this part...."he is not a TE, never was a TE, and shouldn't be listed as a TE."

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....
Click to expand...
You were.  You said that TE was probably not the best position for him.  Also stats show that he was more RB or WR than TE, so he also "never was a TE".  You also said he probably should be listed as an RB.... this implies that he "shouldn't be listed as a TE".

You are really stretching here to fit YOUR narrative.  You clearly have a bias as you're starting him in the flex, you also said you're 90% sure he wont be the qb but said you wouldn't put money down on it, and keep moving from one point to another anytime statistics are brought up.  Oh, and you think that 99% of the websites out there incorrectly define him and the ONE (espn fantasy) that has him as a TE (which you said "TE probably wasn't best for him), is the one that is correct.

Like you said in the collusion thread you realized you were wrong after being aggressive and stubborn like you are now.  We'll see on Sunday if he starts at QB which you think he has under a 10% chance of doing.

 
Stinkin Ref said:
yep we are.....
Click to expand...
Me personally, If I had a 50/50 bet on something that I was "over 90% sure on", I would bet it.  But you have gone back and forth on:

90%+ chance he's not the qb on Sunday... but I wouldn't bet on it
90%+ chance he's not the qb on Sunday, but I'd rather no one else start him even though I think he puts up low points
He should be listed as a TE... "but was TE the best option for ESPN to put him as?... probably not"
"he's thrown 6 passes".... "yet I never said passes thrown was a measuring stick for determining a position"
"39-6 touches taking a snap from center?" ... "Taking a snap from center doesn't mean what position he is".
"99% of sites/fantasy sites/the teams official depth chart/nfl's official position for him is QB.... But I think they're all wrong and ESPN fantasy (the one that may benefit me) is the right one"

You're all over the map man.  I'm sure like the other thread you will admit you mis judged this situation but will be happy with your fantasy win.  Goodnight.

 
Deamon said:
I'm gonna take a wild stab in the dark that you're a Hill owner.
Click to expand...
I've got no skin in the game.  I'm just familiar with how ESPN does their position eligibility.  They determined back in April that they would give Hill TE eligibility in 2020.  Nobody complained a peep about it for 10 weeks, and anyone paying attention should have been aware.  They can't take that TE eligibility away mid-season.  That's their policy and I've quoted it below.  Can't change the rules of the game halfway through.

Position Eligibility

The NFL sends ESPN an updated list of every player's position eligibility, including rookies, prior to the start of each season.

ESPN reserves the right to designate a different position for a player.

Once the season has begun, ESPN cannot change the primary position. However, a player can gain additional eligibility for other positions during the season if circumstances warrant it.

League Managers DO NOT have the ability to change a player's position.

ESPN has added the edge rusher spot to Individual Defensive Player (IDP) Leagues starting with the 2017/2018 NFL season.
Click to expand...

 
Deamon said:
You were.  You said that TE was probably not the best position for him.  Also stats show that he was more RB or WR than TE, so he also "never was a TE".  You also said he probably should be listed as an RB.... this implies that he "shouldn't be listed as a TE".

You are really stretching here to fit YOUR narrative.  You clearly have a bias as you're starting him in the flex, you also said you're 90% sure he wont be the qb but said you wouldn't put money down on it, and keep moving from one point to another anytime statistics are brought up.  Oh, and you think that 99% of the websites out there incorrectly define him and the ONE (espn fantasy) that has him as a TE (which you said "TE probably wasn't best for him), is the one that is correct.

Like you said in the collusion thread you realized you were wrong after being aggressive and stubborn like you are now.  We'll see on Sunday if he starts at QB which you think he has under a 10% chance of doing.
Click to expand...
I never said this..."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. "....not once ever

did I say TE might not have been the best....100% yes....but please don't say I said something I didn't....

let me say this now, so it's clear....Hill very well maybe "start" .....ok he may start.....100%...and you will technically be "right"....I know thats what you want to hear.....

but I am not sure he takes the majority of the meaningful QB snaps......I COULD BE COMPLETELY WRONG....we will see....I was just hedging FF angles....and saying why I can understand ESPN initial designation and decision not to possibly change it until after this week....I think it was reasonable and actually somewhat accurate.....

I could actually give a rats ### whether I am right or wrong....this isn't the issue and why the thread was created....

FF.....its a game....know your league rules/settings....use them to your advantage when you can.....complaining about them because you "miss out" on some possible advantage somebody else takes advantage of is weaksauce....especially when you could have done it all year if you wanted too....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stinkin Ref said:
I never said this..."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. "....not once ever

did I say TE might not have been the best....100% yes....but please don't say I said something I didn't....

let me say this now, so it's clear....Hill very well maybe "start" .....ok he may start.....100%...and you will technically be "right"....I know thats what you want to hear.....

but I am not sure he takes the majority of the meaningful QB snaps......I COULD BE COMPLETELY WRONG....we will see....I was just hedging FF angles....and saying why I can understand ESPN initial designation and decision not to possibly change it until after this week....I think it was reasonable and actually somewhat accurate.....

I could actually give a rats ### whether I am right or wrong....this isn't the issue and why the thread was created....

FF.....its a game....know your league rules/settings....use them to your advantage when you can.....complaining about them because you "miss out" on some possible advantage somebody else takes advantage of iis weaksauce....especially when you could have done it all year if you wanted too....
Click to expand...
Youre hopeless man. And I'm not complaining because I missed out, I don't play ESPN.  I also never said you were doing anything wrong based on the bad ESPN rule. You're now making these arguments when I never contested them. 

 
davearm said:
I've got no skin in the game.  I'm just familiar with how ESPN does their position eligibility.  They determined back in April that they would give Hill TE eligibility in 2020.  Nobody complained a peep about it for 10 weeks, and anyone paying attention should have been aware.  They can't take that TE eligibility away mid-season.  That's their policy and I've quoted it below.  Can't change the rules of the game halfway through.
Click to expand...
Sure. And my point is that ESPN is trash for those rules. They're the only major site that's allowing this... there's a reason for that. And it's not that they are the best. 

I also think they'll change it instantly next week if hill is the qb this week. They'll realize their mistake (hopefully) and swap it mid season. 

 
Deamon said:
Youre hopeless man. And I'm not complaining because I missed out, I don't play ESPN.  I also never said you were doing anything wrong based on the bad ESPN rule. You're now making these arguments when I never contested them. 
Click to expand...
I'll ask again....what should Hill have been listed as?.....because he wasn't the starting QB, they have shown he wasn't even the "backup" QB....yet he is on the active roster every week and playing snaps....I think even on "special teams".....

now just because Shefter says he is going to start......which Peyton says he hasn't announced.....ESPN need to immediately change his designation....? 

 
Stinkin Ref said:
I'll ask again....what should Hill have been listed as?.....because he wasn't the starting QB, they have shown he wasn't even the "backup" QB....yet he is on the active roster every week and playing snaps....I think even on "special teams".....

now just because Shefter says he is going to start......which Peyton says he hasn't announced.....ESPN need to immediately change his designation....? 
Click to expand...
He should have been listed with what position he played in college, what position he was drafted in, what position the team and NFL declare him as, and the position he touches the ball the most as. And yes, ESPN should have had him as qb all year as the majority of sites had him as. And yes, they should have changed him to a qb once he took all the first team qb reps in practice... like Yahoo decided to do. 

So yes, the one major site that allows him to be started as a te is in the minority and for a reason. Countless fantasy sites and shows are bashing ESPN for this for a reason... but also recommending to take advantage of it if you can. Which I agree with, I prob would do it if I played ESPN. You're not in the wrong for doing that. 

Now I'm heading ot and am late lol. Good luck on your gimme win this week in fantasy. 

 
Deamon said:
Sure. And my point is that ESPN is trash for those rules. They're the only major site that's allowing this... there's a reason for that. And it's not that they are the best. 

I also think they'll change it instantly next week if hill is the qb this week. They'll realize their mistake (hopefully) and swap it mid season. 
Click to expand...
Did you read their position eligibility rules I posted?

All the other sites just went with the position that the NFL sent them (QB).  Fine, that's their prerogative (and it's easy), but it doesn't make it correct.  ESPN looked at his usage and determined that he's more of a TE than a QB, and it's very reasonable.  I showed you the breakdown of his pass/rush/rec stats, and @johnnyboy8102 showed you his snap distribution.  He's been used as a QB the least frequently of all.

Perhaps we'll find out on Sunday if the guy *can* play QB.  All we know right now is that he *hasn't* played QB.  Not very often anyway.  It's certainly not been his primary position, and for sure not his only position.  So why should fantasy football treat him as strictly a QB?

 
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?
Click to expand...
We don't know if he'll be a 100 percent QB. We know what is rumored. If he is, ESPN will change it. Going off of previous usage, he'd be a RB/WR/TE. Anything but a QB, really. 

But what if he isn't? What if Jameis ends up throwing passes to Hill? If ESPN removes a TE designation, and he actually plays at TE, how do you compensate the team that got screwed over? Does ESPN say "We overreacted before the game was actually played. Oops! We'll put him back?" 

Maybe he should keep the designation until he doesn't deserve it anymore. That's all. If he plays a few snaps at QB and ends up mostly catching passes...he should stay QB/TE imo. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I forgot to mention that I think the reason the Saints list him as a QB (in my opinion) is so they can justify paying him QB money. Nobody pays a backup TE $10+ million, and it would affect franchise tag pricing (top five at the position), the market for TEs, etc. 

This way he falls into QB pricing and they use him however they want. When Brees got hurt last year, they didn't use him as a QB. In the offseason they got a backup QB with starter experience. When Brees got hurt last week, they didn't use him as a QB. 

I think the Saints were getting creative with designations so they could pay him what they wanted. In reality, he's a hybrid player and they use him everywhere. ESPN's designation as TE isn't really outlandish based on past usage. If that changes, they already said they'll change. I think that's fair before game is actually played.  

I don't think a guy who lines up behind center in the wildcat package (way back when) should be labeled a QB, either. So I don't think his past usage justifies QB. Maybe RB would have been better but TE is as good as basically anything else. 

 
In FF we do the best we can to try to value players like they actually perform on the field and what they do for their team....(we make some adjustments based on numbers of players usually contributing at each position ,etc).....so ESPN actually kind of had Hill designated  correctly..... or at least closer than just being a QB...he did a lot of things and could play multiple positions....I don’t think anyone, including the Saints thought of him as solely a true “QB only”.....no matter what their official “depth chart” said...and all year long you could have started him at any of them...his role may or may not change for a few weeks....heck when Brees comes back in a few weeks this thread may start again....in the other direction....if you played in a Espn league you should have known this was always a “possibility” so you play accordingly....you should also know it could change....so you play accordingly.....this week you may or may not reap the potential rewards...and or you may get beat by them.....but it was a level playing field before hand so you really can’t complain.....the ones that should really have a complaint are the ones that may lose his “TE” or whatever designation after this week after they have been sitting on it for awhile hoping it pays off with some huge ROI....if and it’s a big IF......if Hill actually plays the rest of the year as a “starting QB” and puts up those type of numbers....then yeah maybe he should be changed....but otherwise props to those that saw an opportunity in this “game” we play and took advantage of something in the rules.....kind of like most coaches like BB try to do every  week....

 
Designating this guy as a qb only in FF was actually a disservice......he basically was fantasy irrelevant.....he should be the poster child for why the “flex” position was established....

 
Stinkin Ref said:
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....?
Click to expand...
This situation is the M Colston situation x5, when he had the TE designation but was a WR.  

If he is changed after this week and you were holding him, at least you were rewarded for a week.  Another way it could be handled - he's eligible at both until the end of the year.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Neil Beaufort Zod said:
We don't know if he'll be a 100 percent QB. We know what is rumored. If he is, ESPN will change it. Going off of previous usage, he'd be a RB/WR/TE. Anything but a QB, really.
Click to expand...


davearm said:
 ESPN looked at his usage and determined that he's more of a TE than a QB, and it's very reasonable.  I showed you the breakdown of his pass/rush/rec stats, and @johnnyboy8102 showed you his snap distribution.
Click to expand...
So your snap usage showed WR makes the most sense, but they just decided to go with TE?  If you're saying ESPN looked hard at the data to determine his position, than it would NOT be TE, it would be WR.  And again, his touches as a quarterback (meaning he took the snap from the center and was the only quarterback on the field) was 39.  At all other positions combined he had 6 touches.

The guy is a QB through and through.  He knows it, the team knows it, everyone knows it.  It is not up to you or ESPN to decide what position he is. He was drafted as a QB, calls himself a QB, his Wiki write up is "Taysom Hill (born August 23, 1990) is an American football quarterback and utility player".  Also, NFL Quarterbacks are required to wear jersey #'s 1-19.  NFL Tight Ends are required to wear 40-50 or 80-90.  Taysom Hill wears #7.

 
Here is Taysom Hill's typical practice day. (link)

6:30 a.m.: Studies the game plan with Brees and the other quarterbacks.

9 a.m.: Team meeting.

9:35 a.m.: Special teams meeting.

9:50 a.m.: Catches up with what he's missed in the 9:35 quarterback meeting.

Noon: Special teams walkthrough while the quarterbacks practice QB-center exchanges.

12:15 p.m.: Offensive walkthrough.

12:30 p.m.: Practice. He participates in quarterback drills, throws to unguarded receivers and > then takes reps at various offensive positions during team periods. He also often is the scout > team quarterback when the Saints starting defense is on the field. He leaves the quarterbacks during special teams periods, missing the review of the game plan and the preview of the next period.

2:30 p.m.: Lifting, then lunch.

3:45 p.m.: Special teams meeting.

4 p.m.: Offensive meeting in which practice is reviewed.

4:45-7:30 p.m.: He and Brees review the plays that were installed for quarterbacks, and then Hill goes over his non-quarterback plays that were installed.

The guy is a quarterback (a unique one used in many ways)... what is so hard for people to understand about that?  87% of his touches this year have come as a quarterback as he stands behind the center and takes the snap and either throws or runs the ball.

 
davearm said:
I've got no skin in the game.  I'm just familiar with how ESPN does their position eligibility.  They determined back in April that they would give Hill TE eligibility in 2020.  Nobody complained a peep about it for 10 weeks, and anyone paying attention should have been aware.  They can't take that TE eligibility away mid-season.  That's their policy and I've quoted it below.  Can't change the rules of the game halfway through.
Click to expand...
ESPN has the following note for t hill.  Fantasy managers should take note that espn has made the decision to allow hill to be eligible at qb in addition to his prior te eligibility for week 11, with future modifications  possible should his playing situations more clear going forward.  

This implies if hill plays 90% of his snaps at an this week , espn might remove te designation.. 

 
The idiotic part about ESPN not giving him a QB only designation long ago is that there was no risk to making that change. Nobody would’ve complained about it. So let’s say they designate him a QB and NO decides mid-season to play him as a full-time TE (which was never going to happen).  Nobody is starting Taysum Hill the TE in their QB slot if he’s out running routes and getting a couple gimmick carries per week.  So he’s still worthless.  Big deal.

Now the opposite is happening.  Listing what could be a possible full-time QB with a TE designation.  It doesn’t matter how bad the QB is, he’s at worst one of the top 3 TE designated players and most likely far and away the best TE option in the league if he’s a QB handling all the snaps but eligible for your TE slot.  Especially tragic in leagues which are non-ppr, where he’s probably worth 2x Kelce.  Oof.

Just a lazy and terribly poor decision by ESPN, which wouldn’t have been made if they had enough one semi-knowledgable person paying a half an ounce of attention.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
johnnyboy8102 said:
Snaps by position 2019

This is the reason he was given dual eligibility by espn prior to the season. 
 

43.9% in the Slot or WR

32.2% at TE

15.5% at QB

8.3% at RB or FB
Click to expand...
So if they were going to give them dual positions, why wouldn’t it be wide receiver and quarterback?

Or I guess someone could argue wide receiver and tight end?

 
Cjw_55106 said:
So if they were going to give them dual positions, why wouldn’t it be wide receiver and quarterback?

Or I guess someone could argue wide receiver and tight end?
Click to expand...
Exactly. Everyone's defense is "well they may not have gotten it right, but te is more than qb so it's ok".  Either way they screwed up. If we are going by snap rate, he should be just a wr. Or a wr/qb. If we go by touches, it should be qb... or at the very least qb/wr. People are trying to defend ESPN when this is clear incompetence. 

 
Razors Edge said:
His talent makes him not a QB. 

Even if you take 100% of your reps at QB, its doesnt mean it makes you a good one. 
Click to expand...
I never said he was a good qb. 

His official nfl designation is a qb. His jersey number makes him a qb. The ONLY case people have against him being a qb (when there's many many reasons to call him a qb) is snap count, and even using that he should never have been called a te. 

 
Deamon said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, my "skin in the game" includes owning him in the 1 out of 9 leagues I play which is the only league that is for no money.   In that league I am rebuilding so him at TE hurts my team draft position.  I sure am biased towards being fair.  Thanks for pointing that out.

 
Deamon said:
So your snap usage showed WR makes the most sense, but they just decided to go with TE?  If you're saying ESPN looked hard at the data to determine his position, than it would NOT be TE, it would be WR.  And again, his touches as a quarterback (meaning he took the snap from the center and was the only quarterback on the field) was 39.  At all other positions combined he had 6 touches.

The guy is a QB through and through.  He knows it, the team knows it, everyone knows it.  It is not up to you or ESPN to decide what position he is. He was drafted as a QB, calls himself a QB, his Wiki write up is "Taysom Hill (born August 23, 1990) is an American football quarterback and utility player".  Also, NFL Quarterbacks are required to wear jersey #'s 1-19.  NFL Tight Ends are required to wear 40-50 or 80-90.  Taysom Hill wears #7.
Click to expand...
I'd be fine with it if ESPN had tagged him a WR.  Either WR or TE (or even RB) is defensible.  QB is the least defensible, based on his usage. 

For his career, Hill has played 573 offensive snaps, and attempted 18 passes.  Not a QB.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
smbkrypt24 said:
Yes, my "skin in the game" includes owning him in the 1 out of 9 leagues I play which is the only league that is for no money.   In that league I am rebuilding so him at TE hurts my team draft position.  I sure am biased towards being fair.  Thanks for pointing that out.
Click to expand...
So why did you pick  him up to play him at TE if you're hoping to lose?  Weird.

 
davearm said:
I'd be fine with it if ESPN had tagged him a WR.  Either WR or TE (or even RB) is defensible.  QB is the least defensible, based on his usage. 

For his career, Hill has played 573 offensive snaps, and attempted 18 passes.  Not a QB.
Click to expand...
TE is not at all defensible.  If anything non qb it should be WR. 

Again, his pass attempts do not matter.  You don't get to decide his position just because he runs the ball as a qb when they snap him the ball.  99% of sports publications/experts believe he's a QB.... ESPN fantasy is the only one that does not.  Even ESPN's main website has him listed as a QB. 

 
Deamon said:
So why did you pick  him up to play him at TE if you're hoping to lose?  Weird.
Click to expand...
The one league I currently own him is a superflex 40 roster 12 team dynasty.  I have owned him since the offseason. The goal is to field the best team I can.  I try to have good players despite being in a rebuild.  I am not sure how you usually rebuild, but thats my strategy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Deamon said:
TE is not at all defensible.  If anything non qb it should be WR. 

Again, his pass attempts do not matter.  You don't get to decide his position just because he runs the ball as a qb when they snap him the ball.  99% of sports publications/experts believe he's a QB.... ESPN fantasy is the only one that does not.  Even ESPN's main website has him listed as a QB. 
Click to expand...
WR, TE, or both.  All fine by me.

He's rarely been used as a QB though, so that designation makes much less sense.  And to be frank, it's crazy to make it his ONLY designation.

 
davearm said:
WR, TE, or both.  All fine by me.

He's rarely been used as a QB though, so that designation makes much less sense. 

And to be frank, it's crazy to make it his ONLY designation.
Click to expand...
So then you're saying TE/QB makes no sense since he should be either a WR, TE, or WR/TE.

To your second point, well then I guess 99% of sports sites/publications are crazy and the 1% (espn fantasy which is known for sucking) has it right.

 
Deamon said:
So then you're saying TE/QB makes no sense since he should be either a WR, TE, or WR/TE.

To your second point, well then I guess 99% of sports sites/publications are crazy and the 1% (espn fantasy which is known for sucking) has it right.
Click to expand...
Nope.  A TE/QB designation is fine too.

The problem I have is with making him eligible at QB ONLY.  The guy isn't really a QB, and is most definitely not EXCLUSIVELY a QB.  That notion is preposterous based on the usage stats cited previously in this thread.

 
davearm said:
Nope.  A TE/QB designation is fine too.

The problem I have is with making him eligible at QB ONLY.  The guy isn't really a QB, and is most definitely not EXCLUSIVELY a QB.  That notion is preposterous based on the usage stats cited previously in this thread.
Click to expand...
How does TE make sense at all over WR?  1 reason please?

 
davearm said:
Never argued it did.

I said I'd be fine with either one, or both.
Click to expand...
Why are you okay with something that you admit is wrong?  Just because it's "less wrong?".

That error just shows how incompetent ESPN fantasy is and how they're the only site allowing him to be played in a non qb slot when he's the starting qb this week.  Straight bushleague.

 
Deamon said:
Why are you okay with something that you admit is wrong?  Just because it's "less wrong?".

That error just shows how incompetent ESPN fantasy is and how they're the only site allowing him to be played in a non qb slot when he's the starting qb this week.  Straight bushleague.
Click to expand...
The thing I said was wrong was a QB only designation.  No idea what that has to do with this TE/WR rabbit hole you're insisting on taking us down.

 
davearm said:
The thing I said was wrong was a QB only designation.  No idea what that has to do with this TE/WR rabbit hole you're insisting on taking us down.
Click to expand...
Anyways, very curious what the general consensus is on this.  The general consensus from almost all fantasy sites is he should be a qb.  A few of us have been very vocal in here, so I think a poll is in order.

 
Deamon said:
Anyways, very curious what the general consensus is on this.  The general consensus from almost all fantasy sites is he should be a qb.  A few of us have been very vocal in here, so I think a poll is in order.
Click to expand...
That's not a "general consensus".  What almost all fantasy sites do is take their data as provided by the NFL, and don't scrutinize or change it.  It's the easy thing to do, and it puts the responsibility elsewhere when anyone complains ("sorry we just go with whatever the NFL says").

If each fantasy site had to make its own decision on every player, then you can be certain that Hill's position designation would be all over the place from site to site.

 
davearm said:
That's not a "general consensus".  What almost all fantasy sites do is take their data as provided by the NFL, and don't scrutinize or change it.  It's the easy thing to do, and it puts the responsibility elsewhere when anyone complains ("sorry we just go with whatever the NFL says").

If each fantasy site had to make its own decision on every player, then you can be certain that Hill's position designation would be all over the place from site to site.
Click to expand...
Disagree.  He would be a QB because he IS a QB.  He wears the number of a QB, he calls himself a QB, his coach calls him a QB, he is and always was a QB, who just happens to also be used as a utility player all over the field.  He is the starting QB this week.  Keep spinning things though.

 
Deamon said:
Ok what do you think his proper position should be on fantasy sites?
Click to expand...
You've spent however many pages telling me it doesn't matter what I think.

ESPN decided on TE back in April.  It was fine at the time.  If they now think it's appropriate to switch that to TE/QB, they should do so.  What they should not do is switch it from TE only to QB only.  Not only is that not warranted by Hill's situation specifically, but it violates their own stated policy against midseason subtractions.

 
davearm said:
You've spent however many pages telling me it doesn't matter what I think.

ESPN decided on TE back in April.  It was fine at the time.  If they now think it's appropriate to switch that to TE/QB, they should do so.  What they should not do is switch it from TE only to QB only.  Not only is that not warranted by Hill's situation specifically, but it violates their own stated policy against midseason subtractions.
Click to expand...
And you keep dancing around the question.

What do you think his proper position should be on fantasy sites Dave?

 
Deamon said:
Disagree.  He would be a QB because he IS a QB.  He wears the number of a QB, he calls himself a QB, his coach calls him a QB, he is and always was a QB, who just happens to also be used as a utility player all over the field.  He is the starting QB this week.  Keep spinning things though.
Click to expand...
Lol.  It "just happens" that he doesn't actually play QB.  Instead he's "used as a utility player all over the field".

I'm glad we finally agree.

 
davearm said:
Lol.  It "just happens" that he doesn't actually play QB.  Instead he's "used as a utility player all over the field".

I'm glad we finally agree.
Click to expand...
Never said that, you're twisting my words.  It just happens that he is ALSO used all over the field.

88% of his touches come at the QB position this year.

 
Deamon said:
No you haven't.  IF you could pick an ideal position for him to be listed at, what would it be Dave?
Click to expand...
I have.  Every time you've tried to pin me down, my answer has been "A or B or even both."

I wouldn't pick just one position.  I would make him eligible at several spots.  This is exactly the situation that eligibility at multiple positions was created for.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

satch
  • Locked
Taysom Hill
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
P
  • Locked
ESPN and League Dominator
Replies
12
Views
628
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
dickey moe
Saints and Cardinals starters showing as "BYE" in ESPN FF
Replies
3
Views
323
QuizGuy66
QuizGuy66

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top