Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Taysom Hill as TE on ESPN


Jail

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, 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.

I don't think they're crazy. I think they're lazy. The team listed him as a QB, so they're like, okay. Wasn't it the same thing with Colston? 

I think Hill should definitely be listed as something other than just QB. Maybe RB/WR/QB, though I'm not sure I know the difference between TE and WR anymore. They seem similar.

If I had to do it, I'd probably list him as everything but a kicker. Like "Athlete" in college videogames. In the next decade, I think we'll see more of these guys come out. A general weapon that a coach can use in different ways. Fantasy sites should probably list them how they're used rather than simply how the team designates them. They paid him QB money so they called him a QB. They haven't used him that way so far. 

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

4 minutes ago, davearm said:

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.

Not trying to pin you down.  I'm just asking a question.  You said QB/TE wasn't the best position for him, so I'm asking you what position you would make him.  Considering he is the starting QUARTERBACK this week, it is a complete unfair advantage to use a guy throwing all the passes to be used in a Tight end spot.  Anyways we're going in circles here, time to move on if you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Deamon said:

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.

Running out of the wildcat isn't the same as playing QB.  Ronnie Brown and countless other RBs and WRs didn't suddenly become QBs by virtue of taking a direct snap and running with the ball.  Your 88% stat is complete nonsense.  He's functionally a RB on almost all of those plays.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, davearm said:

Running out of the wildcat isn't the same as playing QB.  Ronnie Brown and countless other RBs and WRs didn't suddenly become QBs by virtue of taking a direct snap and running with the ball.  Your 88% stat is complete nonsense.  He's functionally a RB on almost all of those plays.

And Lamar Jackson didn't suddenly become an RB on all his designed running plays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Deamon said:

Not trying to pin you down.  I'm just asking a question.  You said QB/TE wasn't the best position for him, so I'm asking you what position you would make him.  Considering he is the starting QUARTERBACK this week, it is a complete unfair advantage to use a guy throwing all the passes to be used in a Tight end spot.  Anyways we're going in circles here, time to move on if you can.

Throwing all the passes?  Earlier you told me pass attempts don't matter.

For the record, his career high for pass attempts in a game is 2 (two).  You might be getting a little bit ahead of yourself with all the hand-wringing here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, davearm said:

Throwing all the passes?  Earlier you told me pass attempts don't matter.

For the record, his career high for pass attempts in a game is 2 (two).  You might be getting a little bit ahead of yourself with all the hand-wringing here.

Yes, other weeks Drew Brees was the starting quarterback.  That is not the case this week. 

Not sure what you are missing here but it's something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Deamon said:

Yes, other weeks Drew Brees was the starting quarterback.  That is not the case this week. 

Not sure what you are missing here but it's something.

Once again we agree!  This is awesome.  The Saints' QB is Drew Brees.  Taysom Hill is something, but it isn't the QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, davearm said:

Hill or Winston, or possibly some of each.  Was that supposed to be some sort of gotcha?

No.  So you're saying Taysom Hill may be the QB this week.... the QB by YOUR definition, but should be allowed to be slotted in the TE role.

You're spinning here man. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Deamon said:

No.  So you're saying Taysom Hill may be the QB this week.... the QB by YOUR definition, but should be allowed to be slotted in the TE role.

You're spinning here man. 

Correct.  He should remain eligible at the positions he's already gained eligibility at.  That's ESPN's policy.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, davearm said:

Correct.  He should remain eligible at the positions he's already gained eligibility at.  That's ESPN's policy.

Ok.  Well I think ESPN's policy is trash.  And I think if Brady lost both arms and became a kicker, he should only be allowed to be used in the Kicker spot moving forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

18 hours ago, Deamon said:

No.  So you're saying Taysom Hill may be the QB this week.... the QB by YOUR definition, but should be allowed to be slotted in the TE role.

You're spinning here man. 

Looking at his usage, he should be QB eligible but not exclusively QB eligible. "May be the QB" doesn't sound like a reason to limit eligibility to one position imo. Especially considering he accumulates stats as a QB the least out of all his positions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, davearm said:
25 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

When was Taysom Hill ever a Tight End?

An even better question: when was he ever a Quarterback?

Only in high school, 5 seasons of college, his NFL draft profile, and (as far as I can tell) every single mention of him on the official Saints website.

It's as if ESPN made up the "Tight End" thing out of thin air.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

Only in high school, 5 seasons of college, his NFL draft profile, and (as far as I can tell) every single mention of him on the official Saints website.

It's as if ESPN made up the "Tight End" thing out of thin air.

 

4 minutes ago, osubuckeyeman said:

BYU

So he used to be a QB.  Okay.  That's not been his position in the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, davearm said:
15 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

Only in high school, 5 seasons of college, his NFL draft profile, and (as far as I can tell) every single mention of him on the official Saints website.

It's as if ESPN made up the "Tight End" thing out of thin air.

 

8 minutes ago, osubuckeyeman said:

BYU

So he used to be a QB.  Okay.  That's not been his position in the NFL.

Are you fishing? Is this shtick?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

Are you fishing? Is this shtick?

Not at all.

The guy has played 46 career games in the NFL, 576 offensive snaps, and thrown 18 passes.  Never more than 2 in a game.

Maybe the guy will be an NFL QB someday.  Maybe that someday is today.  But so far, QB has not been his position in the NFL.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, davearm said:
37 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

Are you fishing? Is this shtick?

Not at all.

The guy has played 46 career games in the NFL, 576 offensive snaps, and thrown 18 passes.  Never more than 2 in a game.

This is a strange criteria for defining a quarterback. Most backup quarterbacks have a high ratio of snaps-to-passes. The fact that Hill's ratio happens to be higher than other backups does not change the fact that he is a quarterback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Joe Summer said:

This is a strange criteria for defining a quarterback. Most backup quarterbacks have a high ratio of snaps-to-passes. The fact that Hill's ratio happens to be higher than other backups does not change the fact that he is a quarterback.

Other backup QBs don't play when the starter is on the field.  So you can toss that analogy out the window.

Hill has played literally hundreds of snaps with Drew Brees on the field as the QB.  Hill was not playing QB on all of those downs. 

Virtually the entirety of his career in the NFL has been spent playing a role other than QB.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, davearm said:
6 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

This is a strange criteria for defining a quarterback. Most backup quarterbacks have a high ratio of snaps-to-passes. The fact that Hill's ratio happens to be higher than other backups does not change the fact that he is a quarterback.

Other backup QBs don't play when the starter is on the field.  So you can toss that analogy out the window.

Again, this is a strange criteria. NFL rules do not stipulate that there can only be one QB on the field at a time. It's not like a player's designated position disappears the moment he takes the field.

When a team has a backup kicker who only enters the game to be a holder, do you think that it's wrong for a team to list him as a kicker?

Tim Tebow played 132 snaps in 2012 (including several snaps while the starting QB was on the field) and only threw 8 passes. That didn't mean that he wasn't a quarterback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

Again, this is a strange criteria. NFL rules do not stipulate that there can only be one QB on the field at a time. It's not like a player's designated position disappears the moment he takes the field.

When a team has a backup kicker who only enters the game to be a holder, do you think that it's wrong for a team to list him as a kicker?

Tim Tebow played 132 snaps in 2012 (including several snaps while the starting QB was on the field) and only threw 8 passes. That didn't mean that he wasn't a quarterback.

Backup kicker?  You're reaching now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2020 at 11:38 PM, 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

Edit: I am not posting about Hill getting TE eligibility instead of WR but just commenting on the thought process of his dual position eligibility. 

Snaps by position 2020 before this week (just showed on TV)

QB 40
Slot Receiver 35
Tight End 34
RB 18
WR 14

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, billmatic said:

He's had TE eligibility all season long and him filling in for Brees/Winston has always been a possibility.  Kudos to those who picked him up.  I can see not agreeing with that eligibility, but asking the commish to step in and remove eligibility mid season is just sour grapes.

Agree with all of this.  I think the issue is more about ESPN's inaccurate/bad eligibility, and not at all an issue with the commissioners or the owners who are using him.

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

I thought Winston would mix in more.   Hill putting up good production even by QB standards is everything you feared if you had to play him.   Almost feels like your opponent got a bonus QB and bonus RB at the TE position.   Sincerely hope it doesn't cost anyone here a playoff spot or division title.  Obviously, there will be small percentage of leagues out there where it absolutely will.  

Good for those who were on the spot to claim the week 11 windfall.   However,  this better be the end of the madness.   There's no gray area here.    Absolutely no excuse for 'QB' and nothing else to be following Hill's name when you login Tuesday morning.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Smack Tripper said:

That was highly irresponsible of ESPN to allow this nonsense this late in the season, if anyone has any alternatives with auction capabilities, let me know, we'd like to take our business elsewhere (except for one guy)

 

1 hour ago, Synthesizer said:

Big fail by ESPN not changing him to QB once it was clear that all of his snaps would happen as QB.

Huge ESPN fail.  They changed a lot of seasons by allowing a player who was the starting QB for the week, to play in a non QB spot.  There's a reason they were the only fantasy site to allow this and why they are a free site.  Straight garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Neil Beaufort Zod said:

I think everyone can agree going forward that his designation should now change to just QB. That's based on his usage on the field. Before this week I think he should have been allowed at any position except kicker using the same criteria. But for week 12 and going forward I'm confident the Hill debate is effectively over. 

Congrats on getting your win this week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, styleride85 said:

Congrats on getting your win this week.

I don't know why this has triggered you so badly. It has nothing to do with me. I don't work at ESPN. I promise. If it cost you a win, I hope you go on a tear and win out. If it didn't, I hope whatever caused you to be so upset about it passes soon, and you have an awesome Thanksgiving. Either way, this won't be an issue going forward. Cool?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Neil Beaufort Zod said:

I think everyone can agree going forward that his designation should now change to just QB. That's based on his usage on the field. Before this week I think he should have been allowed at any position except kicker using the same criteria. But for week 12 and going forward I'm confident the Hill debate is effectively over. 

Matthew Berry pretty much guaranteed he would be a QB only starting next week

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JoeSteeler said:

Matthew Berry pretty much guaranteed he would be a QB only starting next week

What did he say? I believe you I'd just like to see.

Also, on a personal note, I'm in a very close game at went against Taysom Hill the TE. I might be able to pull it off. I should get two wins if that's that case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Neil Beaufort Zod said:

I don't know why this has triggered you so badly. It has nothing to do with me. I don't work at ESPN. I promise. If it cost you a win, I hope you go on a tear and win out. If it didn't, I hope whatever caused you to be so upset about it passes soon, and you have an awesome Thanksgiving. Either way, this won't be an issue going forward. Cool?

Not triggered.  And I don't play ESPN so it didn't cost me anything.  It's just funny that almost all those who are sticking up for the position this week are those who own him.  Hopefully ESPN realizes their mistake and fixes the issue though but it's probably too late for some.  

I actually really dislike Yahoo and am surprised that they made the responsible move to remove the TE this week so he was forced to play the position he was playing in the league.  

  • Like 1
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...