styleride85
Footballguy
Good luck, what do you need? Will be cheering you on, you deserve the win.
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)
- Thread starter Jail
- Start date
styleride85
Footballguy
You're better off with Yahoo.Smack Tripper said:
(can't believe I just said that)
Johnny Utah #9
Footballguy
Well, this went exactly as expected. Congrats to all the ESPN league people with Taysom who exploited a loophole this week. To all those wasting time all week arguing he had the proper roster designation, you can drop the charade now.
I’m just glad I don’t play on a amateur hour joke platform like ESPN. I’m sure they’ll correct their mistake this week, although it will be too late for those knocked out of the playoffs due to their error.
I’m just glad I don’t play on a amateur hour joke platform like ESPN. I’m sure they’ll correct their mistake this week, although it will be too late for those knocked out of the playoffs due to their error.
Last edited by a moderator:
Synthesizer
Footballguy
Probably half of the QBs in the league have taken a few snaps at WR in the wildcat formation. WR eligible?
Joe Summer
Footballguy
It doesn't matter where you line up. All that matters is the position designated by the team. (And Hill has been listed as a QB by the Saints from day one.)
At least, that's how it should work. But ESPN decided to arbitrarily designate Hill as a TE despite the fact that A) the Saints have never listed him as a TE; and B) Hill has actually lined up more at WR than he's lined up at TE.
They did the same thing with Cordarrelle Patterson. The guy has been a WR his entire career, but because he ran the ball a bunch of times this year, ESPN decided to list him as an RB/WR. Meanwhile, Curtis Samuel has had almost as many rushing attempts as Patterson (and he's scored 2 more rushing TDs than Patterson), yet ESPN lists Samuel as a WR only.
So, so dumb.
Last edited by a moderator:
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
I believed everything I said and stand by it before week 11. Now that we saw the game, I completely agree with what my debate opponents said going forward. They were right that he'd play QB. I was skeptical.
But before that, I don't think they should have changed his designation. People say he should have been a WR instead of TE, but I don't really get the difference anymore. Considering that he accumulated almost no QB stats (Hill's behind-center plays were essentially wildcats) I didn't see the rationale for changing, and he wasn't named the starting QB before the game. It's all moot now, but it wasn't a charade for me.
Nobody was knocked out of the playoffs due to ESPN's error. All 13-1 teams will make the playoffs. All of them, as in 100 percent. If a team lost four or five games before this, I'd say they have themselves to blame.
styleride85
Footballguy
This is the point that bothers me. It seems like the only people saying this were those who started him. It wasn't a "oh he may not play qb"... that was simply an argument made to try to justify the wrong position. Practice reps matter, and it was reported numerous times by numerous sources, that Hill took ALL the first team offense qb snaps this week... he was going to be the QB. The fact remains, that everyone knew (and even espn knew) that he was going to be the qb but they pigeon holed themselves with that big pre season announcement on it. Instead they allowed what everyone knew was going to happen, to happen.
And those who had Hill were in a total win-win situation.... either say "see I told you he wouldn't play QB", or "he sucked so no one can complain", or else if he does good, they benefit with the win.
styleride85
Footballguy
Bang on here. Those defending it were mainly people who started him. In the poll of people who were proven unaffected by this, it was 5-1 people saying he should be listed at QB only.
Big blunder for those who were too cheap to pay for a pay site. Big win for Yahoo today, another free site that is bad but just showed it is better than ESPN.
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
Here's the problem with that stance: If you pre-emptively make the change, and he ended up playing WR/TE during the game...what is your remedy to the team who had him? "Oh, but the rumors and the practice reports and blah blah blah?" Not good enough. Payton came out and said he specifically had not named a starter.
If you make that assumption and you're wrong, what's your remedy to compensate the owner? After all, he's already designated as a TE and you're changing it.
Last edited by a moderator:
styleride85
Footballguy
Anyone who has watched coaches be interviewed knew this was a lie. He was laughing about it.
Compensate what owner? Do you honestly think, if he was just going to be used as a Tight End this game (and not play any qb), that ANYONE would be using him in their TE spot? Be honest.
Twenty-Four Eighty-Four
Footballguy
Thank you. I need about 6 catches and a TD from Godwin, including about 20 yards which should come with those catches. Tough matchup but within reach!
HellToupee
Footballguy
Twenty-Four Eighty-Four
Footballguy
No longer a TE on ESPN starting week 12.
styleride85
Footballguy
Too late ESPN, Too late. Just cause you and those starting Hill at TE played the devil's advocate and the "there's no proof he will be the starting qb!", everyone else easily saw what was going to happen. It's like those refusing to believe who won an election because it's "not official".
Glad they finally changed it, but it cost a lot of owners the playoffs. Hopefully a lesson for all to stop playing free fantasy sites.
ESPN should not be in the business of making ex ante predictions on player usage when setting position eligibility for fantasy purposes.
They should observe what has already taken place, and set position eligibility based upon what they've observed a player's utilization to be.
Until this week, Hill had been rarely utilized as a QB. So they gave him another position designation that was more consistent with how he HAD been utilized.
They weren't wrong in any of this IMO. As you've said elsewhere, what if they assumed, and the assumption turned out wrong? Just don't assume. Problem solved.
styleride85
Footballguy
It's not an 'assumption"... it was reported and seen in practice and their starter went out. He was the QB. Those who say "I don't know if he will be QB for sure", or "there's a 90%+ chance it will be winston" were simply trying to defend themselves getting a free win. Congrats to those who got the free win, hopefully your league will move away from terrible fantasy sites moving forward.
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
up until kickoff of yesterdays game he had not been their starting QB or even their backup QB (as Winston came in when Brees went down).....it was very reasonable to be unsure of what his role might actually be and what it would actually look like.....if you disagree, that is fine......but up until kickoff his designation was closer to "anything but QB" than "QB only"......it is difficult to make assumptions and do something so drastic as remove a designation based on coach speak and what is 'reported" about what is going on in practice....coaches play games with that stuff all the time and why practices are actually held mostly without media, etc anymore except for a few minutes at the beginning or whatever....you are basing "removing his TE designation" solely on reports of how things looked in practice.....it is reasonable to take a wait and see approach as Petyon himself said he hadn't actually made an announcement after it was first reported.....so it is reasonable to have some doubt......if Peyton had changed his mind right before kickoff and went with Winston, would it really have been that big of a surprise...?....a little yes, but not "unthinkable"....especially based on everything (except practice reports).....that we had seen last year and through the first 10 weeks this year.....he wasn't even the "backup" the week before he got a start............
styleride85
Footballguy
styleride85
Footballguy
ThaPenguin
Footballguy
In my ESPN league he isn't TE eligible but the player still has him in the TE spot. Is ESPN going to force Hill out of the spot? Im playing against Hill this week. If he isn't TE eligible and my opponent starts him in TE this is unfair. Its no longer playing a TE eligible player in the TE spot. Its exploiting a ESPN glitch. This is a money league.
Moe Green
Footballguy
Yes. If an owner tries to set their lineup this week with HIll at TE, they will get a prompt that he is ineligible at the TE position. Just happened to me.
But what if he was already there and you just leave him in the spot? Can someone share if they have seen this? With ESPN, you don't have to hit "set my lineup"...you can just leave guys where they were...
Nope. ESPN said the lineup was not OK. Pretty sure they WILL fix it if you don't.
As a guy who grabbed Hill and played him TE I say - thank you for the W. Wish it could go on cause I'm all about me but I get it. Heck I even feel a bit guilty about winning with him but everyone else in my league had the same chance to pick him up. I didn't even do it until Saturday AFT. Shocked he was there when I realized he could be a QB put into my TE slot.
dbc925
Footballguy
According to the ESPN site,MikeApf said:
• If Hill is left in the TE, Flex or WR/TE slot, users will be unable to make any roster or lineup moves until they remove him from that slot.
So you can keep him there if you maintain the same lineup. Until, you know, they arbitrarily change that as well.
NotSmart
Footballguy
For teams that still have Hill in the TE slot, there's a red banner on the Team page stating that he is not eligible for that position.
I would not count on points accruing to Hill if he's left in and played in the TE slot.
Cjw_55106
Footballguy
Um....not really. He took zero first team reps during the week. People were looking for some sort of head game from Peyton that simply wasn’t there.
styleride85
Footballguy
hahahha ESPN continues to be a mess. Imagine getting to start him the rest of the year in there?
styleride85
Footballguy
This. Everyone who didn't own Hill knew that he'd be starting at QB. It was those trying to make themselves feel good about starting him at TE who were the ones barking that "oh well you never know".
All first team reps means he IS the starter. Period.
Hypothetical question for the board:
What if the Saints had made Alvin Kamara their new QB instead of Taysom Hill?
Would it be fair/correct for ESPN to allow fantasy teams to continue to play Kamara at RB, or would it be fair/correct to change it so he's eligible at QB only?
What if the Saints had made Alvin Kamara their new QB instead of Taysom Hill?
Would it be fair/correct for ESPN to allow fantasy teams to continue to play Kamara at RB, or would it be fair/correct to change it so he's eligible at QB only?
In a money league starting a QB in the TE spot should be considered cheating. Its exploiting a ESPN glitch if they allow this. I posted notice on my league page that I will not be ok with this. The owner got a chance to start him once. The owner moved all his other players out except the TE spot with Hill. Per what people are saying, he will not be able to add players to the other spots until he moves Hill out. Maybe I got lucky that he benched all his other players?
If ESPN has Kamara listed as RB/QB he could be started in either position regardless of what people think lol. Right now Hill is only listed as QB but some people still have him in the TE spot.
That doesn't answer my question.
My question was, what is the correct/fair listing in this situation? RB/QB or just QB?
That does answer the question lol. Regardless of what people like Hill had QB/TE listed per ESPN. It was completely fair for a owner to play him in either position. If Kamara was given QB/RB per ESPN it would be completely fair for him to be used at either spot. People wouldn't like it for sure. Regardless of either situation you should only be able to put a player in a position eligible per ESPN.
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
Our Commish took charge and sent out a note saying Hill could not be used as a TE. Hill was not on a roster in our 12 team league as of yet so it prevented any nonsense as someone would have picked him up as a TE.
NotSmart
Footballguy
So I was definitely wrong, ESPN has a FAQ link that answers this:
https://www.espn.com/fantasy/football/story/_/id/30374522/faq-taysom-hill-no-longer-eligible-te-espn-fantasy-football-now-qb-only
4. What if I leave Hill in a starting lineup spot other than QB going forward? Will I still get the points he scores?
• If Hill is left in the TE, Flex or WR/TE slot, users will be unable to make any roster or lineup moves until they remove him from that slot.
• If a user chooses to not remove him from that slot, the user will receive points for Hill's performance. However, if your league deems that to be an unfair advantage, league managers (LMs) have the ability to move Hill out of the starting lineup for any team in their league.
• To do so, LMs should visit their league on the ESPN Fantasy website, select "LM Tools" from the sub-navigation and then select "Roster Moves" from the "Roster Tools" section. From there, the LM can choose to edit the roster of the team that rosters Hill, including the ability to drop Hill, if that is desired.
• If your league has roster minimums and maximums at QB and/or TE, it's possible this change could invalidate your roster and you might be forced to make roster moves in order to field a valid roster.
NotSmart
Footballguy
Why did he bench all his other players?
Unless he wants to play with just Hill at TE again, he will be forced to remove him from TE when he makes other lineup moves.
FUBAR
Footballguy
At the least, players should maintain eligibility at a position in which they had taken ⅓ of their snaps for the previous game (⅓ is fungible but we draw the line somewhere). They can gain eligibility if they're slated to start at the other position. So if Kamara were to be announced the starting QB next week, he'd be eligible at RB and QB for that game. If he took the majority of his snaps at QB, he'd lose RB eligibility (which could be regained if it's announced that he's starting rb next week).
Here, it does seem that Hill shouldn't have been a TE using my criteria (so, yeah we ESPN screwed that up a while ago, not just this week). Fwiw, I started him at WR in the one league I could. Didn't matter, I would have still won if I had started Diontae Johnson instead. And nobody has complained.
ETA: flea flicker now has him only as a QB and automatically booted him out of my lineup (which I would have anyway, although I might start him at qb)
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not asking what owners should do. I'm asking what ESPN should do.
If Kamara were to take over as Saints QB, should ESPN:
- take away his RB eligibility, and make him QB only?
- keep him RB only?
- make him eligible at both QB and RB?
Both positions. Similar situation with Ty Montgomery back in 2016. He was eligible for both RB and WR for the year as he should have been. He played meaningful snaps at both positions.
Only if he played meaningful snaps at TE, with at least one game where the intent was for him to play that position.
I want to say that in fantasy baseball any position where a player starts for 10 games he’s eligible. Usually multi-position eligibility is considered a bonus.
The stats were shown earlier in the thread, but the majority of Hill's snaps have been at WR and TE.
styleride85
Footballguy
This is incorrect. This is the snap breakdown PRE-Week 11 for Hill.
Snaps by position 2020 before this week (just showed on TV)
QB 40
Slot receiver 35
Tight End 34
RB 18
WR 14
88% of his 'touches" were him lined up at QB. Would you like to count what he lines up as or what he does with the ball? Earlier you wanted to use what he does with the ball (which your argument is RB even though he's lined up at QB and many QB's are running QBs). If you want to use what he lines up at, then it should be QB or WR. Tight End should NEVER have been in play either side of the coin you want to try to argue.
styleride85
Footballguy
This is different. Kamara has been a RB all of his career. Taysom has been a QB all of his career (at the very least never a tight end). Per my previous post, whether you want to count his touches, or where he lines up in games this year, Tight End makes absolutely ZERO sense. And don't say "it makes more sense than QB" as a retort.... bottom line is TE makes ZERO sense.
If certain circumstances happened where Kamara was only able to be a kicker that week, and unable to run, then to answer your question, yes ESPN should take away RB eligibility for that week as he was NOT AN RB THAT WEEK and he should be forced to be put in the POSITION HE WAS GOING TO PLAY THAT WEEK.
The stats you just provided prove my statement was correct. The majority of Hill's snaps have been at WR and TE. 83 out of 141 is 59%.
It's a little different, but mostly the same. The biggest difference is that Kamara is a stud, first-round guy you build your fantasy team around, and Hill is a marginal waiver guy.
In the scenario I laid out, what do you think ESPN should do about Kamara's position eligibility? Change to QB only, keep him RB only, or allow both?
