Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Taysom Hill as TE on ESPN


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, davearm said:

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 348
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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 absolut

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

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 whateve

9 minutes ago, tricky92 said:

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.

Would you answer "both positions" for Hill as well?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, davearm said:

Would you answer "both positions" for Hill as well?

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, tricky92 said:

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, davearm said:

The stats were shown earlier in the thread, but the majority of Hill's snaps have been at WR and TE.

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.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, davearm said:

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?

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.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, styleride85 said:

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.

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%.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, styleride85 said:

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.  

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, styleride85 said:

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.

there is no arguing that Hill's usage since he came into the league has been closer to "anything but QB" then "QB only"....."QB only" would have been a TERRIBLE designation at any point....a disservice to what he actually does....(no matter what the team "listed" him as)....he wasn't even the backup QB on his team the week before he started and the backup QB in front of him was not listed as "injured/out" the following week.....the hang up is people wanted his designation immediately changed when it appeared that maybe he  leapfrogged the true backup QB.....so the ones saying he should have only been able to play QB, refuse to give him any credit for his previous designation, and feel that "taking all of the practice reps" is the SOLE justification for an immediate drastic change in his eligibility.....

every owner had the option to roster Hill at any point in the season and use this to their advantage (albeit maybe for only a week) if it ever came to fruition....well it did....they shouldn't be looked down upon for that......FF is a game.....like many others, and owners should always been looking for ways to gain an advantage, use the rules to their advantage, beat others to the punch, whatever.....if you don't, you are doing it wrong.....and you ain't trying hard enough....when an opportunity is available to everybody, there are no cheap wins or whatever.....keeping Hill's designation the same for week to see how things really played out was very reasonable.....with waivers usually running Tuesday or Wednesday in most leagues (TUE in the one ESPN league I am in)......and Thursday games being played.....and Peyton doubling back and saying he never announced a starter....people had to make roster decisions based on the way things were.....not just who was getting "reps"....Tuesday when waivers run in ESPN is usually the players "day off" so there were no reps.....not making a drastic change in the middle of the week was reasonable....

Edited by Stinkin Ref
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, davearm said:

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%.

Where are you getting that the majority have been at Tight End?  Tight end is 3rd.  He has more snaps at QB this year than TE.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stinkin Ref said:

there is no arguing that Hill's usage since he came into the league has been closer to "anything but QB" then "QB only"....."QB only" would have been a TERRIBLE designation at any point....a disservice to what he actually does....(no matter what the team "listed" him as)....he wasn't even the backup QB on his team the week before he started and the backup QB in front of him was not listed as "injured/out" the following week.....the hang up is people wanted his designation immediately changed when it appeared that maybe he  leapfrogged the true backup QB.....so the ones saying he should have only been able to play QB, refuse to give him any credit for his previous designation, and feel that "taking all of the practice reps" is the SOLE justification for an immediate drastic change in his eligibility.....

every owner had the option to roster Hill at any point in the season and use this to their advantage (albeit maybe for only a week) if it ever came to fruition....well it did....they shouldn't be looked down upon for that......FF is a game.....like many others, and owners should always been looking for ways to gain an advantage, use the rules to their advantage, beat others to the punch, whatever.....if you don't, you are doing it wrong.....and you ain't trying hard enough....when an opportunity is available to everybody, there are no cheap wins or whatever.....keeping Hill's designation the same for week to see how things really played out was very reasonable.....with waivers usually running Tuesday or Wednesday in most leagues (TUE in the one ESPN league I am in)......and Thursday games being played.....and Peyton doubling back and saying he never announced a starter....people had to make roster decisions based on the way things were.....not just who was getting "reps"....Tuesday when waivers run in ESPN is usually the players "day off" so there were no reps.....not making a drastic change in the middle of the week was reasonable....

This is a terrible point.  So it's QB vs the field?  "Anything but QB" isn't a position.  His snaps at QB have been more than any other position.  His touches at QB have been more than any other position.  He is listed as a "QB ONLY" on ALL official team and NFL literature.  He is listed as QB ONLY on every major fantasy site out there except for ESPN.  Yet again, you're doubling... tripling down on that "QB ONLY" would be a TERRIBLE decision (even though everyone but espn did that).  You also said 90%+ chance that Winston was the QB... wrong again.  You are extremely defensive over the fact that you started him this week in your flex position when he was a QB this week and not a flex player.  Again, congrats on your cheap win.

To your 2nd point, the starting QB being out, the backup struggling, and Taysom doing everything to become the starter is 100% reason for a drastic change in his eligibility.  He wasn't playing TE this week.  Everyone knew this.  You probably knew this but for the sake of argument, decided to go on rants and make predictions that Winston could/would be the starter.  So yes, if a players position is going to drastically change, then so should his eligibility.  Starting QB's should not be allowed in the Tight End position.  Period.

To your third point, no one is blaming the owners for starting Hill there.  I would have if I played on a terribly run ESPN site too.  You did nothing wrong.  The fact that you're defending something so hard that no one is accusing you of is a little sad.  There's a reason 85% of unbiased voters voted that he should have been listed as a QB, and a very obvious reason you don't feel that way (you got away with starting a QB in a TE spot).

ESPN continues to show how bad of a fantasy site they are.  Luckily for you, you benefited from their negligence.  
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Synthesizer said:

Now ESPN needs to figure out how to force Hill out of the TE spot for teams that don't change their lineups this week.  They brought this upon themselves.

Yep.  People are still trying to take advantage from ESPN's terrible decision to allow this.  Again, there's a reason they were the only site to allow this, and now they are getting justified criticism for it (except from those who own Hill and got away with the clear starting qb in a position that should not be able to have a starting qb in)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, styleride85 said:

Where are you getting that the majority have been at Tight End?  Tight end is 3rd.  He has more snaps at QB this year than TE.

Not sure what you're struggling with here.

WR and TE: 83 snaps (59%)

QB 40 (28%)

RB 18 (13%)

Your stats.

WR/TE is the most logical designation, based upon snap counts.

And inasmuch as almost all of those "QB" snaps were actually wildcat runs, those probably belong in the RB bucket.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, davearm said:

Not sure what you're struggling with here.

WR and TE: 83 snaps (59%)

QB 40 (28%)

RB 18 (13%)

Your stats.

WR/TE is the most logical designation, based upon snap counts.

And inasmuch as almost all of those "QB" snaps were actually wildcat runs, those probably belong in the RB bucket.

:lmao:

 

3 hours ago, Synthesizer said:

So you combined WR and TE into one position?  How about this breakdown instead? 😁 ....

QB/RB (41%)
WR (35%)
TE (24%)

Hahahah Exactly.  Clearly trolling at this point because he's been proven wrong.  There is not a SINGLE reason for TE to be included for Hill any which way.  None.  Yet he was able to be used in the TE position (one that is hard to find good starters), the week he was the starting QB.  

Most touches this year were out of the QB position.
Most snaps this year were out of the QB position.

The fact that he combined WR/TE into one to try to show that TE is higher than QB is laughable.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, styleride85 said:

This is a terrible point.  So it's QB vs the field?  "Anything but QB" isn't a position.  His snaps at QB have been more than any other position.  His touches at QB have been more than any other position.  He is listed as a "QB ONLY" on ALL official team and NFL literature.  He is listed as QB ONLY on every major fantasy site out there except for ESPN.  Yet again, you're doubling... tripling down on that "QB ONLY" would be a TERRIBLE decision (even though everyone but espn did that).  You also said 90%+ chance that Winston was the QB... wrong again.  You are extremely defensive over the fact that you started him this week in your flex position when he was a QB this week and not a flex player.  Again, congrats on your cheap win.

To your 2nd point, the starting QB being out, the backup struggling, and Taysom doing everything to become the starter is 100% reason for a drastic change in his eligibility.  He wasn't playing TE this week.  Everyone knew this.  You probably knew this but for the sake of argument, decided to go on rants and make predictions that Winston could/would be the starter.  So yes, if a players position is going to drastically change, then so should his eligibility.  Starting QB's should not be allowed in the Tight End position.  Period.

To your third point, no one is blaming the owners for starting Hill there.  I would have if I played on a terribly run ESPN site too.  You did nothing wrong.  The fact that you're defending something so hard that no one is accusing you of is a little sad.  There's a reason 85% of unbiased voters voted that he should have been listed as a QB, and a very obvious reason you don't feel that way (you got away with starting a QB in a TE spot).

ESPN continues to show how bad of a fantasy site they are.  Luckily for you, you benefited from their negligence.  
 

when I said "anything but QB" it meant that "only QB" would have been a TERRIBLE designation heading into the season....and into last week.....(especially when made preseason and based on his past usage).....anything else would be "somewhat better"...."QB only" would have been one of the last options heading into the season and up until last week....should it have been TE.....maybe not....would WR or RB been better...probably....but for sure...."QB only" was not the best option.....you really can't argue that....multiple positions would probably have been best....as that is what he plays.....QB/RB/WR/TE and then let owners decide each week where to plug him in.....again based on past usage and current designations and what he had actually been doing....although listed as QB by the team, he wasn't even functioning as their backup.... 

some other daily betting sites had him listed as TE or another combination....it wasn't just ESPN in the fantasy world...

I thought there was a good chance Winston would get more PT at QB....that was just IMO and I stated as much....I was really unsure...and I was wrong.....I'm probably not alone there.....I'm sure anybody that actually plugged him in at "QB" had at least some little bit of hesitation....no matter what the reps were... anybody that said they didn't is probably lying....

and you ignored and didn't comment on the big part of my post (intentional on your part I'm sure).....which unfortunately is something we have to deal with in this fantasy game we play even though real football doesn't care.........timelines....days when WW runs....and roster decisions need to be made .....(TUE for ESPN leagues)....even after ESPN roster decisions need to be made Peyton came out and said he hadn't announced a starter yet...TUE are usually days off in the NFL....so usually no reps....so you had to decide before going to bed TUE what you are going to do.....none of us or ESPN knew going to bed on TUE who the starter was going to be....the head coach came out and said he didn't announce it yet....you can't have owners making WW and roster decisions based on MON/TUE designations and have waivers run and THEN change a designation ......so again....waiting a week was reasonable..... 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Synthesizer said:

Now ESPN needs to figure out how to force Hill out of the TE spot for teams that don't change their lineups this week.  They brought this upon themselves.

Playing the guy with Hill this week and he's currently in the TE slot... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Stinkin Ref said:

when I said "anything but QB" it meant that "only QB" would have been a TERRIBLE designation heading into the season....and into last week.....(especially when made preseason and based on his past usage).... QB only would not have been "CAPS LOCK- TERRIBLE".  Almost every major fantasy site is not "TERRIBLE".  

.anything else would be "somewhat better"...."QB only" would have been one of the last options heading into the season and up until last week....should it have been TE.....maybe not....would WR or RB been better...probably....but for sure...."QB only" was not the best option.....you really can't argue that....multiple positions would probably have been best....as that is what he plays.....QB/RB/WR/TE and then let owners decide each week where to plug him in.....again based on past usage and current designations and what he had actually been doing....although listed as QB by the team, he wasn't even functioning as their backup.... 
You keep saying "ah maybe not TE but definitely not QB".  Any reputable site should not be relying on a "lesser of two evils" approach.  There's zero reason for TE designation based on anything at all.  So yes, they are wrong for QB/TE.  
 

some other daily betting sites had him listed as TE or another combination....it wasn't just ESPN in the fantasy world...
Very Very few.  They're in the fast minority here.

I thought there was a good chance Winston would get more PT at QB....that was just IMO and I stated as much....I was really unsure...and I was wrong.....I'm probably not alone there.....I'm sure anybody that actually plugged him in at "QB" had at least some little bit of hesitation....no matter what the reps were... anybody that said they didn't is probably lying....
The only people who thought he wasn't starting at QB were those defending him in the TE position.  You weren't just really unsure, you were pretty sure that Winston would be the QB.  For anyone who follows the league well, those who take first snaps will be QB.  
 

and you ignored and didn't comment on the big part of my post (intentional on your part I'm sure).....which unfortunately is something we have to deal with in this fantasy game we play even though real football doesn't care.........timelines....days when WW runs....and roster decisions need to be made .....(TUE for ESPN leagues)....even after ESPN roster decisions need to be made Peyton came out and said he hadn't announced a starter yet...TUE are usually days off in the NFL....so usually no reps....so you had to decide before going to bed TUE what you are going to do.....none of us or ESPN knew going to bed on TUE who the starter was going to be....the head coach came out and said he didn't announce it yet....you can't have owners making WW and roster decisions based on MON/TUE designations and have waivers run and THEN change a designation ......so again....waiting a week was reasonable..... 

This might be your worst argument.  You could have picked up another TE.  There's a 0% chance if Brees didn't get hurt, that anyone was going to use Hill in the TE spot.  So if you never would have used Hill in the TE spot when he was lined up at WR, then you clearly had other TE options (you actually used him in the flex spot this week).  The "time to adjust" argument is unsound as Hill was an extra player being plugged in at TE for owners. 

Bottom line, Owners picked him up for the SOLE purpose of starting him in TE or FLEX, with the assumption that he was going to possibly play quarterback that week.  So every person who grabbed him, or already owned him, it was to use him in a position he wasn't playing that week... right?

QB only would not have been "CAPS LOCK- TERRIBLE".  Almost every major fantasy site is not "TERRIBLE".  

You keep saying "ah maybe not TE but definitely not QB".  Any reputable site should not be relying on a "lesser of two evils" approach.  There's zero reason for TE designation based on anything at all.  So yes, they are wrong for QB/TE.  

You can really argue that QB only was the best designation.  He was listed at QB everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Synthesizer said:

So you combined WR and TE into one position?  How about this breakdown instead? 😁 ....

QB/RB (41%)
WR (35%)
TE (24%)

 

14 hours ago, Joe Summer said:

Has to be :fishing: at that point.

 

12 hours ago, styleride85 said:

:lmao:

 

Hahahah Exactly.  Clearly trolling at this point because he's been proven wrong.  There is not a SINGLE reason for TE to be included for Hill any which way.  None.  Yet he was able to be used in the TE position (one that is hard to find good starters), the week he was the starting QB.  

Most touches this year were out of the QB position.
Most snaps this year were out of the QB position.

The fact that he combined WR/TE into one to try to show that TE is higher than QB is laughable.

 

The snap data makes very clear that the thing Taysom Hill does the most is split out and run pass routes.  He does this on 59% of his snaps.  How we allocate these snaps between "Tight End" "Wide Receiver" and "Slot Receiver" is arbitrary and unimportant.

The thing he does the next-most is run the ball out of the wildcat formation.

He played basically no QB at all prior to Drew Brees getting hurt.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, davearm said:

The snap data makes very clear that the thing Taysom Hill does the most is split out and run pass routes.  He does this on 59% of his snaps.  How we allocate these snaps between "Tight End" "Wide Receiver" and "Slot Receiver" is arbitrary and unimportant.

Tight Ends are not Wide Receivers.

Wide Receivers are not Tight Ends.

If you have to combine the two positions to prove a point, then the point is not worth proving. It's either a fishing attempt or a last desperate grasp to win an illogical argument.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Joe Summer said:

Tight Ends are not Wide Receivers.

Wide Receivers are not Tight Ends.

If you have to combine the two positions to prove a point, then the point is not worth proving. It's either a fishing attempt or a last desperate grasp to win an illogical argument.

Yep he is on tilt right now and using desperation arguments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

Tight Ends are not Wide Receivers.

Wide Receivers are not Tight Ends.

If you have to combine the two positions to prove a point, then the point is not worth proving. It's either a fishing attempt or a last desperate grasp to win an illogical argument.

Quarterbacks don't run pass routes.  Not regularly anyway.

Taysom Hill runs pass routes more than anything else.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, styleride85 said:

I love that "notsmart" is the only one liking your posts lol

So "pass route running' is now a position? LOL

Well why don't you clear it up for us?

Is a guy that lines up at the end of the line for 34 snaps, in the slot for 35 snaps, and outside the numbers for 14 snaps a WR or a TE?

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, styleride85 said:

He's a WR over a TE.  49 snaps at WR, 34 at tight end. 

Careful. By that logic, then Travis Kelce is a WR.  So is Mark Andrews.  And Jimmy Graham.  Gesicki.  Ertz.  You get the point.

Lots of guy that are used primarily out of the slot and out wide are considered TEs.

Regardless, the point remains the same as it's always been -- guys that spend most of their time tight/slot/wide are not QBs.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, davearm said:

Careful. By that logic, then Travis Kelce is a WR.  So is Mark Andrews.  And Jimmy Graham.  Gesicki.  Ertz.  You get the point.

Lots of guy that are used primarily out of the slot and out wide are considered TEs.

Regardless, the point remains the same as it's always been -- guys that spend most of their time tight/slot/wide are not QBs.

Guys that spend the most of their time in the backfield as a qb or rb are not considered TE.  Big reach here dude... you're in the vast minority for a reason.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, styleride85 said:

Guys that spend the most of their time in the backfield as a qb or rb are not considered TE.  Big reach here dude... you're in the vast minority for a reason.  

Hill doesn't spend most of his time in the backfield.  He spends most of his time tight/slot/wide.

We can do this all day.  The numbers are not on your side.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, davearm said:

Hill doesn't spend most of his time in the backfield.  He spends most of his time tight/slot/wide.

We can do this all day.  The numbers are not on your side.

And again, you're combining positions for no reason for your sake.  You've been called out on it by many others but are refusing to let up.  Some people just can't seem to admit they might be wrong.  Good luck with that.  You're in the vast minority for a reason.  TE is his LOWEST spot by the numbers, it never made sense.  ESPN is getting lit up for this for good reason.  Keep fishing though.  Goodnight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, styleride85 said:

And again, you're combining positions for no reason for your sake.  You've been called out on it by many others but are refusing to let up.  Some people just can't seem to admit they might be wrong.  Good luck with that.  You're in the vast minority for a reason.  TE is his LOWEST spot by the numbers, it never made sense.  ESPN is getting lit up for this for good reason.  Keep fishing though.  Goodnight.

Huh.  Just one post back you were all about "guys that spend the most of their time in the backfield as a qb or rb".  Sounds like you're combining positions there.

Doesn't really matter though.  As your stats make clear, Hill isn't one of those guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, davearm said:

Huh.  Just one post back you were all about "guys that spend the most of their time in the backfield as a qb or rb".  Sounds like you're combining positions there.

Doesn't really matter though.  As your stats make clear, Hill isn't one of those guys.

:lmao:

Link to post
Share on other sites

When does ESPN make stat changes? I lost to the Hill owner 101.98-101.96.. When stat corrections came out Wednesday, Hill went from 51 rushing yards to 49. It shows 49 on nfl.com but still shows 51 on ESPN. 

Those 2 yards will give me the victory

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, playin4beer said:

When does ESPN make stat changes? I lost to the Hill owner 101.98-101.96.. When stat corrections came out Wednesday, Hill went from 51 rushing yards to 49. It shows 49 on nfl.com but still shows 51 on ESPN. 

Those 2 yards will give me the victory

I'll try to quickly slip in something of an answer to your question before the guys who lost out on picking up T. Hill last week chime in and use your question as an opening to rip ESPN's free fantasy site, while pretty much ignoring your question. :P  

I've used ESPN for a few years now and my feeling is that the scoring changes I've seen usually show up overnight, at least in the league I'm in. One contributor to this thread did say that he lost a title years ago when ESPN made a change a few days after, though. My "feeling" is that, since the new NFL week has begun, the ship has sailed, but I am not certain. Maybe the fact that it's a holiday week might throw that off. I would definitely check with ESPN about it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Fear The Turtle said:

I'll try to quickly slip in something of an answer to your question before the guys who lost out on picking up T. Hill last week chime in and use your question as an opening to rip ESPN's free fantasy site, while pretty much ignoring your question. :P  

I've used ESPN for a few years now and my feeling is that the scoring changes I've seen usually show up overnight, at least in the league I'm in. One contributor to this thread did say that he lost a title years ago when ESPN made a change a few days after, though. My "feeling" is that, since the new NFL week has begun, the ship has sailed, but I am not certain. Maybe the fact that it's a holiday week might throw that off. I would definitely check with ESPN about it.  

There isn't really an answer here.

And I didn't lose out on picking up Hill.  If you look at the poll, 5-1 unaffected owners (don't play espn) thought he should be QB.  But I guess as someone who did start a QB in a TE spot, you wanted to chime in quickly ;) 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, playin4beer said:

When does ESPN make stat changes? I lost to the Hill owner 101.98-101.96.. When stat corrections came out Wednesday, Hill went from 51 rushing yards to 49. It shows 49 on nfl.com but still shows 51 on ESPN. 

Those 2 yards will give me the victory

Damn, you got doubly screwed.  Hopefully your league moves on from that disaster of a hosting site next year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, styleride85 said:

Damn, you got doubly screwed.  Hopefully your league moves on from that disaster of a hosting site next year.

I'm not sure it shouldn't be changed still.. I am the commissioner but would still put it to a vote. NFL and Yahoo both show him having 49 yards rushing. ESPN is the only one showing 51 yards. The Saints haven't played again yet, so it shouldn't be official. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, playin4beer said:

I'm not sure it shouldn't be changed still.. I am the commissioner but would still put it to a vote. NFL and Yahoo both show him having 49 yards rushing. ESPN is the only one showing 51 yards. The Saints haven't played again yet, so it shouldn't be official. 

Going down a slippery slope there, esp. since you're commissioner. If previous similar situations haven't been dealt with by a vote or a commissioner act, then it's going to look awfully self-serving. However, if you can point to a situation where you did it for another team, then you're on much firmer ground.

I like your point about the Saints' next game. I would get on ESPN if i were you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, playin4beer said:
6 hours ago, styleride85 said:

Damn, you got doubly screwed.  Hopefully your league moves on from that disaster of a hosting site next year.

I'm not sure it shouldn't be changed still.. I am the commissioner but would still put it to a vote. NFL and Yahoo both show him having 49 yards rushing. ESPN is the only one showing 51 yards. The Saints haven't played again yet, so it shouldn't be official. 

https://fantasy.espn.com/football/statcorrections

PLAYER

STAT

CHANGE

Taysom Hill

NO QB

Rushing Yards (YDS)

-2

 

If you are the commissioner of your league, you may need to adjust the score manually, by clicking the "Scoreboard" tab and then clicking "Adjust Scoring."

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Fear The Turtle said:

Going down a slippery slope there, esp. since you're commissioner. If previous similar situations haven't been dealt with by a vote or a commissioner act, then it's going to look awfully self-serving. However, if you can point to a situation where you did it for another team, then you're on much firmer ground.

I like your point about the Saints' next game. I would get on ESPN if i were you.

ESPN finally changed it.. I win 101.96 - 101.78

:D

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Just now, kyoun1e said:

Very quiet thread for a guy that's universally considered a top 12 QB in the semis this weekend.

Tempted to start him over Herbert but the Brees news from Shefty has me spooked. 

Hill could have serious ceiling this weekend vs KC.

He's got another thread about him, this one was just used for people talking about him being a TE in ESPN. You might find more info in one of his other threads.

Link to post
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...