‹ Main Site Forums Home My Account

Tyreek Hill or Stefon Diggs


#1

Who would you rather have on your roster this year and why?

Everyone is saying Diggs and I see his talent, but Hill was so great last year and has still shown the same talent this preseason. Are they not both in the same postion on their teams? 2 other good receiving options on both teams (WR and TE), good running backs, new qbs, and both have massive upside. Unlike Diggs, Hill doesn’t get hurt as much and has broken the top 10 before. Am I crazy?


#2

Your right hill doesn’t have the injury history as diggs does… And diggs did dissapear sometimes last year…

I just look at diggs as a little safer than hill… Hill scores most his TDs from 40 yards and out and diggs had like 8+ TDs(exact number on a podcast somewhere) from inside the 20… So he is just more steady in my opinion.

So in a draft if you go OBJ, Keenan at the turn or something then I would take hill as you have 2 steady eddys so go for the boom bust guy… But if you go Melvin, mccaffeey or something and diggs gets back to you then Id go him over hill as you need alittle safer WR.

But mahomes is the perfect QB for hill as that arm strength plays into hill perfectly… So I would not fault you going hill over diggs at all… It’s your team so you should draft the players you want… I don’t think they are that far off each other to pick the one you want… But in a vaccum diggs should be more consistent week to week than boom or bust play that hill will have.


#3

What if I forgot to add we get punt and kick return yards and I already have Keenan Allen and Jordan Howard?


#4

I’d go Hill, but it’s close. After seeing who Mahomes has looked to in the preseason I think I’m more confident in Hill’s target share than I was after hearing about Watkins addition. Diggs could be phenominal but we’ve never seen it consistently and they’ve had some major changes to their team that could take time to mesh (mostly refering to the loss of Shurmur).


#5

diggs is more scary from a not playing 16 games perspective

im still leery of him staying healthy


#6

I lean Hill slightly, I think Minnesota has more weapons and a QB who won’t just lock on to his primary as much as Mahomes might so Cousins will spread it out more…plus Vikings defense is so good I can see some quick leads turning into slow pace for their offense.
Hill isn’t a red zone guy, but he’s one reverse handoff away from a TD at any moment.


#7

I prefer Hill, but it’s a legit question.


#8

Diggs, merely because Hill could have some serious regression coming this year.


#9

This is a very good question and a very close call. I like both players but I LOVE Diggs. He is in my eyes, the best technician and true WR in the league after the top tier of guys. His contested catch ability is incredibly appealing with Cousins in town and from a route running perspective, he is an absolute artist. I have been a fan boy of diggs since he joined the league so I may be a bit biased. But let me offer some some unbiased food for thought to counter the whole “Diggs is injury prone” narrative.

All WRs in this tier, and all WRs in generally are incredibly volatile by the nature of the position. Hill, is epitomizes that classification when you look at his production last year. He either gave you 20 points, or gave you 5 points. And it was essentially unpredictable. To get the full benefit of a player like hill and other boom/bust guy, you basically have to start him every week and hope for the best. Trying to guess when to start and sit can be disastrous cause you have just as good of a shot at benching him on a blowup week as a bad week.

Diggs on the other hand, despite being injury prone, is MUCH easier to predict and make start/sit decisions with. Unfortunately I don’t have the exact data on me anymore cause I did this earlier on in the season when I was trying to make these types of decisions but you can dig it up yourself if you want. WHEN diggs shows up on the injury report in the week leading up the game, he is awful. Puts up like less than 6-7 points per game. However, when he does not show up on the injury report at all the week leading up to game, he is an absolute stud, he was WR5-6 or better in like 80% of those weeks. So when it comes to diggs, the decision for me is simple. If he shows up on injury report, see if you have better options to play. If he doesn’t play him without fear. So the right comparison isn’t just Hill vs Diggs, its Hill vs Diggs + who you would replace him with. I know that adds a degree of complexity but with someone like diggs, I honestly think that is the best way to think about things. Start-sit success all comes down to predictability and when you can get someone like Diggs who gives you that predictability, I prefer it. And I’d argue Diggs offers a significantly higher ceiling than Hill when he does hit. particularly due to TD upside.

It’s the same argument I make for Gronk. Will gronk play 16 games? Probably not. But in those games he does play, he is almost a guarantee for top 3 at the position. And when he’s injurred, you just don’t play him. Not like you have to play him in the TE slot for zero points. Stream a favorable match-up. Diggs is very much like that to a smaller degree.


#10

Everyone seems to forget that Diggs wasn’t quite as good statistically as they think and Hill was way better consistency wise.
Points per game based on our format (0.5 ppr with kick and punt return yards)
Diggs Hill
24.2 25
4.1 7.7
35.3 18.5
12.3 5
0.9 22.3
0 8.9
0 25.5
4.6 2.3
15.8 14.3
5.2 12.8
10 8.9
4.7 37.9
9.4 11.2
12.2 17.4
14.8 15.9
14.7 0
168.2 233.6 Total
Diggs busted (<10pts) 8 out of 17 weeks (injury or not). Hill busted 6 times and had over 50 pts more then Diggs. In addition, Diggs also only Boomed (>20pts) only 2 times where as Hill had 4 games. I just don’t think Diggs is as “safe” as everyone thinks.


#11

Did you read my comment above? :thinking: I didn’t say Diggs was incredibly safe. But just assessing the risk of both diggs and Hill, I am more comfortable with what diggs offers and the options to make optimal start/sit decisions.

Diggs is not someone you’re going to go ahead and plug and play every week because his down weeks are much easier to predict. If he shows up on injury report at any point during the week.

Like I said, it’s a very close comparison. And there are some changes to KC that gives me slight pause to Hill, mainly the change at QB. So both have risks. I am just outlining one of the ways for you to mitigate the risk of Diggs. When I am looking at it, I am including his playoff performances in his games as healthy, which I think is fair cause it expands on the sample size for what you can expect this year. I don’t think you’re looking at it the right way.

19 weeks total, he was out for 2 weeks (so 2 of the weeks you listed as bust where he didn’t play), so 17 game sample size. You can’t count the 2 weeks cause if he’s out, you obviously don’t start him for 0 points. You start someone else. From there, he was Questionable but played for I think a quarter or 2 vs cleveland week 8. The first week back after missing 2 games with a Groin injury. That was a bust week. And history has shown (going back to his rookie season), when is not healthy, he does not perform. Just sit him. And last time I looked, there were 2-3 other instances where he showed up on the injury report leading up to the game but then ended up starting. Those were also weeks where he busted. So that is 5-6 games where you just simply make the decision to bench him. And although it’s not ideal, you want your players to be healthy, I actually don’t mind having someone who gives me that much predictability because in the weeks he was healthy, the man went off.

I would probably also remove week 17 for comparison purposes because I don’t think Tyreek hill played that full game so that’s not a fair comparison.

And then adding on the playoff games for comparison where Diggs was a stud, I think that paints a more fitting picture. Looking at those games, Diggs was like the WR5.

Again, I’m not saying Hill is the wrong answer or Diggs is absolutely the way you should go. But just giving some perspective and showing you there’s a different way to think about this rather than just looking at pure points scored over a season. I like to try and focus on the predictability on a PPG basis that player offers me because if I know I can sit him in a given week, I can just find point production elsewhere.


#12

All your points are completely fair. I guess I was trying to say (poorly I should add haha) that if you take a player with this high of draft capital to know you may only be able to play him 10 weeks of the 16 weeks and that Hill has the same ceiling of getting a week winning game is crazy to me. Also Hill was pretty good in his 1 play off game statistically comparable to Diggs second post season game vs the eagles (7 for 87 + 1 for 14 vs 8 for 70). I only add that in to say you should count that for him as well not only Diggs.


#13

Yes totally see your point on Diggs. Diggs and Hill are both typically going in the 3rd round and frankly, players you take there are just not going to have both consistency and ceiling so would temper expectations. And obviously, you definitely want to get more than 10 games out of your player drafted in the 3rd and I’m not drafting him this year expecting him to miss 6 games. But given that he will likely at least miss a couple or be Q for a couple, i like the fact that there is a high correlation / predictability with when he performs like a stud vs when he doesn’t.

But with Hill, even though you can play him for 16 games, you know there are games where you just don’t want to but there is zero predictability. You really just have to plug and play him no matter what because there’s no telling when he will blow up vs when he will bust. It’s not healthy related or anything like that.

At the end of the day, that is the trade off and its all a matter of preference. But as I said in my first post, I find them to be very close to each other. I just wanted to provide some perspective on diggs that others may not have considered.


#14