Whoever is representing FBG in the "Experts" mock... (1 Viewer)

[gianmarco]

I happen to think the poker analogy is spot on.

Agreed.This entire topic reminds me of the "Crank" articles..... it sounds like a lot of guys here like to wait in line and take the player they are supposed to when their number is called.

Exactly. When you play with lesser competition, you can sit back and let value fall in your lap. When you play against tougher competition or unorthodox drafting (which I think this draft has both of), then you sometimes have to be more aggressive, more unorthodox, less predictable, and essentially trust your projections and go after them. And this is even moreso the case when drafting at the bookends when you have 2 rounds in between picks.To be honest, I consider myself a very good drafter and I don't know if I would have had the stones to do what he did even if I really felt that way. Norton is obviously very confident in his projections to be able to do that, especially knowing that others are watching his draft. I've had a couple drafts in the past where I felt strongly about a player (much more than others) but didn't pull the trigger hoping they'd make it back. When they didn't make it back, I simply said oh well. Oftentimes, I was right about the player and would have actually done better if I had just gone with my original thinking instead of following ADP. Last year, I was much more "daring" in my drafting and it paid dividends. What some considered "reaches" turned out to be good plays and I ended up with what I thought would be best for my team. There's a very good chance that this works out for Norton despite all the criticism.

 

[TheAssassin]

Dallas Clark would have been available in the 5th. To me Gonzo is closer to Clark than Colston/Bowe (avail in 3rd) to Royal/Edwards. I have Rodgers 4th but don't have a problem with the pick. Gonzo was a Huge reach.

No offense, but that's also why it's Norton's draft and not yours. Just because YOU see it that way doesn't mean he does. Did you consider that he might view Gonzo as head & shoulders above the rest? In fact, if you read the thread and his explanation, he clearly states that he has Gonzo alone in tier 1. Not saying that this year is going to mirror last year, but if he made this decision last year he would have been 100% correct in doing so. Gonzo outscored other TEs by a significant margin. He was in a tier by himself. He's done it other times in his career. It's not unfathomable for him to do it again.So again, just because YOU or others think there is a closer line between Gonzo and other TE's doesn't mean he does. Likewise, just because YOU and others view a larger difference between Brees/Brady and Rodgers doesn't mean he does. We all have players that we differ substantially from consensus rankings/projections and we may be seeing 2 guys of his that fall in that category.

Personally, I have certain guys like P. Thomas and A. Bryant significantly higher than most and I would probably receive the same criticism if you see me taking AB at ~WR15. But, that's where I have him ranked.

Now, if you want to discuss the fact that he likely could have waited and still landed those guys, that's a completely different story. However, given his position in the draft, there was a very reasonable likelihood he would have missed out on one or both. He's explained that as his reasoning. It's not faulty reasoning even if YOU or others don't agree. I initially thought they were terrible picks. I read his explanation. I no longer think so. Even though I'm actually in agreement with you in that I see the top tier of TE's much closer together, I can understand if someone views him as in a tier by himself and didn't want to miss out. He said he does. That easily justifies his pick and makes sense.

ETA--You mentioned that you have Rodgers 4th so you don't have a problem with the pick. So essentially, because his ranking/projection is similar to yours, then you're ok with it. Let's assume that you have Rodgers ranked 10th. Would you still have been ok with the pick or you would have had a much bigger problem with it because it didn't coincide with your rankings? Are your rankings more correct than Norton's? The bottomline is that the issue should NOT be where he has these guys ranked. If you want to discuss the draft itself, a better discussion would be whether or not he still could have gotten these guys at the 4/5 turn. In other words, his mistake shouldn't be where he has these guys ranked. His mistake could be taking these guys earlier than he had to. Rodgers likely wouldn't have made it. Gonzo is 50/50 to me. But, given that he said he has him ranked ALONE in a tier by himself at the very top, there's no margin for error if he's wrong. It would be a different story if he had 3-4 TE's ranked that high.

With all do respect I think "YOU" have a read comprehension problem. Yes, this was MY opinion, I thought that was what this thread was about, "opinions" on the FBG draft selections. If this thread was about if HE drafted the guys HE liked, then it would be a short thread.YOU totally missed my point about Rodgers, DESPITE having Rodgers ranked differently than me, I thought the pick was reasonable because the likelihood of a top 5 QB lasting till the next pick was pretty slim. However, the likelihood of a top TE being there was much greater. If he had C.Cooley ranked as the #1 TE, should he not get criticized?

 

[gianmarco]

Dallas Clark would have been available in the 5th. To me Gonzo is closer to Clark than Colston/Bowe (avail in 3rd) to Royal/Edwards. I have Rodgers 4th but don't have a problem with the pick. Gonzo was a Huge reach.

No offense, but that's also why it's Norton's draft and not yours. Just because YOU see it that way doesn't mean he does. Did you consider that he might view Gonzo as head & shoulders above the rest? In fact, if you read the thread and his explanation, he clearly states that he has Gonzo alone in tier 1. Not saying that this year is going to mirror last year, but if he made this decision last year he would have been 100% correct in doing so. Gonzo outscored other TEs by a significant margin. He was in a tier by himself. He's done it other times in his career. It's not unfathomable for him to do it again.So again, just because YOU or others think there is a closer line between Gonzo and other TE's doesn't mean he does. Likewise, just because YOU and others view a larger difference between Brees/Brady and Rodgers doesn't mean he does. We all have players that we differ substantially from consensus rankings/projections and we may be seeing 2 guys of his that fall in that category.

Personally, I have certain guys like P. Thomas and A. Bryant significantly higher than most and I would probably receive the same criticism if you see me taking AB at ~WR15. But, that's where I have him ranked.

Now, if you want to discuss the fact that he likely could have waited and still landed those guys, that's a completely different story. However, given his position in the draft, there was a very reasonable likelihood he would have missed out on one or both. He's explained that as his reasoning. It's not faulty reasoning even if YOU or others don't agree. I initially thought they were terrible picks. I read his explanation. I no longer think so. Even though I'm actually in agreement with you in that I see the top tier of TE's much closer together, I can understand if someone views him as in a tier by himself and didn't want to miss out. He said he does. That easily justifies his pick and makes sense.

ETA--You mentioned that you have Rodgers 4th so you don't have a problem with the pick. So essentially, because his ranking/projection is similar to yours, then you're ok with it. Let's assume that you have Rodgers ranked 10th. Would you still have been ok with the pick or you would have had a much bigger problem with it because it didn't coincide with your rankings? Are your rankings more correct than Norton's? The bottomline is that the issue should NOT be where he has these guys ranked. If you want to discuss the draft itself, a better discussion would be whether or not he still could have gotten these guys at the 4/5 turn. In other words, his mistake shouldn't be where he has these guys ranked. His mistake could be taking these guys earlier than he had to. Rodgers likely wouldn't have made it. Gonzo is 50/50 to me. But, given that he said he has him ranked ALONE in a tier by himself at the very top, there's no margin for error if he's wrong. It would be a different story if he had 3-4 TE's ranked that high.

With all do respect I think "YOU" have a read comprehension problem. Yes, this was MY opinion, I thought that was what this thread was about, "opinions" on the FBG draft selections. If this thread was about if HE drafted the guys HE liked, then it would be a short thread.YOU totally missed my point about Rodgers, DESPITE having Rodgers ranked differently than me, I thought the pick was reasonable because the likelihood of a top 5 QB lasting till the next pick was pretty slim. However, the likelihood of a top TE being there was much greater. If he had C.Cooley ranked as the #1 TE, should he not get criticized?

You clearly stated that Dallas Clark would have been there in the 5th. You then stated that you saw the difference between Gonzo and Clark is less than the difference between the WR's. Thus, the implication is that he should have waited because of how YOU viewed the TE's. This is not taking into account how HE views the TE's. If he doesn't view Clark and Gonzo the same, then no, he shouldn't have waited. So, my reading comprehension is fine. What's happening is that you are confusing 2 issues. Here are 2 issues that I think are legit issues to argue about.

1. His TE rankings

2. Whether or not the players he selected at 2/3 would have been available at 4/5.

What you should NOT be putting down is that he should have waited based on YOUR rankings. It's a pretty clear distinction. So, it's obvious you see Clark as closer to Gonzo than he does. That's fine. It's a valid argument. But, that doesn't mean he drafted incorrectly since he doesn't view it that way. You shouldn't be saying "you should have waited because your TE rankings are wrong". Those are HIS rankings and he drafted properly according to HIS rankings.

So, you want to debate his rankings, go ahead. You want to debate whether or not GONZO would have been available in the 4th/5th? Sure. But to debate that he should have waited because CLARK would have been available is combining two separate issues. He didn't draft poorly since he went by his rankings. He simply ranked poorly (according to you). If he used your rankings to draft, then I agree he probably drafted poorly as well.

 

[TheAssassin]

Okay, I think he drafted perfectly for his ratings and his strategy. It doesn't appear he clicked the mouse button incorrectly at all.

END OF THREAD

 

[Bri]

The poker tangent isn't a tangent, its a parallel.

FF is unique, many of us love that about the hobby.Any game that involves risk and planning has similarities but I don't believe anything is parallel not even fantasy hoops.

 

[Truman]

Any explanation amongst this flame war as to why John Norton has TG ranked a tier ahead of every other TE? Falcons will still be a running team with an improved defense this year, his targets are sure to drop.

Rodgers I can see an argument for (though I do think the Pack's D will be improved), and if you have 5 guys in the same tier and are trying to start a run, it makes sense to take the lowest ranked one who opponents wont see on the same level.

 

[Jersey35]

Can't believe I read through 4 pages of this nonsense.

Seems to me that Norton has done EXACTLY what he should be doing - giving folks an opportunity to see a different approach to a draft and providing a reasonable (and educational) explanation for choices that seem (at first) out-of-place.

I can easily imagine someone never having visited FBG's seeing the picks and coming to visit out of curiosity, stumbling across this mess of a thread, and possibly (if the bickering, hate, and bull-headedness of some posters don't scare them away first) come across John's reason for making these picks. Perhaps they'll learn something.

Perhaps they'll learn how and when to think about reaching for guys that they feel they need to get. Perhaps it will be that they'll give some extra thought to the unique position they are in when at the bookends of a draft. Or maybe, just maybe, they'll learn a little about diversification of risk in multiple fantasy football leagues - something they might not ever have considered before.

It's clear that some of the largest critics of John in this thread are doing so because his stated reason for the Rodgers pick was to diversify risk. Seems to me that's as legitimate a strategy to discuss and implement as any other - why shouldn't it be demonstrated and explained on this site?

 

[HellToupee]

4 pages of circling the wagons, rump swab fanboys, unfair bashing & honest questions

 

[gianmarco]

Can't believe I read through 4 pages of this nonsense. Seems to me that Norton has done EXACTLY what he should be doing - giving folks an opportunity to see a different approach to a draft and providing a reasonable (and educational) explanation for choices that seem (at first) out-of-place.I can easily imagine someone never having visited FBG's seeing the picks and coming to visit out of curiosity, stumbling across this mess of a thread, and possibly (if the bickering, hate, and bull-headedness of some posters don't scare them away first) come across John's reason for making these picks. Perhaps they'll learn something.Perhaps they'll learn how and when to think about reaching for guys that they feel they need to get. Perhaps it will be that they'll give some extra thought to the unique position they are in when at the bookends of a draft. Or maybe, just maybe, they'll learn a little about diversification of risk in multiple fantasy football leagues - something they might not ever have considered before.It's clear that some of the largest critics of John in this thread are doing so because his stated reason for the Rodgers pick was to diversify risk. Seems to me that's as legitimate a strategy to discuss and implement as any other - why shouldn't it be demonstrated and explained on this site?

 

[Sinrman]

Not going to read all the replies... but have read John's reasoning. Eh, I can see it somewhat. I do agree with everyone though that picking first isn't always that great, as it is very difficult to predict picks at the turn the rest of the draft.

I have to admit, my first impression was like most everyone else. Tony G at the end of the 2nd, when no other TEs had been taken? WTF?! But the more I look at it, the more I'm comfortable with it. I personally wouldn't have done it. I would have taken the chance that a top TE would still be available to me at the 4th/5th round turn. But Tony G will get you as many points as a top 10-15 WR, so it's not a huge stretch. And as John pointed out, he's set at that position for a long, long time now. What it hurts him in, however, is WR, having taken a QB at 3.01. He's going to have some middle-of-the-road WRs by the time it gets back around to him. Same with RB #2. He's going to need to get some serious value and be absolutely sure with his next two picks.

The Rodgers pick, I also have to admit, I was thinking WTF #2?! Rodgers before Brees? Brady? Manning? I personally wouldn't have done it, as I would have waited until the 4th/5th round turn. But again, I can understand John's reasoning. Rodgers was not far off from being the top QB last year. And that was only his first year in that offense, as the starter. I think this year will be even better, so it's not that big of a stretch.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Can't believe I read through 4 pages of this nonsense. Seems to me that Norton has done EXACTLY what he should be doing - giving folks an opportunity to see a different approach to a draft and providing a reasonable (and educational) explanation for choices that seem (at first) out-of-place.I can easily imagine someone never having visited FBG's seeing the picks and coming to visit out of curiosity, stumbling across this mess of a thread, and possibly (if the bickering, hate, and bull-headedness of some posters don't scare them away first) come across John's reason for making these picks. Perhaps they'll learn something.Perhaps they'll learn how and when to think about reaching for guys that they feel they need to get. Perhaps it will be that they'll give some extra thought to the unique position they are in when at the bookends of a draft. Or maybe, just maybe, they'll learn a little about diversification of risk in multiple fantasy football leagues - something they might not ever have considered before.It's clear that some of the largest critics of John in this thread are doing so because his stated reason for the Rodgers pick was to diversify risk. Seems to me that's as legitimate a strategy to discuss and implement as any other - why shouldn't it be demonstrated and explained on this site?

if going in it is understood that he is taking the "diversify risks approach"...then there are no problems with his picks...awesome picks in fact....I don't think many people in that expert league or the ones using that draft to help them see how things may go are taking that approach or really care that he is in a bunch of other leagues....but who cares.....I take back everything I posted earlier because now I know this is a draft about how to diversify your picks amongst a bunch of drafts......good luck John

 

[Truman]

What it hurts him in, however, is WR, having taken a QB at 3.01. He's going to have some middle-of-the-road WRs by the time it gets back around to him. Same with RB #2. He's going to need to get some serious value and be absolutely sure with his next two picks.

Eddie Royal and Braylon Edwards....Mission Accomplished.Still no RB2.....Ray Rice? Joesph Addai? Marshawn Lynch?

 

[G5781]

I find it funny that if some random poster on the message board posted the same draft results, 95% of the replies would be similar to "I wish you were in my league" or "You’re an idiot". But since this is a contributor to the website, people are trying to find ways to justify the selections when deep down if this was a poster or someone in your league, they would be subject to extreme ridicule. I just think that if the drafters name was anonymous in this thread, there would be far fewer supporting replies of his strategy.

 

[ScottyFargo]

I just can't be down with taking a TE that early.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I think Gonzo in the 2nd will disappoint, but this has got to be the most hilarious pick in the draft, so far......

4.4 FantasyFootball.com - Willis, Patrick

That must be a guy who has never played IDP, and didn't know this was going to be an IDP draft 'til the 3rd round.

Or maybe Patrick's mom.

 

[corpcow]

I think Gonzo in the 2nd will disappoint, but this has got to be the most hilarious pick in the draft, so far......

4.4 FantasyFootball.com - Willis, Patrick

That must be a guy who has never played IDP, and didn't know this was going to be an IDP draft 'til the 3rd round.

Or maybe Patrick's mom.

Definitely a little early, but then again we don't have the full scoring. I am in some leagues where LBs are in the top 30 overall... I'm in others where they are the equivalent of a WR3/WR4.

 

[corpcow]

I think Gonzo in the 2nd will disappoint, but this has got to be the most hilarious pick in the draft, so far......

4.4 FantasyFootball.com - Willis, Patrick

That must be a guy who has never played IDP, and didn't know this was going to be an IDP draft 'til the 3rd round.

Or maybe Patrick's mom.

Definitely a little early, but then again we don't have the full scoring. I am in some leagues where LBs are in the top 30 overall... I'm in others where they are the equivalent of a WR3/WR4. That said, Willis is my top IDP right now, especially in a tackle heavy league.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I think Gonzo in the 2nd will disappoint, but this has got to be the most hilarious pick in the draft, so far......

4.4 FantasyFootball.com - Willis, Patrick

That must be a guy who has never played IDP, and didn't know this was going to be an IDP draft 'til the 3rd round.

Or maybe Patrick's mom.

Definitely a little early, but then again we don't have the full scoring. I am in some leagues where LBs are in the top 30 overall... I'm in others where they are the equivalent of a WR3/WR4.

That is beside the point -- it's a question of scarcity.Willis is probably a top 10 IDP, but he's not the dominant player at his position that Brady and Moss were at theirs in '07.

There will be players available 10 rounds later who are nearly as good.

 

[ICON211]

Pretty funny when guys talk about how many trophies they have on their mantle then reveal that they play in like 15 leagues.

 

[ScottNorwood]

good thread

 

[Zoomanji]

Pretty funny when guys talk about how many trophies they have on their mantle then reveal that they play in like 15 leagues.

Not nearly as funny as the idea that they actually put them on their mantle for all to see.Tells grandson: " And this one is from back in '09 when I went QB/TE in the 2nd & 3rd and they all thought I was a fool".

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Can't believe I read through 4 pages of this nonsense. Seems to me that Norton has done EXACTLY what he should be doing - giving folks an opportunity to see a different approach to a draft and providing a reasonable (and educational) explanation for choices that seem (at first) out-of-place.I can easily imagine someone never having visited FBG's seeing the picks and coming to visit out of curiosity, stumbling across this mess of a thread, and possibly (if the bickering, hate, and bull-headedness of some posters don't scare them away first) come across John's reason for making these picks. Perhaps they'll learn something.Perhaps they'll learn how and when to think about reaching for guys that they feel they need to get. Perhaps it will be that they'll give some extra thought to the unique position they are in when at the bookends of a draft. Or maybe, just maybe, they'll learn a little about diversification of risk in multiple fantasy football leagues - something they might not ever have considered before.It's clear that some of the largest critics of John in this thread are doing so because his stated reason for the Rodgers pick was to diversify risk. Seems to me that's as legitimate a strategy to discuss and implement as any other - why shouldn't it be demonstrated and explained on this site?

if going in it is understood that he is taking the "diversify risks approach"...then there are no problems with his picks...awesome picks in fact....I don't think many people in that expert league or the ones using that draft to help them see how things may go are taking that approach or really care that he is in a bunch of other leagues....but who cares.....I take back everything I posted earlier because now I know this is a draft about how to diversify your picks amongst a bunch of drafts......good luck John

I think John's explanation of his Rodgers pick assumes a basic understanding of the practice of tiering, which appears to be a more elusive concept than I would imagine.

 

[TheDemon]

Tells grandson: " And this one is from back in '09 when I went QB/TE in the 2nd & 3rd and they all thought I was a fool".

 

[Binky The Doormat]

Poor, Mark. Guy probably had nothing to do with this..."Wow the guy drafting for footballguys is clearly a jabrone and should be fired ASAP. If I had to guess it would be Mark Wimer, I could spot that guy 2 picks per round and still field a better team than him."

It's not me, but I will point out that I won my Fantasy Sports Trade Association leagues 2 years in a row (2006 and 2007, didn't play last year) - I beat Howard Kamen from USA Today and Matthew Berry from ESPN during 2007. So folks can throw all the mud they want, I've got the trophies on my mantle. LOL. Unlike all the guys who took Steven Jackson in the top 5 last year. LMAO.

Yes Mark, I too have a fairly big mantle that is running out of room. But then what do we know?

Wow, sensitive are we?I wish you the best of luck. However, I think both the Rodgers and Gonzalez picks were flat out bad.Rodgers - I'm not a proponent of waiting on a QB. If the draft falls out to where I end up with Brees, Brady, Manning, Rodgers early, so be it. My problem with this pick is that you stated "I have Brady/Brees on my other FF teams and wanted to diversify..." Seems silly to me; If I have Brady ranked as my #1 QB, I take him over any other QB if he is available. If you had said I think Rodgers will be the #1 B at the end of this year, I would have no issue with the pick.Gonzalez - Slice and dice it any way you want, but you picked a TE at the 24th pick in a league where only 12 are needed to start each week, but a total of 24 RBs and 36 WRs are starting every week. Yeah, you may not have gotten him in the 4th/5th, but you have now put yourself at a serious disadvantage in a league where RBs and WRs would seem to have far higher value. Good luck getting your RB2 and 3 WRs in round 4-8. Had you taken Jacobs/Bowe... instead of Rodgers, this might not have looked so bad.Sorry, but I just don't see the value in going QB/TE in a league with this roster format when your next picks are 48 and 49.

No offense, but I have all the FBGs on ignore for their ratings with the exception of Dodds/Joe, Sigmond and Matt Waldman. There are some crazy mofo's in the rest of the bunch ...though MT would be the next I may pull off my ignore list on the rankings.

 

[smackdaddies]

Poor, Mark. Guy probably had nothing to do with this..."Wow the guy drafting for footballguys is clearly a jabrone and should be fired ASAP. If I had to guess it would be Mark Wimer, I could spot that guy 2 picks per round and still field a better team than him."

It's not me, but I will point out that I won my Fantasy Sports Trade Association leagues 2 years in a row (2006 and 2007, didn't play last year) - I beat Howard Kamen from USA Today and Matthew Berry from ESPN during 2007. So folks can throw all the mud they want, I've got the trophies on my mantle. LOL. Unlike all the guys who took Steven Jackson in the top 5 last year. LMAO.

I resemble that remark

 

[BR33ZE]

Do TE's get 1.5 per reception?

 

[footballsavvy]

I don't get why the site that took Steve Slaton over Adrian Peterson isn't taking more heat on this.Calvin Johnson at #7 overall? 5 WRs in the 1st round and 6 of the top 13 players?Seems like quite a few strange picks going on here. Also pretty unusual for there to be 9 WRs off the board by the time the 2.12 pick comes up, even in a straight PPR scoring system.Plenty of reasons not to like Jacobs or Grant at the 2/3 turn. At that point, John likely had to choose between the 10th best WR or grabbing the #1 QB or #1 TE. I probably would have made sure to grab at least 1 WR at that turn, but taking the #1 QB or #1 TE isn't very unusual at all. I don't get the hate for Gonzo either.

You hit is on the head Aaron. The reason I didn't take the 10th WR is that there were so many of them in my next tier that I'm banking on at least one of them coming back to me. FWIW, Gates just went off the boad at 4.6, so the TE run is probably on. Neither Rodgers nor Gonzo was going to make it back to me. And why exactly is it that everyone is so down on the top TE in the game? I just don't understand the though process of those who want to make this sound like such a horrible decision?

Horrible because he is not in the best TE system in the game. No other elite TE is playing in a system so set against using the TE in a weapon. I would have gone witten, Gates, or Olsen before Gonzo. I personally do not think Gonzo has any chance of finishing in the top 12.

 

[corpcow]

Poor, Mark. Guy probably had nothing to do with this..."Wow the guy drafting for footballguys is clearly a jabrone and should be fired ASAP. If I had to guess it would be Mark Wimer, I could spot that guy 2 picks per round and still field a better team than him."

It's not me, but I will point out that I won my Fantasy Sports Trade Association leagues 2 years in a row (2006 and 2007, didn't play last year) - I beat Howard Kamen from USA Today and Matthew Berry from ESPN during 2007. So folks can throw all the mud they want, I've got the trophies on my mantle. LOL. Unlike all the guys who took Steven Jackson in the top 5 last year. LMAO.

There are classier ways to deal with the haters. (Especially when, if I recall correctly, S.Jax probably would havebeen in the top 5 in FBG rankings.....)

 

[TheAssassin]

I don't get why the site that took Steve Slaton over Adrian Peterson isn't taking more heat on this.Calvin Johnson at #7 overall? 5 WRs in the 1st round and 6 of the top 13 players?Seems like quite a few strange picks going on here. Also pretty unusual for there to be 9 WRs off the board by the time the 2.12 pick comes up, even in a straight PPR scoring system.Plenty of reasons not to like Jacobs or Grant at the 2/3 turn. At that point, John likely had to choose between the 10th best WR or grabbing the #1 QB or #1 TE. I probably would have made sure to grab at least 1 WR at that turn, but taking the #1 QB or #1 TE isn't very unusual at all. I don't get the hate for Gonzo either.

You hit is on the head Aaron. The reason I didn't take the 10th WR is that there were so many of them in my next tier that I'm banking on at least one of them coming back to me. FWIW, Gates just went off the boad at 4.6, so the TE run is probably on. Neither Rodgers nor Gonzo was going to make it back to me. And why exactly is it that everyone is so down on the top TE in the game? I just don't understand the though process of those who want to make this sound like such a horrible decision?

Horrible because he is not in the best TE system in the game. No other elite TE is playing in a system so set against using the TE in a weapon. I would have gone witten, Gates, or Olsen before Gonzo. I personally do not think Gonzo has any chance of finishing in the top 12.

Are they allowing opinions again in this thread, if so, I agree w/Witten and Gates, possibly Dallas Clark. Atlanta was DEAD last in TE fantasy points, now they're going to be 1st? Don't see it but it is possible just like taking a card at 18 and drawing a 3 for 21.

 

[gianmarco]

I don't get why the site that took Steve Slaton over Adrian Peterson isn't taking more heat on this.Calvin Johnson at #7 overall? 5 WRs in the 1st round and 6 of the top 13 players?Seems like quite a few strange picks going on here. Also pretty unusual for there to be 9 WRs off the board by the time the 2.12 pick comes up, even in a straight PPR scoring system.Plenty of reasons not to like Jacobs or Grant at the 2/3 turn. At that point, John likely had to choose between the 10th best WR or grabbing the #1 QB or #1 TE. I probably would have made sure to grab at least 1 WR at that turn, but taking the #1 QB or #1 TE isn't very unusual at all. I don't get the hate for Gonzo either.

You hit is on the head Aaron. The reason I didn't take the 10th WR is that there were so many of them in my next tier that I'm banking on at least one of them coming back to me. FWIW, Gates just went off the boad at 4.6, so the TE run is probably on. Neither Rodgers nor Gonzo was going to make it back to me. And why exactly is it that everyone is so down on the top TE in the game? I just don't understand the though process of those who want to make this sound like such a horrible decision?

Horrible because he is not in the best TE system in the game. No other elite TE is playing in a system so set against using the TE in a weapon. I would have gone witten, Gates, or Olsen before Gonzo. I personally do not think Gonzo has any chance of finishing in the top 12.

Are they allowing opinions again in this thread, if so, I agree w/Witten and Gates, possibly Dallas Clark. Atlanta was DEAD last in TE fantasy points, now they're going to be 1st? Don't see it but it is possible just like taking a card at 18 and drawing a 3 for 21.

How did SD TE's do before Gates?How did Clev TE's do before Winslow?How did Wash TE's do before Cooley?How do you think KC TE's are going to do this year?You do realize that looking at how Atlanta TE's did last year with guys like Hartsock leading the charge is probably not a good baseline to figure what future HOFer Tony Gonzalez is gonna do, right?

 

[lyon812]

I can't imagine them trading for Gonzalez because they didn't plan on using him. A lot.

 

[TheAssassin]

I like the straw man arguments that I'm saying that Gonzales won't be used much. I'm just saying to think that the team that TOTALLY IGNORED the position, is all of a sudden going to seamlessly integrate Gonzo into "ALL TE! ALL THE TIME!" So much so that you are SURE that Gonzo is going to be far and away the #1 TE. Seriously?

WASH was #21 in TE in Cooley's 1st year

Cleveland was #19 in TE before Winslow and moved up to #3 (not #1)

San Diego was #6 in the year before Gates

If you think Gonzo is #1 great, I still think he's top 5 but to put him #1 TE and 2nd round is questionable at best when his team/QB ignored the position before.

 

[Twilight]

I like the straw man arguments that I'm saying that Gonzales won't be used much. I'm just saying to think that the team that TOTALLY IGNORED the position, is all of a sudden going to seamlessly integrate Gonzo into "ALL TE! ALL THE TIME!" So much so that you are SURE that Gonzo is going to be far and away the #1 TE. Seriously?WASH was #21 in TE in Cooley's 1st yearCleveland was #19 in TE before Winslow and moved up to #3 (not #1)San Diego was #6 in the year before GatesIf you think Gonzo is #1 great, I still think he's top 5 but to put him #1 TE and 2nd round is questionable at best when his team/QB ignored the position before.

OK, how about a HOF TE switching teams. Baltimore's top 2 TE's in 1999 combined: 24 recs, 154 yds 1TD. (7th and 8th in rec's on the team)Sharpe in 2000: 67 recs 810 yds 5 TDs. Good for #2 TE for the year. (#1 on the team)Do I think Gonzo will be #1? Actually, no I don't. Do I think it's dumb to consider it? I think it's dumber to dismiss it out of hand.

 

[TheAssassin]

I like the straw man arguments that I'm saying that Gonzales won't be used much. I'm just saying to think that the team that TOTALLY IGNORED the position, is all of a sudden going to seamlessly integrate Gonzo into "ALL TE! ALL THE TIME!" So much so that you are SURE that Gonzo is going to be far and away the #1 TE. Seriously?WASH was #21 in TE in Cooley's 1st yearCleveland was #19 in TE before Winslow and moved up to #3 (not #1)San Diego was #6 in the year before GatesIf you think Gonzo is #1 great, I still think he's top 5 but to put him #1 TE and 2nd round is questionable at best when his team/QB ignored the position before.

OK, how about a HOF TE switching teams. Baltimore's top 2 TE's in 1999 combined: 24 recs, 154 yds 1TD. (7th and 8th in rec's on the team)Sharpe in 2000: 67 recs 810 yds 5 TDs. Good for #2 TE for the year. (#1 on the team)Do I think Gonzo will be #1? Actually, no I don't. Do I think it's dumb to consider it? I think it's dumber to dismiss it out of hand.

Thanks for doing some research and bringing something to the discussion (no sarcasm intended). I couldn't remember a top 3 TE switching teams. I didn't call it "dumb" just said it was questionable at best and I (and most others) don't see him being #1 or 24th pick worthy. Plain and simple. I like Tony G, and hope he has a great season but he won't be on my teams unless he's there late in the 5th. His ADP is 53rd.

 

[cst2006]

"Tony Gonzalez admits he is still "uncomfortable" in the Falcons' offense and is doing more blocking than ever before.

Gonzo caught just one pass for seven yards in the preseason opener. "You get in a whole new system, I'm blocking more at the point of attack, I have different route-running schemes and I'm working with a new quarterback," he said. "You either adapt to it or you don't." Expect Gonzalez's numbers to drop dramatically this season. Let someone else take him on draft day. "

Huge reach.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Gonzo is highly overrated by people chasing last year's stats.

 

[gianmarco]

Gonzo is highly overrated by people chasing the last 10 year's stats.

Fixed

 

[greyone]

John Norton,

Can you please post your team? Or the leagues rosters?

Evans bosses appear to have put the clamps on the content.

 

[joffer]

I would have gone witten, Gates, or Olsen before Gonzo. I personally do not think Gonzo has any chance of finishing in the top 12.

had to quote this one

 

[Zoomanji]

John Norton,

Can you please post your team? Or the leagues rosters?

Evans bosses appear to have put the clamps on the content.

http://football3.myfantasyleague.com/2009/...=45898&O=17

 

[None_More_Black]

Should have taken McFadden instead of Royal IMO.

 

[John Norton]

I'm sure none of you have been keeping track of this story since you finished bashing my strategy back in August. Just thought I would throw out an update since we are approaching the mid season point. Granted there is a long way to go and nothing has been won or lost yet, but I have to like where things have gone thus far...

http://www3.myfantasyleague.com/2009/home/45898

Good luck all,

 

[Rushmore]

I'm sure none of you have been keeping track of this story since you finished bashing my strategy back in August. Just thought I would throw out an update since we are approaching the mid season point. Granted there is a long way to go and nothing has been won or lost yet, but I have to like where things have gone thus far...

http://www3.myfantasyleague.com/2009/home/45898

Good luck all,

Lol...Very nice John

 

[mojuyt]

 

[smackdaddies]

I'm sure none of you have been keeping track of this story since you finished bashing my strategy back in August. Just thought I would throw out an update since we are approaching the mid season point. Granted there is a long way to go and nothing has been won or lost yet, but I have to like where things have gone thus far...

http://www3.myfantasyleague.com/2009/home/45898

Good luck all,

I think the term is "scoreboard"

You had some key free agency pick ups too - Sims/Walker, Finley, Cushing

 

[Banger]

I'm sure none of you have been keeping track of this story since you finished bashing my strategy back in August. Just thought I would throw out an update since we are approaching the mid season point. Granted there is a long way to go and nothing has been won or lost yet, but I have to like where things have gone thus far...

http://www3.myfantasyleague.com/2009/home/45898

Good luck all,

Awesome. Good for you. I always love the pointless over analysis of drafts. Only time will tell and so far so good for you. Kudos.

 

[Knobs]

Though if he wins the thing people will say what a genius he is, and if he flames out he'll be an idiot.

Nice job, genius.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

That draft still sucks

the 8th ranked TE at 2.12 is not good value (downright horrendous)

the 7th ranked QB at 3.01 is not good value

the 46th and 54th ranked WRs in the 4th and 5th picks were not good value

of the 5 rounds posted on the original link, rounds 2-5 are atrocious.

(although, FBG caught a break in Edwards going to the Jets, so that may pan out to be an OK pick)

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

That draft still sucks

is it possible for a draft to "suck" and wind up 6-0 and leading the league in points at the midpoint of the season?

 

[lyon812]

That draft still sucks

the 8th ranked TE at 2.12 is not good value (downright horrendous)

the 7th ranked QB at 3.01 is not good value

the 46th and 54th ranked WRs in the 4th and 5th picks were not good value

of the 5 rounds posted on the original link, rounds 2-5 are atrocious.

One thing to note about Rodgers is that the top 4 quarterbacks haven't had a bye week yet. If you sort by average, Rodgers is QB3 at 21.908. Brees is 2nd at 21.960 and Manning 1st (22.700). So, the 3rd ranked QB at 3.01? Good value.Regarding the rest of the draft, it's easy to cherrypick and say "well, this guy's picks were horrible." However, if you look through the first four rounds, there are a lot of people who made picks that in hindsight we can call "atrocious". No one anticipated Royal falling off a cliff. Few people would have drafted Heath Miller, Winslow, or Celek ahead of Gonzalez. Even if you differ with picks 2-5, FBG nailed rounds 6-8 with Benson, Ward, and Hester.

In fact, let's take a gander at the first 7 rounds of everyone's draft. First is the record, then the draft spot (FBG drafted 1st and 12th in alternating rounds, hence the 1-12), then the picks, in order.

6-0 --The 1-12 (FBG): MJD, Gonzalez, Rodgers, Royal, BEdwards, Benson, HiWard

5-1--The 11-2 (FFToday): RaMoss, Turner, Manning, Ochocinco, Addai, Lynch, JaAllen

5-1--The 12-1 (Huddle): Wayne, SSmith, Houshmandzadeh, R. Bush, Ruud, DJ Williams, Olsen

4-2--The 2-11 (Sports Grumblings) : Slaton, R Brown, Welker, RoyWilliams, L. Moore. T. Jones, D. Mason.

3-3--The 8-5 (RotoWire): CaJohnson, Gore, PThomas, Marshall, McFadden, Holmes, DeRyans

3-3--The 9-4 (Fantasyfootball.com): Tomlinson, Portis, Brady, Willis, Beason, D'QJackson, Daniels

2-4--The 3-10 (Fantasy Insights) : Fitz, White, Brees, DeWard, Clark, Rice, Dansby

2-4--The 4-9 (KFFL) : Peterson, DeWilliams, Colston, DeJackson, Moreno, SMoss, Schaub

2-4--The 7-6 (USA Today): AJ, Jennings, Grant, Gates, LJ, Warner, Mayo

2-4--The 10-3 (FantasyGuru): ChJohnson, Westbrook, Owens, ViJackson, Rivers, FJones, Walter

1-5--The 5-8 (FF Mastermind): Forte, Boldin, Jacobs, Witten, AnGonzalez, McNabb, Vilma

1-5--The 6-7 (Rotoworld): StJackson, Barber, Bowe, KSmith, Evans, Cotchery, Romo

I bolded ones that stood out as subpar performers. I should probably bold the pick of Slaton at 1.02, but at least he's T10 in ppg. Seriously, almost every team has "atrocious" picks. Part of fantasy football is expecting that, and making up for it in later rounds.