matttyl
Footballguy
You think each can be top 15ish on this list right out of the gate?BigTex said:Depending on where they land and the scheme the Big 3 coming in are going to shake this ranking up!
Grab one or two if you can!
Tex
You think each can be top 15ish on this list right out of the gate?BigTex said:Depending on where they land and the scheme the Big 3 coming in are going to shake this ranking up!
Grab one or two if you can!
Tex
As far as dynasty rankings, id take a couple of the rookies as high as 6-7 judging by this list.You think each can be top 15ish on this list right out of the gate?
They certainly have the capability, I'm buying hard on two of the three. There's at least seven in this draft that can start year 1 or year 2 and be successful but time will tell. We still don't know the football I.Q. On some of these guys.You think each can be top 15ish on this list right out of the gate?
Yep, I currently have the 8th, 10th-13th picks and if they are still there I'm all in. I've seen enough already to buy in.As far as dynasty rankings, id take a couple of the rookies as high as 6-7 judging by this list.
Oh come on, we're all friends here....They certainly have the capability, I'm buying hard on two of the three. There's at least seven in this draft that can start year 1 or year 2 and be successful but time will tell. We still don't know the football I.Q. On some of these guys.
Tex
You wouldn't trade him for Gronk?BigSteelThrill said:As funny as this for me to say... Hunter Henry needs to be higher. Just don't see myself trading him for any other TE straight-up in dynasty.
*no, I don't own him in any fantasy leagues.
I don't think so. I believe the collective community would still be talking about his drops and lack of TDs.The collective community would be looking at him differently if he had hit those marks.
I do, the original owner dropped him during the season and I gladly picked him up to see where this goes. The concern with Higbee is that Lance is entering the 3rd year of his 4 year contract.Curious about your feelings on Higbee. He showed some quick learning in preseason with Goff just didn't really get any opportunity once the season rolled around. Do you think he's a going to grow into something reliable?
Not sure about that. A 23 year old getting ~900 yards receiving as a TE? Outside of Gronk when has that ever happened? That said, I think ~5 or 6 right now is about right.I don't think so. I believe the collective community would still be talking about his drops and lack of TDs.
I'm not arguing with you. I plan to take advantage of the sour taste that people have in their mouths. I'm just saying that the haters are going to be behind the curve on this one.Not sure about that. A 23 year old getting ~900 yards receiving as a TE? Outside of Gronk when has that ever happened? That said, I think ~5 or 6 right now is about right.
Fully agree with you. My team is littered with players like that. Watkins and Allen at WR (entire league won't touch them because they are injury prone). Same with Jordan Reed. Ingram. Jeremy Hill. Rawls. Haters gonna hate.I'm not arguing with you. I plan to take advantage of the sour taste that people have in their mouths. I'm just saying that the haters are going to be behind the curve on this one.
Agree due to his age/growth you laid out previously and with respect to the drops sure he has those, he also has a high career catch rate.Not sure about that. A 23 year old getting ~900 yards receiving as a TE? Outside of Gronk when has that ever happened? That said, I think ~5 or 6 right now is about right.
Minor quibble, but mildly surprised that Eifert is in a lower tier than Reed and Kelce.2 2 Travis Kelce KC 27.9 (4)
2 3 Jordan Reed WAS 27.2 (3)
3 4 Tyler Eifert CIN 27.0 (2)
So I'm curious what drives you to the tier difference for Eifert. Eifert has clearly missed a lot more games, but he has generally been as good or better than Kelce when he played, and his injuries seem less concerning for long term than Reed's injuries (or at least no worse).I'm more concerned about bad play than I am about injuries, especially at TE where fantasy value is so top-heavy. Upside matters a lot.
Well I can't speak for ZWK, but Eifert's numbers are TD dependent over a time period not long enough to guarantee that's dependable for him. It's essentially been slightly over one season's worth of games. TDs are by far the most variable stat we're talking about here so I'll take the guy who would still be a top 3 TE without them over the guy who needs them just to crack the top 20.So I'm curious what drives you to the tier difference for Eifert. Eifert has clearly missed a lot more games, but he has generally been as good or better than Kelce when he played, and his injuries seem less concerning for long term than Reed's injuries (or at least no worse).
It's a minor difference, just curious on rationale.
I understand that most would agree that Eifert has struggled to stay on the field, and some would view his upside no better (and perhaps lower) than both Reed and Kelce, so that combination would lead to this sort of tier break.Well I can't speak for ZWK, but Eifert's numbers are TD dependent over a time period not long enough to guarantee that's dependable for him. It's essentially been slightly over one season's worth of games. TDs are by far the most variable stat we're talking about here so I'll take the guy who would still be a top 3 TE without them over the guy who needs them just to crack the top 20.
Eifert's career high for receiving yards is 615 and career high for receptions is 52. That belongs in the same tier as a guy who just caught 85 balls for almost DOUBLE the yards as Eifert's career high? Then you consider the injury history on top of that and it just gets worse.
Not sure why you focused solely on the last little aside at the end of my post instead of the meat of it, which was his TD dependence. He needs an abnormal number of TDs just to keep pace and without them he's barely a TE1, much less a top option. TDs are quite variable and we haven't seen a long enough stretch of TD dominance yet for me to say that I'm confident he'll continue to score at that massive rate.I understand that most would agree that Eifert has struggled to stay on the field, and some would view his upside no better (and perhaps lower) than both Reed and Kelce, so that combination would lead to this sort of tier break.
I posted the question mainly because @ZWK stated he didn't care as much about injuries as about quality of play and also stated that he highly values upside. That is a perfect combination to rank Eifert very high, and he is indeed ranked #4. I just found it interesting that having him a tier lower than the other two suggested that Eifert's relative lack of track record, which in this case seems to equate to a relative lack of health, held him back in comparison to the other two.
I don't see it that way. I think he just needs a normal amount of targets and if he's healthy I think you see that. Keeping in mind last season many thought his target share would rise but he missed all of camp and even though the OC was promoted from within I think the missed camp and time impacted his ability to get more integrated into the offense.Not sure why you focused solely on the last little aside at the end of my post instead of the meat of it, which was his TD dependence. He needs an abnormal number of TDs just to keep pace and without them he's barely a TE1, much less a top option. TDs are quite variable and we haven't seen a long enough stretch of TD dominance yet for me to say that I'm confident he'll continue to score at that massive rate.
It also means he's likely much more variable game to game, though I haven't actually checked the numbers on that one.
I wouldn't be afraid to land one of the big 3 (in the right spots) even if I already had Hunter.BigTex said:Depending on where they land and the scheme the Big 3 coming in are going to shake this ranking up!
Grab one or two if you can!
Tex
I said moved up. Maybe not passed Gronk.You wouldn't trade him for Gronk?
Not sure why you think my bolded statement above doesn't encompass your comments on TD dependence. But since you crave a more detailed answer:FreeBaGeL said:Not sure why you focused solely on the last little aside at the end of my post instead of the meat of it, which was his TD dependence. He needs an abnormal number of TDs just to keep pace and without them he's barely a TE1, much less a top option. TDs are quite variable and we haven't seen a long enough stretch of TD dominance yet for me to say that I'm confident he'll continue to score at that massive rate.Just Win Baby said:I understand that most would agree that Eifert has struggled to stay on the field, and some would view his upside no better (and perhaps lower) than both Reed and Kelce, so that combination would lead to this sort of tier break.
I posted the question mainly because @ZWK stated he didn't care as much about injuries as about quality of play and also stated that he highly values upside. That is a perfect combination to rank Eifert very high, and he is indeed ranked #4. I just found it interesting that having him a tier lower than the other two suggested that Eifert's relative lack of track record, which in this case seems to equate to a relative lack of health, held him back in comparison to the other two.
Disagree.In my opinion Eifert is ranked too high.
I recall comparisons of Eifert and Rudolph as both are from ND and were drafted relatively high for their position in consecutive seasons. Most seemed to think Eifert was head and shoulders better than Rudolph was and that Eifert would gain more yardage than Rudolph whos only chance at being a top 12 TE would be if he scored double digit TD.
As it has turned out thus far, the opposite is true.
Yet Eifert is ranked 4th and Rudolph is ranked 13th>
I don't even like Rudolph that much, but these two players are in the same tier.
You make some fair points here and I'm starting to come around on Eifert a bit.Not sure why you think my bolded statement above doesn't encompass your comments on TD dependence. But since you crave a more detailed answer:
I agree that Eifert's TD rate in 2015 is almost certainly not sustainable: 13 TDs on 74 targets in 750 snaps. However, his TD rate in 2016 seems sustainable: 5 TDs on 47 targets in 428 snaps.
Eifert played 8 games in 2016, but he only played 15 snaps in his first game, coming off his offseason injury and surgery. He had 1/9/0 on 2 targets in that game. Toss those, and his other 7 games scales to 64/880/11 on 103 targets over 16 games. That would have outscored Kelce in non-PPR and trailed Kelce by about 3 total points in 1 PPR. Obviously, the issue with Eifert is whether or not he can ever play 16 games in a season (or more than 13, for that matter).
Now consider that he lost his second year and essentially his fourth year to injuries, but mixed in a third year breakout in the middle. I don't see any reason to believe we have seen his best season at this point, at age 26. It simply comes down to health.
All that said, it is perfectly reasonable to prefer Kelce. I really opened this tangent with more of a question on why Reed is ranked a tier higher, given my sense that his injuries have been more serious from a long term perspective.
Disclosure: I own Eifert in both of my dynasty leagues; in one of them I also have Kelce, and in the other I also have Henry. Maybe I am biased in favor of Eifert (and Kelce) over Reed.
My thoughts on Rudolph are that he is pretty average, but that is my opinion of Eifert as well.Disagree.
Those are the only reasonably fair comparison points, and all of them show Eifert outperforming Rudolph. Eifert has a much better ypr and TD rate. Eifert is almost a year younger, and is also arguably in a better situation.
- Rookie year (15 games each): Eifert 39/445/2 > Rudolph 26/249/3 (both 15 games)
- Second year playing = initial breakout year: Eifert 52/615/13 in 13 games > Rudolph 53/493/9 in 16 games
- Third year playing (8 games each): Eifert 29/394/5 > Rudolph 30/313/3
Rudolph is coming off a career year in his 6th season, but Eifert's rate of production was better, although close, as I posted above.
IMO the only thing Rudolph has proven over Eifert so far is the ability to stay healthier. I don't believe that Eifert's past injuries are predictive, so I don't think this is enough to close the gap between them and put them in the same tier.
I realize you are a Vikes homer, so you may have insight on Rudolph that I don't, but this is how I see that comparison. As an Eifert owner, I wouldn't consider trading him for Rudolph without a lot more value coming back to me.
I hear ya, im on board that train!I wouldn't be afraid to land one of the big 3 (in the right spots) even if I already had Hunter.
So more power to you BigTex!!!
Rudolph has also played for a worse offense that did not have the deep threat and other supporting factors that would likely have helped his overall production. I don't disagree with Rudolph being at 13 or even lower than that though.Rudolph never had more than 40 yd/g before this season. This season seemed like a Pettigrew-in-his-prime type of season, where Rudolph got a lot of targets (and a low YPT) because the team was short on options. On reflection, Rudolph should probably be on the same tier as Walker & Brate, but I think TE13 is right for him.
Eifert has one TD for every 75 receiving yards for his career, and one TD for every 79 receiving yards in 2016, both of which seem like unsustainably good rates. TD-machine Rob Gronkowski has one TD for every 90 receiving yards, and since 1988 no other player with 3500+ total receiving yards has better than one TD for every 97 receiving yards.
I said moved up. Maybe not passed Gronk.
As funny as this for me to say... Hunter Henry needs to be higher. Just don't see myself trading him for any other TE straight-up in dynasty.
Yeah I'd venture to guess its totally situation dependent.
Interested in the rationale here only because we're pretty deep down a Maxx rabbit hole over in a Mock Drafts thread. You haven't moved him down at all even after a completely lost 2016, yet it's possible (albeit not likely IMO) that he could be a camp cut.5 20 Maxx Williams BAL 23.4 (20)
Maxx Williams remains in tier 5 because he's young plus highly drafted, with a bit of a bonus because BAL doesn't have a good established starter in front of him and has gotten heavy use out of their TE in recent years. He didn't catch a pass this year, which is a negative, but it's less of a negative when it's largely due to injury. He missed much of the preseason (which put him in a bad position to do much at the start of the season), and then he got an injury in week 4 which sent him to IR.Interested in the rationale here only because we're pretty deep down a Maxx rabbit hole over in a Mock Drafts thread. You haven't moved him down at all even after a completely lost 2016, yet it's possible (albeit not likely IMO) that he could be a camp cut.
Personally I've liked the kid since he was drafted, but I've been very underwhelmed from what little I saw on the field, and now he seems to have a balky knee on top of it. Is this just a legacy of "young plus highly-drafted", is it a bet against his competition in BAL, or do you still see a TE1 ceiling from him? Would your ranking of him and other young, unproven guys like Walford and Amaro change in a TE-premium (e.g. 1,5 PPR) setting?
Great stuff. But these stand out. Tyrod isn't guaranteed to start next year and hasn't played particularly well and is within a year of cousins age, and his main value is mobility, yet he's above cousins, Wentz, Dalton, etc? If someone took him over the elders (Brady and Brees) I get it, but it seems like they'll be starting longer than he is. He seems about 10 spots too high.4 11 Tyrod Taylor BUF 28.1 (8)
6 37 Mike Glennon TB 27.7 unr
6 43 Joe Flacco BAL 32.6 (38)
7 48 A.J. McCarron CIN 27.0 (43)
He's said before that with quarterbacks in a start 1 qb league, he's only looking for high end starters. Flacco is past the age where you might expect him to make a leap forward, so you're basically using a roster spot on a guy you hope to never use. All else being equal, you'd rather have a guy with some long term chance at positive vbd. Of course, a lot depends on league format. If your league is small enough that you routinely have starting qbs on the waiver wire, Flacco should probably be one of them. If it's a 32 team league or start 2 qb league he should obviously be much higher in the rankings. In most leagues, he's a guy you would consider using during your starter's bye week and that's about it.But flacco? Below petty, geno, hoyer, and moore? He's not a great starter but he is a starter. What am I missing?
This was the first thing I noticed as well. If I'm holding Taylor and someone offers me Wentz or Cousins straight up, I'm at serious risk of breaking my index finger clicking Accept. I'd have to think a bit about Dalton but would probably take him as well, if only because I expect CIN to get pretty bad pretty quickly, which means they should be playing from behind more often than in years past.Great stuff. But these stand out. Tyrod isn't guaranteed to start next year and hasn't played particularly well and is within a year of cousins age, and his main value is mobility, yet he's above cousins, Wentz, Dalton, etc? If someone took him over the elders (Brady and Brees) I get it, but it seems like they'll be starting longer than he is. He seems about 10 spots too high.
Looks like you're not buying into Glennon and McCarron possibly starting in the next few years.
This sounds like you're describing a guy you have ranked around 20, not a guy ranked in the top 12 ahead of 3 of last year's top 5 QBs including one that is essentially the same age as him.Tyrod Taylor and his tier - I'm not all that confident about the rankings within this tier; it's possible that I'll shake them up significantly over the offseason. Things I like about Taylor: he put up fantasy starter's numbers this year, he's had good advanced stats (e.g., PFF grade), he seems likely to be an NFL starter next year, and he has been in a situation that seems not-so-good for a QB's passing numbers. Things I don't like about him: his team might let him go elsewhere (which is pretty much always a bad sign about a player) and he's going to be a 28-year-old whose value has depended heavily on running.
You're right. Sometimes I overlook the difference between the leagues I'm in (16+ teams) and smaller. And we wouldn't start Flacco except off waivers for a game maybe. But I have less faith in the others around him and don't see them having any value. They're all same tier, so not much of a difference.I can't envision a scenario where I'd ever actually start Joe Flacco in a 12 team 1 QB league with normal roster sizes. 2 QBs, large rosters, etc, sure. But in a standard league I can't think of any time I'd ever open up MYFBG and see that their recommended start this week based on my roster is Joe Flacco. It will always be someone off the waiver wire. So given that, what's the point in having Flacco on my roster at all? I wouldn't take him for free in any of my normal roster sized leagues.
Don't quit your day job.Marcus Mariota TEN 23.8 (5)
Russell Wilson SEA 28.8 (3)
Andrew Luck IND 28.0 (4)
Aaron Rodgers GB 33.7 (2)
Dak Prescott DAL 24.1 (20)
Derek Carr OAK 26.4 (11)
Cam Newton CAR 28.3 (1)
Kirk Cousins WAS 29.0 (18)
Jimmy Garoppolo NE 25.8 (26)
Jameis Winston TB 23.7 (6)
Took a stab at a top 10 today. Suspect I'm higher on Mariota, Garoppolo and Cousins than most people.