One idea that worked really well for me last year and am considering again is using Gronk to essentially play 4 WRs instead of 3 WRs and a TE. The league is 3WR and 1TE. However, when you look at all the numbers, Gronk is the one TE that has consistently shown to perform more like a WR than a TE. So I don't like to think of Gronk as a TE, I think of him as a WR that can be played in the TE spot.
Here is what I wrote about it:
Note: All numbers are non-ppr and all rankings are defined by fp/g.
Gronk has averaged 12.9 fp/g over a 5 year period.If you look at other top performers over the last few years, there are only 3 WRs averaging that level of production (Brown, Julio and Beckham). Gronk scored about 6 fp/g above a replacement level TE. Since at a minimum AB, Julio and Beckham are off the board before Gronk, you are looking at choosing between Gronk or WR4-6. Assuming you actually accurately predict that the WR you are taking produces to that level, we are talking about 14 fp/g which is also 6 points above your WR37+ level replacement type players. Plus, Gronk does have upside. His highest fp/g season is higher than Julio or Dez have ever posted. Gronk's also a high floor guy. Over the last 5 years, his low fp/g of 11.9 is higher than the lows we have seem from Julio (11.4) or AJ Green (11.7). Gronk's 5 year low of 11.9 would have been strong enough to have made him WR11 last year. If you take Gronk you are getting a high floor, upside and a major positional advantage. Gronk is a WR1 that can be placed in the TE spot which allows your team to now essentially start 4 WRs and 0 TEs.
I consider taking Gronk as I see it as a chance to maximize the potential of a 0RB team because WRs typically score more than TEs. Now that might sound contradictory, but hear me out. I draft Gronk early because WRs score more than TEs. If possible, I would never want to have to play a TE in fantasy. If you just look at the numbers, Gronk doesn't perform like a TE. If we count Gronk as a WR, he would have finished on average as WR8 over the last 5 years in fp/g. Only in one of the last 5 years wouldn't he have finished as a top 9 WR. Twice he finished in the top 3 among WRs. If you take Gronk's 5 year per game averages and put them out over a season, you get: 85 for 1252 and 13.75 TDs. Those aren't TE numbers, those are WR numbers. Drafting Gronk allows me to fill the TE spot with WR production which now means I can start 4 WRs. Let's say you are picking in the middle of a draft. You can begin your draft with something like Gronk, Alshon, Demaryius (there are your 3 WRs). Now you can draft a WR in the 4th and that WR is essentially filling your TE slot. This allows you to match a guy like a Maclin,Cobb or Decker against your opponents TE because Gronk is providing you top 12 WR numbers from the TE position. The difference between Gronk and a high end WRs last year (let's say Hopkins) was about 1.5 fp/g. The average weekly fp/g from TEs not named Gronk last year was 8.6 fp/g. That means if you can get a WR to produce about 10.1 fp/g or higher than you are going to be on the winning side. Considering with a 0RB strategy you are able to take Gronk in the 1st round and still get 3 of the top 22-26 WRs and last year 22 WRs averaged better than 10.1, it seems likely you can draft this way and end up in the positive. In addition, the ceiling of a WR taken in the middle rounds is higher than any TE not named Gronk so the best case scenario is going to be a major positive advantage.
Matt Waldman used to work for another site and had CRANK scores (consistency rating score). I ran the numbers for Gronk as a WR instead of a TE. Gronk delivered elite WR performance 36% of games (11th best WR), WR1 performance 50% (6th best WR), WR2 level performance 71% of the time (5th best WR) and WR3 78% (4th best). His outputs there align most closely to Keenan Allen, Allen Robinson and Sammy Watkins. His overall WR CRANK score was 6th. Only behind Marshall, Julio, OBJ, Brown and Hopkins.
Now my disclaimer to that is I ran some more extensive numbers of what it would look like going GRONK/WR/WR/WR/8TH RD RB/WR VS WR/WR/WR/8TH RD TE vs RB/WR/WR/WR/8TH RD TE and in both high end, low end and median projections, the 1st round Gronk was almost always the lowest scoring option. That said, it was close enough that the reliability of a player like Gronk still might make it a strong play to take him first round.
