Anyone else worried about Gates? (1 Viewer)

[Maurile Tremblay]

Even the most ardent homer has to admit that they have a difficult schedule (at least based on the 2005 performances of the teams I bolded). AZ, STL, TENN, & OAK twice are all going to be tough W's, too.

2006 NFL Strength of Schedule--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---TEAM----OPPONENTS W L Pct.

Cincinnati Bengals 139 117 .543

New York Giants 139 117 .543

New Orleans Saints 138 118 .539

Tampa Bay Buccaneers 138 118 .539

Pittsburgh Steelers 136 120 .531

Kansas City Chiefs 135 121 .527

Tennessee Titans 135 121 .527

Baltimore Ravens 134 122 .523

Houston Texans 134 122 .523

Philadelphia Eagles 133 123 .520

Oakland Raiders 132 124 .516

Washington Redskins 132 124 .516

Denver Broncos 132 124 .516

Cleveland Browns 131 125 .512

St. Louis Rams 130 126 .508

Atlanta Falcons 130 126 .508

Carolina Panthers 129 127 .504

Dallas Cowboys 129 127 .504

Arizona Cardinals 128 128 .500

San Diego Chargers 125 131 .488

Jacksonville Jaguars 125 131 .488

Indianapolis Colts 124 132 .484

San Francisco 49ers 122 134 .477

Buffalo Bills 122 134 .477

Detroit Lions 121 135 .473

New England Patriots 121 135 .473

Miami Dolphins 120 136 .469

New York Jets 119 137 .465

Minnesota Vikings 117 139 .457

Seattle Seahawks 117 139 .457

Green Bay Packers 115 141 .449

Chicago Bears 114 142 .445

 

[H.K.]

If I hadn't stopped reading before this sentence I wouldn't have written my "no way" comment. The way you're using "outperform his draft position," you are right. But I don't think that's how HK was using the phrase.

It was SSOG who was discussing outperforming draft position. I basically expect the Charger passing game to struggle based on a first year starting QB, therefore Gates will struggle, too. Good thread BTW

 

[H.K.]

Even the most ardent homer has to admit that they have a difficult schedule (at least based on the 2005 performances of the teams I bolded). AZ, STL, TENN, & OAK twice are all going to be tough W's, too.

2006 NFL Strength of Schedule--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---TEAM----OPPONENTS W L Pct.

Cincinnati Bengals 139 117 .543

...

San Diego Chargers 125 131 .488

Hey MT, I think we can agree that last year's records are not that applicable when you look at some of the changes that have occured since then. Also, playing the AFC West twice and the AFC North & SEA gives the Chargers a tough slate, regardless of who else they play.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Even the most ardent homer has to admit that they have a difficult schedule (at least based on the 2005 performances of the teams I bolded). AZ, STL, TENN, & OAK twice are all going to be tough W's, too.

2006 NFL Strength of Schedule--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---TEAM----OPPONENTS W L Pct.

Cincinnati Bengals 139 117 .543

...

San Diego Chargers 125 131 .488

Hey MT, I think we can agree that last year's records are not that applicable when you look at some of the changes that have occured since then. Also, playing the AFC West twice and the AFC North & SEA gives the Chargers a tough slate, regardless of who else they play.

But the schedule is cake compared to last year's.

 

[H.K.]

But the schedule is cake compared to last year's.

Yep, just about any schedule would be...but they don't have Brees so it evens out!

 

[Chase Stuart]

But the schedule is cake compared to last year's.

Yep, just about any schedule would be...but they don't have Brees so it evens out!

Evens out means going from 9-7 to 6-10?

 

[gang-wars]

rofl - 6 wins. I'll eat my hat if they don't win more then 6. Something that people are slowly going to have to realize, the Chargers have what will be one of the very best defenses in the league next year.

Even the most ardent homer has to admit that they have a difficult schedule (at least based on the 2005 performances of the teams I bolded). AZ, STL, TENN, & OAK twice are all going to be tough W's, too.

Uhmm, even the most pesemistic Bolts fans I know, and there are alot, none of them thinks 6 wins is a reasonable win total. Most would say 8 wins, and those are the ones who think Brees is just a fanstastic QB, irreplacable.As for the schedule, it's actually quite nice. Last year they had the most difficult schedule in the NFL (Determined by Winning %, in fact one of the toughest schedules any team has faced in the last 5 years). They played 3 teams comming off BYEs, they had 5 East Coast Roadies. They still went 9-7, with 5 losses comming by a combined 14 points. You are vastly underating the team.

Historically, there's not much evidence to suggest that teams coming off of byes perform significantly better than every other team. I think NFL franchises had something like a 51% winning percentage coming off of byes, not counting the playoffs (where you would expect a higher than 50% winning percentage, because the team coming off the bye is ALWAYS a better team).Now, some coaches have MUCH better winning percentages off of byes (Shanahan, for example, and I think Reid has never lost coming off the bye), but other coaches actually perform WORSE coming off of byes. The Oakland Raiders, for example, were one of the teams that San Diego faced coming off of a bye week.

For the past two seasons, Gates has averaged 85 recepts 1000 yards and 11.5 TD.

He might get 75% of those numbers this season (assuming the stars align), but won't come anywhere near what he's done the past two years with Brees. It is a statistical impossiblity.

For the record, those numbers (55/650/5) still would have ranked Gates somewhere around 50th overall in season-ending VBD last year. Not fantastic, but certainly not a terrible finish, even with a #26 overall price tag (drafted early third, performed like a late 5th).

It's the same reason it's a good strategy to wait on QBs. You can get roughly the same production, 2-3-4 rounds later. Along with the fact there's almost no chance Gates out produces his ADP, and at best, justifies it. At best Gonzo/Shockey can out produce Gates and their ADP. On average they will justify the 5th/6th round pick.

In a 12 team league, there's just no way I take Gates at 3.02. Too many good TEs. Witten at 73? Cooley 79? McMichael, Clark.

Gates will probably be TE1. I just don't see the PPG edge that is required to grab him 20-30 picks before Gonzo/Shockey. Is the PPG edge from Gates to Gonzo/Shockey greater then the PPG edge of drafting your WR1 a round later? What about RB2 a round later? I just don't see how you'll come out ahead.

Obviously the RB edge falls off very quickly, and so does the WR one. The TE PPG production simply does not fall off that far after Gates.

First off, as I mentioned in another thread, there's almost no chance that ANYONE YOU SELECT AT #26 OVERALL OUTPERFORMS HIS DRAFT POSITION. When you're drafting that high, you expect a player to underperform. Moreover, though.. Gates has finished #8 in VBD for two straight seasons now. I would say that he has a drastically better chance at outperforming his draft position than any other player that will be available at pick#26- including Ron Dayne, who I am so high on. I think Ron Dayne will be a steal, but there's little chance Dayne finishes 8th in season-ending VBD. With Gates, there's more than "little chance", since he's done it twice in a row now.Justifying holding off on a position because you're more likely to get overachievers later is pointless. If you traded all of your draft selections for the final 22 selections in the draft, then you'd get 22 guys tremendously likely to outperform their draft positions... but your team as a whole will be weaker. Gates has an uspide that Shockey simply does not possess, and as a result, you'll have to pay a premium to get him. At worst, he'll wind up being a decent selection. At best, he'll be dominant in a way that only the barest handful of players can match.

At worst he'll be a decent selection at 26? Disagree with that. At worst he ends up TE5, and you could have drafted a #1 WR or #2 RB instead and still got your top 5 TE in the 6th round. No one is questioning Gates previous seasons. The main point is, a first time starting QB, adds in a level of uncertainty that makes it very questionable to draft a TE at 26 overall. Even when Gonzo was Gonzo, he was a questionable 3rd round pick. You didn't take Gonzo in the 3rd to barely eek out TE1 numbers. You took him because he had a HUGE edge over the field.

And with Rivers, that edge that Gates has had, might be slim to none. If you look at risk management, I don't see how you could justify taking Gates at 26. Too much unknowns, along with the fact I'm not even sure passing on a WR1 or RB2 for a TE puts you any further ahead. In fact, I did some mocks using last years data, and taking Gonzo at 3 just left you with either a thin RB core, or a thin WR corp. Really going to pass on Boldin for Gates? You can have Boldin at 3, and Gonzo at 5, or Gates at 3 and AJ in 5. I take Boldin/Gonzo every time. What about Droughns and Gonzo vs Gates and Foster. Again, I take the first set. Anyway you run your first 6 round mock, I do not like my team taking Gates at 3.

If the TE you take at 26, has an average year, the gamble didn't pay off. The gamble is having a 3-4-5-6 point edge on your opponents. If it's a 1 point edge, your weaker RBs or WRs will give that back without question.

And about "out performing ADP". Gates at 26, there is no upside. His upside validates you taking him there. If he doesn't hit his upside, you'd paid for production you could have had 2-3 rounds later. And you better hit some RB/WR sleepers to make up for this.

I just don't see a reason to gamble with an unknown QB. There's just a very small margin of error to draft a TE in the top 30. And a new QB is just enough unknown for me to pass.

 

[Chase Stuart]

What about Droughns and Gonzo vs Gates and Foster.

According to FBG projections, you'd be much better off with Gates and Foster.

 

[dcbreber]

There really should not be as much worry about Gates as there is going around here. Its not as though Rivers has to carry this offense or that Gates is the only weapon. LT caught plenty of passes while AG was doing this and that didn't hurt him. The main argument against Gates is the loss of Brees, but it won't affect him nearly as much as people think. Brees was just about in the same position as Rivers is now when Gates came around, and was unsuccessful previous to AG. Brees was not at all the cause of this success, Gates caused Brees to be good and will do the same with Rivers. Like the Roethlisberger situation, Rivers will succeed because he is put into an offense that already has the important pieces. Don't be fooled by Brees leaving, Gates saved his career and will get Rivers' off to a great one this year.

 

[gang-wars]

What about Droughns and Gonzo vs Gates and Foster.

According to FBG projections, you'd be much better off with Gates and Foster.

Well you have to factor in Williams. So taking Foster in the 5th, probably means you take Williams in the 6th. Then we have Williams role emerging as the season goes on (as we approach FF playoffs). So you can't look at Droughns/Foster in a vacuum, and say "hey they project to about the same production!". They're in vastly different situations and the fact you need to draft Williams to cover your ###. You're not drafting Lee Suggs in the 6th round.Either way, I'd much prefer Droughns/Gonzo.

 

[David Yudkin]

I have mostly stayed out of this one, but I have to ask the Chicken Littles here about the following.

Gates scored 170 fantasy points last year in a standard scoring system. Crumpler scored 118 as the #5 TE. That's a 52 point dropoff (31%).

There have been several times when WIDE RECEIVERS have switched to rookie or less experienced QB from one season to the next:

Chad Johnson (Kitna to Palmer 03-04) 196 to 185

Joe Horn (Blake to Brooks 00-01) 184 to 181

Torry Holt (Warner to Bulger 02-03) 156 to 242

Isaac Bruce (Warner to Bulger 02-03) 151 to 133

Randy Moss (George to Culpepper 99-00) 212 to 234

Rod Smith (Elway to Griese 98-99) 165 to 126

Jimmy Smith (Brunell to Leftwich 02-03) 9.06 ppg to 8.75 ppg (suspended)

Hines Ward (Maddox to Big Ben 03-04) 182 to 133

Eric Moulds (Johnson to Van Pelt 00-01) 165 to 121

Cris Collinsworth (Anderson to Esiason 84-85) 136 to 143

Keyshawn Johnson (Testaverse to Lucas 98-99) 185 to 166

Tim Brown (George to Hollas 97-98) 173 to 155

Plaxico Burress (Stewart to Maddox 01-02) 137 to 175

Steve Smith (Peete to Delhomme 02-03) 105 to 157

Sterling Sharpe (Tomczak to Favre 91-92) 121 to 225

Cris Carter (George to Culpepper 99-00) 202 to 181

Steve Largent (Zorn to Krieg 82-83) 7.56 ppg to 10.88 ppg (strike)

Henry Ellard (Shuler to Frerotte 94-95) 175 to 131

Does Gates being a TE instead of a WR make THAT much differnece? He is obviously the #1 receiving option on SD. Looking at the above numbers, many guys took a slight dip, several improved, and I don't see any examples of a 31% dropoff from one year to the next. Obviously it is not fully apples to apples, but in the past WR didn't suffer extensively, and I wonder if those numbers would be a representative expectation for Gates.

 

[Rushmore]

I have mostly stayed out of this one, but I have to ask the Chicken Littles here about the following.

Gates scored 170 fantasy points last year in a standard scoring system. Crumpler scored 118 as the #5 TE. That's a 52 point dropoff (31%).

There have been several times when WIDE RECEIVERS have switched to rookie or less experienced QB from one season to the next:

Chad Johnson (Kitna to Palmer 03-04) 196 to 185

Joe Horn (Blake to Brooks 00-01) 184 to 181

Torry Holt (Warner to Bulger 02-03) 156 to 242

Isaac Bruce (Warner to Bulger 02-03) 151 to 133

Randy Moss (George to Culpepper 99-00) 212 to 234

Rod Smith (Elway to Griese 98-99) 165 to 126

Jimmy Smith (Brunell to Leftwich 02-03) 9.06 ppg to 8.75 ppg (suspended)

Hines Ward (Maddox to Big Ben 03-04) 182 to 133

Eric Moulds (Johnson to Van Pelt 00-01) 165 to 121

Cris Collinsworth (Anderson to Esiason 84-85) 136 to 143

Keyshawn Johnson (Testaverse to Lucas 98-99) 185 to 166

Tim Brown (George to Hollas 97-98) 173 to 155

Plaxico Burress (Stewart to Maddox 01-02) 137 to 175

Steve Smith (Peete to Delhomme 02-03) 105 to 157

Sterling Sharpe (Tomczak to Favre 91-92) 121 to 225

Cris Carter (George to Culpepper 99-00) 202 to 181

Steve Largent (Zorn to Krieg 82-83) 7.56 ppg to 10.88 ppg (strike)

Henry Ellard (Shuler to Frerotte 94-95) 175 to 131

Does Gates being a TE instead of a WR make THAT much differnece? He is obviously the #1 receiving option on SD. Looking at the above numbers, many guys took a slight dip, several improved, and I don't see any examples of a 31% dropoff from one year to the next. Obviously it is not fully apples to apples, but in the past WR didn't suffer extensively, and I wonder if those numbers would be a representative expectation for Gates.

 

[-OZ-]

I don't see any examples of a 31% dropoff from one year to the next.

good stuff david, but do you think you got everyone?Herman Moore, Mitchell to Batch:

1997 det | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 104 1293 12.4 8 |

1998 det | 15 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 82 983 12.0 5 |

Jerry Rice, Montana to Young

1990 sfo | 16 | 2 0 0.0 0 | 100 1502 15.0 13 |

1991 sfo | 16 | 1 2 2.0 0 | 80 1206 15.1 14

Jerry Rice, Young to Garcia

1998 sfo | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 82 1157 14.1 9 |

1999 sfo | 16 | 2 13 6.5 0 | 67 830 12.4 5 |

I haven't done the math, but those all look like significant drops.

You are absolutely correct in your hypothesis, Rivers doesn't mean Gates drops much

 

[David Yudkin]

I don't see any examples of a 31% dropoff from one year to the next. 

good stuff david, but do you think you got everyone?Herman Moore, Mitchell to Batch:

1997 det | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 104 1293 12.4 8 |

1998 det | 15 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 82 983 12.0 5 |

Jerry Rice, Montana to Young

1990 sfo | 16 | 2 0 0.0 0 | 100 1502 15.0 13 |

1991 sfo | 16 | 1 2 2.0 0 | 80 1206 15.1 14

Jerry Rice, Young to Garcia

1998 sfo | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 82 1157 14.1 9 |

1999 sfo | 16 | 2 13 6.5 0 | 67 830 12.4 5 |

I haven't done the math, but those all look like significant drops.

You are absolutely correct in your hypothesis, Rivers doesn't mean Gates drops much

I missed Moore and probably others--these were just guys I could find quickly. I left off Rice on purpose, as Young had far more experience than Rivers does and Garcia had played several seasons in Canada. Rice did take a big hit with Garcia, but he was already 37 and Owens was also there. That's probably more of the reason Rice dipped than anything else. I don't see Gates having age issues or there being a T.O. in the house.The other thing to consider here for some of these stud WR is that they scored far more than a TE, so starting with a high number they were destined to see a drop of anyway regardless of who the QB was. Relastically, it's hard to expect 1500/13 in back to back years from any WR.

As I think I mentioned earlier in this thread, my concern is that we should probably expect a drop off for Gates (but probably not 50-75 points worth). But this year I've seen him drafted late 2nd and very early 3rd, and if his totals are projected to go down and with manyother decent TE options this year that's backwards.

So if Gates were a late third rounder last year, he should probably be a fouth rounder this year not a late second/early third.

Would anyone be all that surprised if Gates dropped all the way down to 900/8? That's still 138 points and could still make him the #1 TE even with a decent drop off.

This is part of the issue I have with people. A player could still rank #1 at his position but still might not be worth where you drafted him.

For example, you could draft the first kicker off the board and have him rank as the #1 kicker, but if you took him in the 8th round it's still not a great pick if everyone else took kickers 10 rounds later.

In 2 PPR leagues for TE, I would not hesitate in the least to take Gates early.

 

[Dancing Bear]

This is part of the issue I have with people. A player could still rank #1 at his position but still might not be worth where you drafted him.

This has been exactly my point from the start, and this is why I would say Gates will cost you too much at the 26th spot of the draft; even if he finishes in the Top 3.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So if Gates were a late third rounder last year, he should probably be a fouth rounder this year not a late second/early third.

Gates was morally a first-rounder last year. That is, he finished with a first-round grade.

 

[SSOG]

At worst he'll be a decent selection at 26? Disagree with that. At worst he ends up TE5, and you could have drafted a #1 WR or #2 RB instead and still got your top 5 TE in the 6th round.

You see, that's just the point. Last season TE#5 finished 31st overall in season-ending VBD. If you draft a guy 26th and he finishes 31st, then that was a fantastic selection, regardless of what you could have done elsewhere.I mean, why not just say that Rudi Johnson in the 2nd round was a wasted selection last year, because you could have gotten comparable production out of Mike Anderson in the 16th? That's basically what you're saying here- that drafting Gates and having him live up to his draft position would be a bad move, just because he wouldn't give *AS MUCH* value as someone else later might.

If you select a player and he provides value commensurate with his draft position, then that was a good selection. It might not be the greatest selection in the entire draft, but you can't get a steal EVERY round. Good teams are built on solid selections that performed right around where you'd expect them to perform.

No one is questioning Gates previous seasons. The main point is, a first time starting QB, adds in a level of uncertainty that makes it very questionable to draft a TE at 26 overall. Even when Gonzo was Gonzo, he was a questionable 3rd round pick. You didn't take Gonzo in the 3rd to barely eek out TE1 numbers. You took him because he had a HUGE edge over the field.

Gonzo was NEVER a questionable third round pick. He finished with a higher season-ending VBD than draft position for six straight seasons. His overall VBD rank from 1999 to 2004 was 27th or higher every single time- meaning you could have drafted him by pick 3.03 every single year and he would have lived up to or exceeded his draft position. I suspect that selecting Gonzo with pick #1.04 every single season during that span would have produced more value than selecting the consensus #4 overall draft pick each year would have. It is *RIDICULOUS* how much value great TEs present, even in their "bad" seasons.

And with Rivers, that edge that Gates has had, might be slim to none. If you look at risk management, I don't see how you could justify taking Gates at 26. Too much unknowns, along with the fact I'm not even sure passing on a WR1 or RB2 for a TE puts you any further ahead. In fact, I did some mocks using last years data, and taking Gonzo at 3 just left you with either a thin RB core, or a thin WR corp. Really going to pass on Boldin for Gates? You can have Boldin at 3, and Gonzo at 5, or Gates at 3 and AJ in 5. I take Boldin/Gonzo every time. What about Droughns and Gonzo vs Gates and Foster. Again, I take the first set. Anyway you run your first 6 round mock, I do not like my team taking Gates at 3.

If the TE you take at 26, has an average year, the gamble didn't pay off. The gamble is having a 3-4-5-6 point edge on your opponents. If it's a 1 point edge, your weaker RBs or WRs will give that back without question.

And about "out performing ADP". Gates at 26, there is no upside. His upside validates you taking him there. If he doesn't hit his upside, you'd paid for production you could have had 2-3 rounds later. And you better hit some RB/WR sleepers to make up for this.

I just don't see a reason to gamble with an unknown QB. There's just a very small margin of error to draft a TE in the top 30. And a new QB is just enough unknown for me to pass.

You're talking as if picking anyone else doesn't carry any risk. Here is a list of everyone selected from picks #21 to 31 overall last year, along with their season-ending VBD rank:Brian Westbrook- 46

Terrell Owens- 80

Marvin Harrison- 18

Steven Jackson- 23

Chad Johnson- 11

LaMont Jordan- 13

Donovan McNabb- 203

Javon Walker- 386

Joe Horn- 140

Andre Johnson- 114

Tony Gonzalez- 44

Assuming that Gates finishes at TE 5, and that TE5 has a VBD of 31 again this season, Gates would have outperformed SEVEN OF THE ELEVEN players (64%) selected between picks #21 and #31. And this is if Gates crashes and burns and finishes as the #5 TE, which is probably his FLOOR.

That's the problem. People think that they're going to get a good player with pick #26. Odds are that you WILL NOT, no matter who you take. I argue that Gates has far less chance of being a bust than anyone else you could take at that time.

As I think I mentioned earlier in this thread, my concern is that we should probably expect a drop off for Gates (but probably not 50-75 points worth). But this year I've seen him drafted late 2nd and very early 3rd, and if his totals are projected to go down and with manyother decent TE options this year that's backwards.

So if Gates were a late third rounder last year, he should probably be a fouth rounder this year not a late second/early third.

Would anyone be all that surprised if Gates dropped all the way down to 900/8? That's still 138 points and could still make him the #1 TE even with a decent drop off.

This is part of the issue I have with people. A player could still rank #1 at his position but still might not be worth where you drafted him.

For example, you could draft the first kicker off the board and have him rank as the #1 kicker, but if you took him in the 8th round it's still not a great pick if everyone else took kickers 10 rounds later.

In 2 PPR leagues for TE, I would not hesitate in the least to take Gates early.

I don't know how much of the thread you read, but I posted earlier what the season-ending VBD values of all the TEs were last year. The top 5 TEs all finished 31st or better in season-ending VBD- and this isn't a recent phenomenon. Historically, TEs finish with substantially higher VBDs than ADPs... and since this site is advocating how much better VBD is than ADP, one would think that that would be the number people on this site should be concerned about.If Gates finishes as TE1, I would be SHOCKED if he didn't finish higher than 26th overall in VBD.

 

[David Yudkin]

At worst he'll be a decent selection at 26? Disagree with that. At worst he ends up TE5, and you could have drafted a #1 WR or #2 RB instead and still got your top 5 TE in the 6th round.

You see, that's just the point. Last season TE#5 finished 31st overall in season-ending VBD. If you draft a guy 26th and he finishes 31st, then that was a fantastic selection, regardless of what you could have done elsewhere.I mean, why not just say that Rudi Johnson in the 2nd round was a wasted selection last year, because you could have gotten comparable production out of Mike Anderson in the 16th? That's basically what you're saying here- that drafting Gates and having him live up to his draft position would be a bad move, just because he wouldn't give *AS MUCH* value as someone else later might.

If you select a player and he provides value commensurate with his draft position, then that was a good selection. It might not be the greatest selection in the entire draft, but you can't get a steal EVERY round. Good teams are built on solid selections that performed right around where you'd expect them to perform.

No one is questioning Gates previous seasons. The main point is, a first time starting QB, adds in a level of uncertainty that makes it very questionable to draft a TE at 26 overall. Even when Gonzo was Gonzo, he was a questionable 3rd round pick. You didn't take Gonzo in the 3rd to barely eek out TE1 numbers. You took him because he had a HUGE edge over the field.

Gonzo was NEVER a questionable third round pick. He finished with a higher season-ending VBD than draft position for six straight seasons. His overall VBD rank from 1999 to 2004 was 27th or higher every single time- meaning you could have drafted him by pick 3.03 every single year and he would have lived up to or exceeded his draft position. I suspect that selecting Gonzo with pick #1.04 every single season during that span would have produced more value than selecting the consensus #4 overall draft pick each year would have. It is *RIDICULOUS* how much value great TEs present, even in their "bad" seasons.

And with Rivers, that edge that Gates has had, might be slim to none. If you look at risk management, I don't see how you could justify taking Gates at 26. Too much unknowns, along with the fact I'm not even sure passing on a WR1 or RB2 for a TE puts you any further ahead. In fact, I did some mocks using last years data, and taking Gonzo at 3 just left you with either a thin RB core, or a thin WR corp. Really going to pass on Boldin for Gates? You can have Boldin at 3, and Gonzo at 5, or Gates at 3 and AJ in 5. I take Boldin/Gonzo every time. What about Droughns and Gonzo vs Gates and Foster. Again, I take the first set. Anyway you run your first 6 round mock, I do not like my team taking Gates at 3.

If the TE you take at 26, has an average year, the gamble didn't pay off. The gamble is having a 3-4-5-6 point edge on your opponents. If it's a 1 point edge, your weaker RBs or WRs will give that back without question.

And about "out performing ADP".  Gates at 26, there is no upside. His upside validates you taking him there. If he doesn't hit his upside, you'd paid for production you could have had 2-3 rounds later. And you better hit some RB/WR sleepers to make up for this.

I just don't see a reason to gamble with an unknown QB. There's just a very small margin of error to draft a TE in the top 30. And a new QB is just enough unknown for me to pass.

You're talking as if picking anyone else doesn't carry any risk. Here is a list of everyone selected from picks #21 to 31 overall last year, along with their season-ending VBD rank:Brian Westbrook- 46

Terrell Owens- 80

Marvin Harrison- 18

Steven Jackson- 23

Chad Johnson- 11

LaMont Jordan- 13

Donovan McNabb- 203

Javon Walker- 386

Joe Horn- 140

Andre Johnson- 114

Tony Gonzalez- 44

Assuming that Gates finishes at TE 5, and that TE5 has a VBD of 31 again this season, Gates would have outperformed SEVEN OF THE ELEVEN players (64%) selected between picks #21 and #31. And this is if Gates crashes and burns and finishes as the #5 TE, which is probably his FLOOR.

That's the problem. People think that they're going to get a good player with pick #26. Odds are that you WILL NOT, no matter who you take. I argue that Gates has far less chance of being a bust than anyone else you could take at that time.

As I think I mentioned earlier in this thread, my concern is that we should probably expect a drop off for Gates (but probably not 50-75 points worth).  But this year I've seen him drafted late 2nd and very early 3rd, and if his totals are projected to go down and with manyother decent TE options this year that's backwards.

So if Gates were a late third rounder last year, he should probably be a fouth rounder this year not a late second/early third.

Would anyone be all that surprised if Gates dropped all the way down to 900/8?  That's still 138 points and could still make him the #1 TE even with a decent drop off.

This is part of the issue I have with people.  A player could still rank #1 at his position but still might not be worth where you drafted him.

For example, you could draft the first kicker off the board and have him rank as the #1 kicker, but if you took him in the 8th round it's still not a great pick if everyone else took kickers 10 rounds later.

In 2 PPR leagues for TE, I would not hesitate in the least to take Gates early.

I don't know how much of the thread you read, but I posted earlier what the season-ending VBD values of all the TEs were last year. The top 5 TEs all finished 31st or better in season-ending VBD- and this isn't a recent phenomenon. Historically, TEs finish with substantially higher VBDs than ADPs... and since this site is advocating how much better VBD is than ADP, one would think that that would be the number people on this site should be concerned about.If Gates finishes as TE1, I would be SHOCKED if he didn't finish higher than 26th overall in VBD.

I agree that the value numbers from last year were high, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that's where you necessarily should draft these guys.For example, Galloway was the #14 most valuable player last year . . . should we draft him as the #14 player? Of course not.

 

[SSOG]

I agree that the value numbers from last year were high, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that's where you necessarily should draft these guys.

For example, Galloway was the #14 most valuable player last year . . . should we draft him as the #14 player? Of course not.

Well, Joey Galloway was WR#5 last year, and WR#5 finished 14th overall, so it would not be unreasonable to expect that the guy who finishes as WR#5 will have value comparable to #14 overall in terms of VBD. Now apply the same reasoning to TEs. Historically, TE#1 finishes with a first round VBD value. TEs#2-5 historically finish anyway from second round value to 5th round value. As a result, if you think a player has a downside of TE#5, then historically, that player will have a 5th round downside.I'm not concerned where Gates finished last season. I anticipate that Gates will finish anywhere from TE1 to TE5 this season, and as a result, predict his season-ending VBD will be anywhere from top12 to top50. Which is a pretty good range to target with selection #26 overall.

Edit: Let me try to say this again, to make myself more clear. When drafting, you shouldn't just be concerned with where a player is likely to finish, but also with HOW LIKELY A PLAYER IS TO FINISH THERE. I would rank Gates' chances of finishing the season as TE#1 as FAR BETTER than Galloway's chances of finishing the season as WR#5. As a result, even though both positions carry a comparable season-ending VBD, Gates would be a better selection, because while the upside is comparable, Gates is more likely to achieve his than Galloway is to achieve his.

Similar reasoning can be applied to downside as well. I would argue that, not only is Gates' UPSIDE higher than anyone else being drafted around him, his DOWNSIDE is higher, as well. That sounds to me like the recipe for a fantastic draft choice.

 

[David Yudkin]

I agree that the value numbers from last year were high, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that's where you necessarily should draft these guys.

For example, Galloway was the #14 most valuable player last year . . . should we draft him as the #14 player?  Of course not.

Well, Joey Galloway was WR#5 last year, and WR#5 finished 14th overall, so it would not be unreasonable to expect that the guy who finishes as WR#5 will have value comparable to #14 overall in terms of VBD. Now apply the same reasoning to TEs. Historically, TE#1 finishes with a first round VBD value. TEs#2-5 historically finish anyway from second round value to 5th round value. As a result, if you think a player has a downside of TE#5, then historically, that player will have a 5th round downside.I'm not concerned where Gates finished last season. I anticipate that Gates will finish anywhere from TE1 to TE5 this season, and as a result, predict his season-ending VBD will be anywhere from top12 to top50. Which is a pretty good range to target with selection #26 overall.

OK . . . let's try again. Sure, if you can get Gates at #26 and he ranks say #21 on value, that's a decent investment. Conservative, but decent.But if there are other TE that might rank #32 in value that you can get at pick #78, wouldn't that be a better option?

I took Cooley in several leagues last year in the #120-130 range. Sure Gates was great last year and a decent pick, but if he loses some production and other guys available later catch and exceed him, IMO, those are the guys I want rather then getting a minimal investment out of Gates.

If there are guys available at RB or WR at pick 26 that I feel are high upside guys that could get 75 points higher than projected, those or the guys I would rather have IF I FEEL THAT GATES IS IN FOR A 900/7 SEASON. I agree that if I had him projected at 1100/12 that's a different story.

 

[SSOG]

OK . . . let's try again. Sure, if you can get Gates at #26 and he ranks say #21 on value, that's a decent investment. Conservative, but decent.

But if there are other TE that might rank #32 in value that you can get at pick #78, wouldn't that be a better option?

I took Cooley in several leagues last year in the #120-130 range. Sure Gates was great last year and a decent pick, but if he loses some production and other guys available later catch and exceed him, IMO, those are the guys I want rather then getting a minimal investment out of Gates.

If there are guys available at RB or WR at pick 26 that I feel are high upside guys that could get 75 points higher than projected, those or the guys I would rather have IF I FEEL THAT GATES IS IN FOR A 900/7 SEASON. I agree that if I had him projected at 1100/12 that's a different story.

I understand the thinking, but essentially you're paying a premium for reliability. Antonio Gates is a much surer thing, in my opinion, than someone like Chris Cooley. MUCH higher upside, MUCH higher downside, and therefore, requiring a much higher draft pick.Again, I call up the Rudi Johnson/Mike Anderson analogy. Was Rudi Johnson a bad selection last year just because Anderson produced similar points for a much lower draft pick? Was Chad Johnson a bad draft choice last season because Steve Smith produced more points for a cheaper selection?

Essentially, FootballGuys (at least, the consensus thereof) agrees with me on all points, too. First off, Chad Johnson is rated higher than Steve Smith, which demonstrates that FootballGuys (or the consensus thereof) understand the concept of paying a premium for reliability, regardless of upside. Second off, I just got the Draft Dominator to see where the FBG rankins have Gates in terms of VBD. According to the dominator, in a 1 ppr league, Gates ranks as the 23rd best player in the league (despite a "meager" 960/9 projection). And if you think he's only good for 900/7? Change his projections, and the Dominator says he'll still finish 33rd in season-ending VBD, still a fantastic finish for the 26th overall selection (a finish better than 64% of all players drafted 21-31 last season).

I have a problem with Gates being called a "bad" pick just because he might not be the single most phenominal TE selection in the entire league. That just seems shortsighted to me. I know I've referenced it multiple times, but let me get back one last time to the Rudi Johnson/Mike Anderson comparison from last year.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'm willing to do a sig bet on the following.In 2005, Brees had a YPA of 7.2, a passer rating of 89.2, a completion percentage of 64.4%, and a TD-INT ratio of 24-15. I think Rivers 2006 will outperform Brees 2005 in at least three of those categories.

I guess we didn't shore up a sig bet, but so far Rivers '06 is ahead of Brees '05 in all four categories.

 

[LawFitz]

Wow, I haven't read a single word of this thread until now because I thought it would meet an early death.

Do you guys really think Gates won't be at a MINIMUM top 3???

Barring injury to him or Rivers it's a lock. Take it to the bank. Rivers is good. He just needs to be eased into things and you'll see a poised good decision maker with good enough arm strength to get the job done. Do you remember Rivers at NC State? How high was his all-time NCAA ranking?...

If the defense is as legit as it looked the other night, this is a CONTENDER for the big prize. Yes that big prize.

Oh and by the way, I'm not a SD homer

Last but definitely not least, if you didn't get Gates, I hope you waited until super late and nabbed K2.

 

[LordHusker]

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

In 2005, Brees had a YPA of 7.2, a passer rating of 89.2, a completion percentage of 64.4%, and a TD-INT ratio of 24-15. I think Rivers 2006 will outperform Brees 2005 in at least three of those categories.

Update: still four for four.

 

[Gold Plated Nails]

You see Gates fumble his 20 yard TD on the goaline (they called it incomplete, luckily for the Bolts, they got to kick a FG)www.digitalmailmaker.com/dropbox/gates.html Also did you see LT overthrow a wide open Gates in the 1st Q in the back of the endzone? I'm telling you he is a buy low candidate. Its his bye week, so you may be able to get him a bit cheaper if you offer up a good te this week.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

In 2005, Brees had a YPA of 7.2, a passer rating of 89.2, a completion percentage of 64.4%, and a TD-INT ratio of 24-15. I think Rivers 2006 will outperform Brees 2005 in at least three of those categories.

Rivers currently has a YPA of 6.95, a passer rating of 94.5, a completion percentage of 66.7%, and a TD-INT ratio of 5-2. So he is on pace to lead in three out of four categories.

 

[renesauz]

Wow, I haven't read a single word of this thread until now because I thought it would meet an early death.

Do you guys really think Gates won't be at a MINIMUM top 3???

Barring injury to him or Rivers it's a lock. Take it to the bank. Rivers is good. He just needs to be eased into things and you'll see a poised good decision maker with good enough arm strength to get the job done. Do you remember Rivers at NC State? How high was his all-time NCAA ranking?...

If the defense is as legit as it looked the other night, this is a CONTENDER for the big prize. Yes that big prize.

Oh and by the way, I'm not a SD homer

Last but definitely not least, if you didn't get Gates, I hope you waited until super late and nabbed K2.

LMAO...I actually managed to pick up BOTH Gates and K2. I traded Gates straight up for Reggie Wayne a couple of weeks ago, to add a second WR1 to my lineup. Looke like a great move so far

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

In 2005, Brees had a YPA of 7.2, a passer rating of 89.2, a completion percentage of 64.4%, and a TD-INT ratio of 24-15. I think Rivers 2006 will outperform Brees 2005 in at least three of those categories.

Rivers is currently four for four with a YPA of 7.4, a passer rating of 100.6, a completion percentage of 68.8%, and a TD-INT ratio of 7-2.

 

[azngangster]

That gates td might save me this week since I went up against the massacre that is holt and steve smith.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

In 2005, Brees had a YPA of 7.2, a passer rating of 89.2, a completion percentage of 64.4%, and a TD-INT ratio of 24-15. I think Rivers 2006 will outperform Brees 2005 in at least three of those categories.

Update: Rivers is now 7.1, 96.3, 66.3%, and 9-3; so he leads in three categories (trailing in YPA by 0.1).

 

[Bri]

In 2005, Brees had a YPA of 7.2, a passer rating of 89.2, a completion percentage of 64.4%, and a TD-INT ratio of 24-15. I think Rivers 2006 will outperform Brees 2005 in at least three of those categories.

Update: Rivers is now 7.1, 96.3, 66.3%, and 9-3; so he leads in three categories (trailing in YPA by 0.1).

They're both impressive. I would not have thought NO would be any good so I'd give the edge to Brees for some intangible but, it's a credit to Rivers that he's comparable now.It's very hard for a team to NOT regret losing a very good QB. Chargers seem to have pulled that off. Maurile,I remember some debate with ya about what Rivers TD to INT ratio would be. 3 to 1 now I think. Can't recall what my prediction was. I would guess I'm off just....can't recall. Esp in this topic, fat lady hasn't sung. D's will have considerably more game tape and well, young guys take their lumps so I'm expecting some dropoffs. If he's a "player"(seems to be) he'll also have some 3 TD games so it should be interesting.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

In 2005, Brees had a YPA of 7.2, a passer rating of 89.2, a completion percentage of 64.4%, and a TD-INT ratio of 24-15. I think Rivers 2006 will outperform Brees 2005 in at least three of those categories.

Rivers is now ahead again in all four categories: 7.31, 97.6, 66.2%, 10-3.

 

[Chase Stuart]

In 2005, Brees had a YPA of 7.2, a passer rating of 89.2, a completion percentage of 64.4%, and a TD-INT ratio of 24-15. I think Rivers 2006 will outperform Brees 2005 in at least three of those categories.

Rivers is now ahead again in all four categories: 7.31, 97.6, 66.2%, 10-3.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

In 2005, Brees had a YPA of 7.2, a passer rating of 89.2, a completion percentage of 64.4%, and a TD-INT ratio of 24-15. I think Rivers 2006 will outperform Brees 2005 in at least three of those categories.

Rivers is now ahead again in all four categories: 7.31, 97.6, 66.2%, 10-3.

I haven't updated for a while, but Rivers is still ahead in all four categories: 7.51, 96.3, 64.5%, and 18-6.

 

[Tau837]

In 2005, Brees had a YPA of 7.2, a passer rating of 89.2, a completion percentage of 64.4%, and a TD-INT ratio of 24-15. I think Rivers 2006 will outperform Brees 2005 in at least three of those categories.

Rivers is now ahead again in all four categories: 7.31, 97.6, 66.2%, 10-3.

I haven't updated for a while, but Rivers is still ahead in all four categories: 7.51, 96.3, 64.5%, and 18-6.

And in addition to being a great NFL QB so far, Rivers is also a top 10 fantasy QB.

 

[Chase Stuart]

In 2005, Brees had a YPA of 7.2, a passer rating of 89.2, a completion percentage of 64.4%, and a TD-INT ratio of 24-15. I think Rivers 2006 will outperform Brees 2005 in at least three of those categories.

Rivers is now ahead again in all four categories: 7.31, 97.6, 66.2%, 10-3.

I haven't updated for a while, but Rivers is still ahead in all four categories: 7.51, 96.3, 64.5%, and 18-6.

The least important of those -- completion percentage -- seems like the only one in doubt.Nice call, MT.

 

[Chase Stuart]

In 2005, Brees had a YPA of 7.2, a passer rating of 89.2, a completion percentage of 64.4%, and a TD-INT ratio of 24-15. I think Rivers 2006 will outperform Brees 2005 in at least three of those categories.

Final results:7.37, 92.0, 61.7, 22-9.