Ben Watson: Explain to Me Why He is Terrible (1 Viewer)

[Devil in the Detail]

Through two games, Watson is a top 5 TE in non-ppr leagues. Although Week 2 was obviously a weaker showing, he still about the same % of Brady's targets and was playing against what looks to be a very tough defense. Yet he is ranked as the #20 TE moving forward in the Top 250. This does not make sense to me. Watson has a great QB who trusts him, he is the #1 TE, and the NE defense looks like it is going to give up some points this year. What do you guys think?

 

[jdoggydogg]

Watson has always been a tease. Thus, his ranking.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

You said he is their #1 TE. I thought Baker was the starter?

 

[jobarules]

hes had an unproductive career up until this pt. I see nothing changing.

 

[Devil in the Detail]

You said he is their #1 TE. I thought Baker was the starter?

No. Watson is the starter and #1 on the depth chart. Through two games, Watson has 11 targets and Baker has 3.http://www.patriots.com/depthchart.cfm

 

[FFFanaticc]

Through two games, Watson is a top 5 TE in non-ppr leagues. Although Week 2 was obviously a weaker showing, he still about the same % of Brady's targets and was playing against what looks to be a very tough defense. Yet he is ranked as the #20 TE moving forward in the Top 250. This does not make sense to me. Watson has a great QB who trusts him, he is the #1 TE, and the NE defense looks like it is going to give up some points this year. What do you guys think?

I agree with you 100%. I feel that Watson is an undervalued, under-appreciated TE in Fantasy circles.Granted, Brady and Co. have been off to a shaky start, but I am sure they will right the ship, possibly starting this week. I always evaluate WRs and TEs based on who is throwing them the ball, and I prefer to have quality QBs for these players. While I don't think Watson will be in the elite tier with Witton, Clark, Gates, Gonzo, I do feel that Watson can easily be in the 5-10 range of TEs. I think that NE is about to go onto a holy terror against the league, and I would want some of their players when it happens.I thought that NE used Watson a lot more than Baker in the first game. I did not see the NYJ game, but right now I'd take Watson over Baker.

 

[PewterFan]

The Patriots spread the ball around way too much for any of their TE's to become relevant in FF. He'll have 2-3 good games. Good luck figuring out when.

 

[David Yudkin]

The Pats have been using some 2 WR/2 TE/1 RB sets, with both Baker and Watson in the game at the same time. Watson barely made the team out of camp and the Baker bandwagon would have been in full swing if Watson was traded or released like many had thought (including Watson).

Watson's problem over his career has been that he has not been able to stay healthy and productive at the same time for more than a few games in a row.

Evaluating the Pats after two games when they have not been able to score many points and with Welker banged up is a bit tough to do. They also haven't run the ball very often. Watson may have benefited from some of this things and may not be as big a factor once the offense clicks. At some point Galloway should see the ball more (or Edelman if they experiment with Welker and Edleman playing at the same time).

 

[jdoggydogg]

Ben Watson's career stats:

GAMES: 75

TARGETS: 257

RECEPTIONS: 147

YARDS: 1798

TDs: 17

TARGETS PER GAME: 3.42

RECEPTIONS PER GAME: 1.96

YARDS PER GAME: 23.97

TDs PER GAME: 0.22

 

[David Yudkin]

Ben Watson's career stats:GAMES: 75TARGETS: 257RECEPTIONS: 147YARDS: 1798TDs: 17TARGETS PER GAME: 3.42RECEPTIONS PER GAME: 1.96YARDS PER GAME: 23.97TDs PER GAME: 0.22

Watson has played in 57 games, so redo the math accordingly. He has missed a total of 25 games over his career and has basically been the walking wounded for most of his career.

 

[Devil in the Detail]

The Pats have been using some 2 WR/2 TE/1 RB sets, with both Baker and Watson in the game at the same time. Watson barely made the team out of camp and the Baker bandwagon would have been in full swing if Watson was traded or released like many had thought (including Watson).Watson's problem over his career has been that he has not been able to stay healthy and productive at the same time for more than a few games in a row.Evaluating the Pats after two games when they have not been able to score many points and with Welker banged up is a bit tough to do. They also haven't run the ball very often. Watson may have benefited from some of this things and may not be as big a factor once the offense clicks. At some point Galloway should see the ball more (or Edelman if they experiment with Welker and Edleman playing at the same time).

What is Watson's upside, though, do you think? He was putting up pretty big numbers with Brady in '07 until Watson got hurt, right? It seems like Brady trusts him and given Welker's injury status and Galloway's newness to Brady and the offense, it seems like Watson is the #3 "most trusted" receiver on that team from Brady's standpoint, right? If they have difficulty running the ball and the defense gives up points and Moss is blanketed by the defense, what is Watson's upside? In that scenario, it is hard to see how his downside is any more than TE 12-15 or so, provided he stays healthy.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Ben Watson's career stats:GAMES: 75TARGETS: 257RECEPTIONS: 147YARDS: 1798TDs: 17TARGETS PER GAME: 3.42RECEPTIONS PER GAME: 1.96YARDS PER GAME: 23.97TDs PER GAME: 0.22

Watson has played in 57 games, so redo the math accordingly. He has missed a total of 25 games over his career and has basically been the walking wounded for most of his career.

Those are FBG stats right from your player page. He was targted in 75 games according to your site. So if he received one target and got injured, that'd still be a game Watson started.

 

[David Yudkin]

Ben Watson's career stats:GAMES: 75TARGETS: 257RECEPTIONS: 147YARDS: 1798TDs: 17TARGETS PER GAME: 3.42RECEPTIONS PER GAME: 1.96YARDS PER GAME: 23.97TDs PER GAME: 0.22

Watson has played in 57 games, so redo the math accordingly. He has missed a total of 25 games over his career and has basically been the walking wounded for most of his career.

Those are FBG stats right from your player page. He caught a pass in 75 games according to your site.

I looked at his FBG player page. It is 57 games. I guess you just transposed the numbers. Either way, Watson's numbers are not that exciting, although he has had some flashes. But as others may have mentioned, NE does spread the ball around and he could get a TD in any given week but disappear altogether for weeks at a time.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Ben Watson's career stats:

GAMES: 75

TARGETS: 257

RECEPTIONS: 147

YARDS: 1798

TDs: 17

TARGETS PER GAME: 3.42

RECEPTIONS PER GAME: 1.96

YARDS PER GAME: 23.97

TDs PER GAME: 0.22

Watson has played in 57 games, so redo the math accordingly. He has missed a total of 25 games over his career and has basically been the walking wounded for most of his career.

Those are FBG stats right from your player page. He caught a pass in 75 games according to your site.

I looked at his FBG player page. It is 57 games. I guess you just transposed the numbers. Either way, Watson's numbers are not that exciting, although he has had some flashes. But as others may have mentioned, NE does spread the ball around and he could get a TD in any given week but disappear altogether for weeks at a time.

You aren't looking at the individual game log. You're only looking at the master spreadsheet. He received at least one target in 74 separate games.

 

[David Yudkin]

Ben Watson's career stats:

GAMES: 75

TARGETS: 257

RECEPTIONS: 147

YARDS: 1798

TDs: 17

TARGETS PER GAME: 3.42

RECEPTIONS PER GAME: 1.96

YARDS PER GAME: 23.97

TDs PER GAME: 0.22

Watson has played in 57 games, so redo the math accordingly. He has missed a total of 25 games over his career and has basically been the walking wounded for most of his career.

Those are FBG stats right from your player page. He caught a pass in 75 games according to your site.

I looked at his FBG player page. It is 57 games. I guess you just transposed the numbers. Either way, Watson's numbers are not that exciting, although he has had some flashes. But as others may have mentioned, NE does spread the ball around and he could get a TD in any given week but disappear altogether for weeks at a time.

You aren't looking at the individual game log. You're only looking at the master spreadsheet. He received at least one target in 74 separate games.

That lists all of his post season games, so that's where the difference comes from.

 

[Boston]

One obvious thing about Watson that has not been mentioned...he can't be trusted. Watson (like Daniel Graham before him) drops far too many easy passes. He'll make the circus catch like he did against Buffalo but he'll drop the lay-up on a third and seven. This has always been an issue with him and I don't see it changing at this stage of his career. He'll be involved in the Patriot passing game but I don't see him having a large role on a weekly basis due to his lack of being dependable.

 

[jdoggydogg]

That lists all of his post season games, so that's where the difference comes from.

Okay, so then he was targeted in 66 regular season games. Not trying to nitpick here, but if you play in a league with a week 17 Super Bowl, here's your numbers for Ben Watson if you started him every game of his regular season career:TARGETS PER GAME: 3.89RECEPTIONS PER GAME: 2.22YARDS PER GAME: 27.24TDs PER GAME: 0.25In other words, mediocre.

 

[Adebisi]

One obvious thing about Watson that has not been mentioned...he can't be trusted. Watson (like Daniel Graham before him) drops far too many easy passes. He'll make the circus catch like he did against Buffalo but he'll drop the lay-up on a third and seven. This has always been an issue with him and I don't see it changing at this stage of his career. He'll be involved in the Patriot passing game but I don't see him having a large role on a weekly basis due to his lack of being dependable.

Very

 

[David Yudkin]

That lists all of his post season games, so that's where the difference comes from.

Okay, so then he was targeted in 66 regular season games. Not trying to nitpick here, but if you play in a league with a week 17 Super Bowl, here's your numbers for Ben Watson if you started him every game of his regular season career:TARGETS PER GAME: 3.89RECEPTIONS PER GAME: 2.22YARDS PER GAME: 27.24TDs PER GAME: 0.25In other words, mediocre.

To beat the dead horse, Watson has played in 57 regular season games.4.3 targets, 2.6 receptions, 31.5 yards, 0.3 TD per game.I believe we are in agreement that that's on the meh side.

 

[Sarlakticacid]

Havent seen the whole Buffalo game yet but it seems that the majority of his targets came in 2 min drills

Can anyone confirm that?

 

[jdoggydogg]

That lists all of his post season games, so that's where the difference comes from.

Okay, so then he was targeted in 66 regular season games. Not trying to nitpick here, but if you play in a league with a week 17 Super Bowl, here's your numbers for Ben Watson if you started him every game of his regular season career:

TARGETS PER GAME: 3.89

RECEPTIONS PER GAME: 2.22

YARDS PER GAME: 27.24

TDs PER GAME: 0.25

In other words, mediocre.

To beat the dead horse, Watson has played in 57 regular season games.4.3 targets, 2.6 receptions, 31.5 yards, 0.3 TD per game.

I believe we are in agreement that that's on the meh side.

I hate to say it, but you are beating a dead horse because you are contradicting the stats posted on this web site.

 

[David Yudkin]

That lists all of his post season games, so that's where the difference comes from.

Okay, so then he was targeted in 66 regular season games. Not trying to nitpick here, but if you play in a league with a week 17 Super Bowl, here's your numbers for Ben Watson if you started him every game of his regular season career:

TARGETS PER GAME: 3.89

RECEPTIONS PER GAME: 2.22

YARDS PER GAME: 27.24

TDs PER GAME: 0.25

In other words, mediocre.

To beat the dead horse, Watson has played in 57 regular season games.4.3 targets, 2.6 receptions, 31.5 yards, 0.3 TD per game.

I believe we are in agreement that that's on the meh side.

I hate to say it, but you are beating a dead horse because you are contradicting the stats posted on this web site.

REGULAR SEASON STATS FROM THIS WEB SITE = 57 Games Played

 

[The Comedian]

He usually sucks at catching the ball.

 

[jdoggydogg]

That lists all of his post season games, so that's where the difference comes from.

Okay, so then he was targeted in 66 regular season games. Not trying to nitpick here, but if you play in a league with a week 17 Super Bowl, here's your numbers for Ben Watson if you started him every game of his regular season career:

TARGETS PER GAME: 3.89

RECEPTIONS PER GAME: 2.22

YARDS PER GAME: 27.24

TDs PER GAME: 0.25

In other words, mediocre.

To beat the dead horse, Watson has played in 57 regular season games.4.3 targets, 2.6 receptions, 31.5 yards, 0.3 TD per game.

I believe we are in agreement that that's on the meh side.

I hate to say it, but you are beating a dead horse because you are contradicting the stats posted on this web site.

REGULAR SEASON STATS FROM THIS WEB SITE = 57 Games Played

Some day, years from now, we'll be done with this You aren't looking at the individual game log. You're only looking at the master spreadsheet. He received at least one target in 66 separate games.

 

[jdoggydogg]

REGULAR SEASON STATS FROM THIS WEB SITE = 57 Games Played

I think the discrepancy is that in those games where he only received one target, he was hurt early and therefore it's not being counted as a complete game played.

 

[The Comedian]

Some day, years from now, we'll be done with this

You aren't looking at the individual game log. You're only looking at the master spreadsheet. He received at least one target in 66 separate games.

You either need to learn to count better or look up "Regular Season."

 

[Devil in the Detail]

Ok, this thread is officially terrible. I'd still like a satisfactory explanation for why Watson should be ranked so much lower than Shockey, who has dealt with similar injury and drops problems and also plays in an offense that spreads the ball around, but I guess perhaps I just don't get it.

 

[Jewell]

Other than Moss and Welker, Brady spreads the ball around way too much for any one Patriot WR/TE to be consistent. Watson will put up a game like he did Week 1 and then disappear for weeks on end. I've watched the Patriots for years and I'd never feel comfortable starting a Patriots TE whether it be Watson or Baker.

Plus, the Pats are a chameleon offensive. They'll pass it all over the place some weeks and then concentrate on the run other weeks all depending on the match-up. They'll be some weeks where Watson won't even be in the game plan.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Some day, years from now, we'll be done with this

You aren't looking at the individual game log. You're only looking at the master spreadsheet. He received at least one target in 66 separate games.

You either need to learn to count better or look up "Regular Season."

You need to learn how to read. Ben Watson received at least one target in 66 regular season games.

 

[The Comedian]

You either need to learn to count better or look up "Regular Season."

You need to learn how to read. Ben Watson received at least one target in 66 regular season games.

Yikes, guy.

REGULAR SEASON STATS FROM THIS WEB SITE = 57 Games Played

The "discrepancy" is that DY is talking about regular season targets and you're too dense to figure this out.

 

[The Comedian]

Some day, years from now, we'll be done with this

You aren't looking at the individual game log. You're only looking at the master spreadsheet. He received at least one target in 66 separate games.

You either need to learn to count better or look up "Regular Season."

You need to learn how to read. Ben Watson received at least one target in 66 regular season games.

Nice edit, but it doesn't change you you are originally quoted as writing, genius.And also, you're still wrong.



Hint: Don't count the games that have a number over 17.

 

[David Yudkin]

Some day, years from now, we'll be done with this

You aren't looking at the individual game log. You're only looking at the master spreadsheet. He received at least one target in 66 separate games.

You either need to learn to count better or look up "Regular Season."

You need to learn how to read. Ben Watson received at least one target in 66 regular season games.

Even in the page you are insisting he played 66 games, there are only 57 games listed in weeks 1-17.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Some day, years from now, we'll be done with this

You aren't looking at the individual game log. You're only looking at the master spreadsheet. He received at least one target in 66 separate games.

You either need to learn to count better or look up "Regular Season."

You need to learn how to read. Ben Watson received at least one target in 66 regular season games.

Even in the page you are insisting he played 66 games, there are only 57 games listed in weeks 1-17.

Whoops. I counted week 17 every season

 

[jdoggydogg]

You either need to learn to count better or look up "Regular Season."

You need to learn how to read. Ben Watson received at least one target in 66 regular season games.

Yikes, guy.

REGULAR SEASON STATS FROM THIS WEB SITE = 57 Games Played

The "discrepancy" is that DY is talking about regular season targets and you're too dense to figure this out.

My bad. I counted week 17 every year. See? Fantasy football has warped my mind.

 

[The Gray Hood]

 

[TD Ryan]

One obvious thing about Watson that has not been mentioned...he can't be trusted. Watson (like Daniel Graham before him) drops far too many easy passes. He'll make the circus catch like he did against Buffalo but he'll drop the lay-up on a third and seven. This has always been an issue with him and I don't see it changing at this stage of his career. He'll be involved in the Patriot passing game but I don't see him having a large role on a weekly basis due to his lack of being dependable.

Let me tell you why Ben Watson is on the fantasy radar:

- pedigree, first round pick

- size/strenght and speed of Superman

- Tom Brady QB throwing lots of short passes

- an amazing tackle of Champ Baily (DEN) in the playoffs a few years ago

Let me tell you why you should forget about him on your roster:

- a few years back, before Moss/Welker were in NE, Watson was given the keys to the NE-castle: he was THE primary receiving target for NE... and he failed. He couldn't play consistently enough or make the easy catches. It was a make or break season for Watson; Dan Graham was the blocking TE, Watson was (supposed to be) the skill tight end.

- now, NE has a ton of receiving options and Watson is at the end of that list. Sure, NE loves their short passes, but Welker, Faulk, Baker, and probably Edelman are more reliable short range targets than Watson. And you've still got Moss and Galloway at WR.

 

[The Gray Hood]

Other than Moss and Welker, Brady spreads the ball around way too much for any one Patriot WR/TE to be consistent.

I'd like to pursue this --- could you explain that a little?

 

[The Jerk]

Ok, this thread is officially terrible. I'd still like a satisfactory explanation for why Watson should be ranked so much lower than Shockey, who has dealt with similar injury and drops problems and also plays in an offense that spreads the ball around, but I guess perhaps I just don't get it.

There isn't much to add that wasn't already sufficiently posted concerning Watson, and I've rostered him probably more than half of the time in the past, but I'm staying away this year. His injury history and competition for targets are issued that simply are not as big of a factor for most of the players ranked above him on the list.If you feel he is undervalued, then it may be an issue of your scoring system being different than the FBG standard, or maybe you should go out and pick him up and/or play him if he's already on your roster. You're the coach/GM. You make the call. The Top 250 Forward is a tool, but it should not supersede all other statistics, your ability to reason, and good-old gut feelings.From your words, you seem to hone in on Shockey v. Watson. The other reason Watson may appear low relative to Shockey specifically is that Shockey may currently be overrated. I'm not saying he is, but given his injury history and lots of targets in NO, I do see parallels. But there is a difference. Watson has never caught as many as 50 receptions in a single season. Shockey has caught at least 48 receptions in each of his seven seasons. Watson has exceeded 450 yards receiving in a single season exactly once. Shockey has exceeded 480 yards receiving in each of his seven seasons. Starting to see a difference, now?

 

[The Jerk]

Other than Moss and Welker, Brady spreads the ball around way too much for any one Patriot WR/TE to be consistent.

I'd like to pursue this --- could you explain that a little?

I'll take this one.Let's just look at the 2007 receivers who scored TDs for the New England Patriots (sorted by TDs):

R.Moss	  98-1493-23Welker	 112-1175- 8Watson	  36- 389- 6Gaffney	 36- 449- 5Stallworth  46- 697- 3K.Brady	  9-  70- 2Vrabel	   2-   3- 2K.Faulk	 47- 383- 1

Only Watson rose above the level of bye-week filler, and only if you consider ppg.As a tight end, in terms of ppg, Watson was a low-end TE1 in most formats, with 32.5 yards and 0.5 TDs in 12 games.

 

[The Gray Hood]

Other than Moss and Welker, Brady spreads the ball around way too much for any one Patriot WR/TE to be consistent.

I'd like to pursue this --- could you explain that a little?

I'll take this one.Let's just look at the 2007 receivers who scored TDs for the New England Patriots (sorted by TDs):

R.Moss	  98-1493-23Welker	 112-1175- 8Watson	  36- 389- 6Gaffney	 36- 449- 5Stallworth  46- 697- 3K.Brady	  9-  70- 2Vrabel	   2-   3- 2K.Faulk	 47- 383- 1

Only Watson rose above the level of bye-week filler, and only if you consider ppg.As a tight end, in terms of ppg, Watson was a low-end TE1 in most formats, with 32.5 yards and 0.5 TDs in 12 games.

he was actually only playing 8-10 games, and just a bit of the rest, but a low end TE1 would normally be about 10-12 ranked, right?so, are you disputing the 'spread' thing, or trying to support it, 'cuz he seems to be at the top of your 'spread' list?generally speaking, when one of my players gets hurt I'll remove them from my line-up for that week.of course, if I had foreknowledge that watson would only play 8 games this year, I'd probably be a little more negative on him.bottom line, to answer the guy's question --- it's just a random opinion from some random guy.I could get a lot of different rankings from a lot of different people, and I doubt anybody knows in advance how all this will turn out.just out of curiousity, who are the 13-19 ranked guys?

 

[The Jerk]

he was actually only playing 8-10 games, and just a bit of the rest, but a low end TE1 would normally be about 10-12 ranked, right?so, are you disputing the 'spread' thing, or trying to support it, 'cuz he seems to be at the top of your 'spread' list?

What do you think? Do you really want any of those other players in your lineup? The only possibilities are Watson and Faulk in extremely large/deep PPR.With regard to Watson in 2007, it's easy to look back at his ppg numbers and see he was worthy of a low TE1 for the until he got hurt. However, as I recall, he was a free agent in the vast majority of leagues to start the season. Let's look at his first seven games:Game 1: 2-9-1How many people pick up a free agent TE with that stat line? Matt Spaeth's stat line from last week: 2-10-1 yet I haven't seen one thread on picking him up in the Shark Pool. And unless you're a Steeler fan, you probably need to search to find out his team. Keep in mind that Ben Watson and the Patriots offense as a whole were not known as must-haves entering the 2007 season.Game 2: 5-49-1Now I'm interested. 2 TDs. The Patriots are scoring a lot of points, but best of all I'm seeing yardage. Let's pick him up and play him.Game 3: 2-17-1OK. In a TD heavy league, a good week. In a standard league, slightly above average, but OK. I'll start him again.Game 4: 2-12Crap! Looks like it's TD or bust for him to be in the lineup. Maybe I should look elsewhere.Game 5: 6-107-2Aaaarrrrgggghhhh! OK, you win Watson. I'll play you the rest of the year.Game 6: 1-28 (injured)Game 9: 2-10Game 11: 3-43-1Game 12: 3-17Game 13: 2-26Game 14: 4-33Game 17: 4-38If you played him after he got hurt, he did basically nothing for you except for Week 11.If you waited until Week 3 to play him, which I'm guessing most people did, then he got all of 29-331-4 for you, and that's only if you had him in for Game 5.And even if you did all that, starting in Week 7, you were never sure if he was going to play or not and when he did, it was for a total of 18-167-1.Watson did not help many teams win championships that season. At best, he got owners a Week 5 win (and possibly a Week 11 win) IF they played him.Finally, remember that Watson's great early-season start coincided with Brady throwing 3.5 TDs a game the first six weeks of 2007. Expecting Brady to throw 2 TDs or slightly higher per game this year, you can literally expect Watson's TD numbers to be down by at least one-third over the early season 2007 pace. Just something else to consider.

 

[The Gray Hood]

so, basically what you're saying is a guy should catch a td every week or he's ranked 20.

I'm not sure I really follow this inconsistency angle, as there aren't a lot of te's who score every other week, let alone every week.

I could probably put on a little theatre production on about every te in the league, outside maybe the top half dozen, or so.

he absolutely is fairly unlikey to light it up in ppr for 90/900, but if my guy scores a td in any given week, I'm pretty happy with that, and he probably doesn't score fewer td's this year than 19 other guys --- which I think is the op's original point.

what it boils down to is the guy is probably free money in most leagues, and if I designate him as TE2, where does he fall in the 13-24 range?

 

[The Jerk]

so, basically what you're saying is a guy should catch a td every week or he's ranked 20.I'm not sure I really follow this inconsistency angle, as there aren't a lot of te's who score every other week, let alone every week.I could probably put on a little theatre production on about every te in the league, outside maybe the top half dozen, or so.he absolutely is fairly unlikey to light it up in ppr for 90/900, but if my guy scores a td in any given week, I'm pretty happy with that, and he probably doesn't score fewer td's this year than 19 other guys --- which I think is the op's original point.what it boils down to is the guy is probably free money in most leagues, and if I designate him as TE2, where does he fall in the 13-24 range?

I'm not sure if you're pretending to be dense and see how many times I respond, or if you genuinely are missing my point. Being that it's your second day here, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.Watson's past yardage figures place him significantly below virtually all TE1s and some TE2s. So he is going to need to score more TDs than at least half of those players in order to be a startable TE. In New England's offense going back to Brady's emergence in 2001, all receivers have shared the production. In fact, Moss was not drafted highly in 2007 because people thought that trend would continue. In 2007's turbo offense, Moss and Welker were clearly the top two options, but the remainder of the receivers get the remnants and on average, those scraps aren't enough to help fantasy teams. They just aren't.If you are in a TD only league, then the "he probably doesn't score fewer TD's this year than 19 other guys" has merit. However, most leagues count yards to at least some degree, in which case Watson being #15 or so in TDs might not make him any higher than #20 once yardage and TDs are counted.Once again, if you think Watson is a player worth investing in given his upside, then go out and get him off the waiver wire on in a trade. You're right that he should come cheap. However, it's not foolish to consider some of the negatives on Watson:1. injury history2. low yardage and receptions3. NE offense spreads targets4. at best, the third option5. Chris Baker may still be at least a co-TE #1 on the depth chart by the end of the seasonI've got one of the top TEs in each of my leagues this year, so I'm not scouring the TE depth on the waiver wire or trying to analyze who is likely to break out, but I don't think Watson is vastly misplaced as #20. Would you be happy if he was #16? That's probably one more TD over the course of the season, or at most 2 TDs. So of course it could happen.As for the "theatre production" (I'll take it as a compliment ), don't miss the point that not having Watson to start the season this year means you've already missed 2 TDs out of his season. Do you think he'll hit double-digit TDs? Hard to believe. So he's got maybe 6 left at most, right? Are you willing to play him every week and take a near-zero if his low-yardage trend continues? That's the point of the "production" -- not the dramatic effect.In general, don't underestimate the importance of having production out of the TE spot. Having the worst TE1 means you're at a disadvantage at every other position. You can still win, but you've got to make up that gap at every other position. Sure, Watson can get you by if you're stacked everywhere else, but he's unlikely to be a difference-maker at the position.

 

[The Gray Hood]

In general, don't underestimate the importance of having production out of the TE spot. Having the worst TE1 means you're at a disadvantage at every other position. You can still win, but you've got to make up that gap at every other position. Sure, Watson can get you by if you're stacked everywhere else, but he's unlikely to be a difference-maker at the position.

yeah....that would actually mean you're at a disadvantage at that one spot.I've got clark and celek, so I'm not interested.

 

[The Jerk]

In general, don't underestimate the importance of having production out of the TE spot. Having the worst TE1 means you're at a disadvantage at every other position. You can still win, but you've got to make up that gap at every other position. Sure, Watson can get you by if you're stacked everywhere else, but he's unlikely to be a difference-maker at the position.

yeah....that would actually mean you're at a disadvantage at that one spot.I've got clark and celek, so I'm not interested.

Thanks. I messed up that line.I meant to say "having the worst TE1 means you're at a disadvantage at that position compared with every other team in your league"