Big Monday on FBG (Subscriber Content) (1 Viewer)

[David Dodds]

Just posted our Value Plays article to the website. This is perhaps the best preseason piece we will release. 19 staffers all giving quotes on their sleepers and busts:

Value Plays and Overvalued Players

Also added 25 Offensive Faceoffs and 15 Spotlights.

I still have these things that will get posted tonight: New ADP, New ADP IDP, New Top 200, Smith's Draft Position Article, Norton's Preseason EOTG, New Projections Dominator.

New VBD and Draft Dominator versions are expected to go LIVE on Tuesday.

We also have 33 freelance articles and more staff pieces that are in the queue. IDP Top 200 is also in the works.

 

[dapunisher]

And I told my girlfriend that I would take her to dinner tonight. I wonder if I can print it out and bring it to the table?

 

[Musesboy]

That's impressive output

 

[joffer]

looking at the Value Plays article from last year, kudos to:

Rudnicki - nailed his WR picks

Wood - pretty good across the board (except for Steve Smith )

Smith - good across the board

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

looking at the Value Plays article from last year, kudos to:Rudnicki - nailed his WR picks

 

[Diablo]

Fantastic article and probably one of my favorites every year.

Alot of love for Ron Dayne...

 

[David Yudkin]

In reading some of the over valued comments, I am a bit surprised that a common theme is that "there are other guys I could get a little later" as the basis for a player being over valued.

I'm not so sure that I find that as a valid argument . . . either the player will rank where he's drafted or he won't. Saying that PLAYERS X, Y, and Z could be almost as productive and come cheaper IMO does not necessarily mean PLAYER A is overvalued.

In that example, PLAYERS X, Y, and Z might all be undervalued, but that doesn't mean PLAYER A becomes overvalued based on the thought that other players drafted later could approach PLAYER A.

Maybe I'm just being nitpicky . . .

 

[BassNBrew]

Great read...

The main thing that jumped out at me is all the hate for J. Lewis. Yo FBGs, he's only 27. He spent most of the last off season in jail where he was working on the his agility drills with a bar of soap, not high stepping thru the tires.

 

[JayMan]

In reading some of the over valued comments, I am a bit surprised that a common theme is that "there are other guys I could get a little later" as the basis for a player being over valued.

I'm not so sure that I find that as a valid argument . . . either the player will rank where he's drafted or he won't. Saying that PLAYERS X, Y, and Z could be almost as productive and come cheaper IMO does not necessarily mean PLAYER A is overvalued.

In that example, PLAYERS X, Y, and Z might all be undervalued, but that doesn't mean PLAYER A becomes overvalued based on the thought that other players drafted later could approach PLAYER A.

Maybe I'm just being nitpicky . . .

Interesting posting...But, the only argument that I would say against the point you are making above (being the Devil's advocate here) - is that a FF Player (or a Market Stock for that matter) is always over/undervalued relative to others of the same nature... In your example, Player A is, by definition, overvalued - since you can have similar results (FF points) at a cheaper price (Draft round)

My 2 cents...

 

[David Yudkin]

In reading some of the over valued comments, I am a bit surprised that a common theme is that "there are other guys I could get a little later" as the basis for a player being over valued.

I'm not so sure that I find that as a valid argument . . . either the player will rank where he's drafted or he won't.  Saying that PLAYERS X, Y, and Z could be almost as productive and come cheaper IMO does not necessarily mean PLAYER A is overvalued.

In that example, PLAYERS X, Y, and Z might all be undervalued, but that doesn't mean PLAYER A becomes overvalued based on the thought that other players drafted later could approach PLAYER A.

Maybe I'm just being nitpicky . . .

Interesting posting...But, the only argument that I would say against the point you are making above (being the Devil's advocate here) - is that a FF Player (or a Market Stock for that matter) is always over/undervalued relative to others of the same nature... In your example, Player A is, by definition, overvalued - since you can have similar results (FF points) at a cheaper price (Draft round)

My 2 cents...

Not to shoot down the opinions of my colleagues (as they all had some great comments, feedback, and input), but we were asked to select players that would outproduce their ADPs or underproduce their draft positions.If PLAYER A was the #12 WR off the board and will rank as the #12 WR, by definitiion that player would not qualify as over valued. The fact that WRs taken in the 20-25 range could do as well has no bearing on PLAYER A's value for this exercise, as HE DID NOT PERFORM APPRECIABLY WORSE THAN WHERE HE WAS SELECTED.

IMO, to be considered overvalued, PLAYER A would need to rank in the range that the other guys were being drafted, not vice versa. PLAYER A needs to perform WORSE than expected in terms of year end ranking--what other guys do or don't do really are not direct factors in this exercise.

 

[djdano]

This content has made my three-year subscription worthwhile! I'll put away my Magic 8 Ball (for now!

 

[x260bm]

Where is Edge? He has an ADP of 5 but he ranked at 10th. Some of you have him rated as a late second round pick and no one chooses him?

 

[JayMan]

In reading some of the over valued comments, I am a bit surprised that a common theme is that "there are other guys I could get a little later" as the basis for a player being over valued.

I'm not so sure that I find that as a valid argument . . . either the player will rank where he's drafted or he won't.  Saying that PLAYERS X, Y, and Z could be almost as productive and come cheaper IMO does not necessarily mean PLAYER A is overvalued.

In that example, PLAYERS X, Y, and Z might all be undervalued, but that doesn't mean PLAYER A becomes overvalued based on the thought that other players drafted later could approach PLAYER A.

Maybe I'm just being nitpicky . . .

Interesting posting...But, the only argument that I would say against the point you are making above (being the Devil's advocate here) - is that a FF Player (or a Market Stock for that matter) is always over/undervalued relative to others of the same nature... In your example, Player A is, by definition, overvalued - since you can have similar results (FF points) at a cheaper price (Draft round)

My 2 cents...

Not to shoot down the opinions of my colleagues (as they all had some great comments, feedback, and input), but we were asked to select players that would outproduce their ADPs or underproduce their draft positions.If PLAYER A was the #12 WR off the board and will rank as the #12 WR, by definitiion that player would not qualify as over valued. The fact that WRs taken in the 20-25 range could do as well has no bearing on PLAYER A's value for this exercise, as HE DID NOT PERFORM APPRECIABLY WORSE THAN WHERE HE WAS SELECTED.

IMO, to be considered overvalued, PLAYER A would need to rank in the range that the other guys were being drafted, not vice versa. PLAYER A needs to perform WORSE than expected in terms of year end ranking--what other guys do or don't do really are not direct factors in this exercise.

I think that over/undervalued can only be related to what others do... when you mention that PlayerA, to be considered overvalued, has to be ranked at year end lower than what expected - you are in fact "ranking" him - thus comparing him to others at his position...I can see your point - and I'm not saying that it's not valid - I'm just mentioning that rankings are indeed comparisons with others...

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Where is Edge? He has an ADP of 5 but he ranked at 10th. Some of you have him rated as a late second round pick and no one chooses him?

I had him listed at first, but wound up leaving him out. I think he's borderline. While I do think he is unlikely to perform up to his ADP, I also thought there were other RBs who were less likely to perform up to theirs. Edge certainly has the talent to warrant being selected around the 6th spot...I'm just not sure if the situation will allow him to produce like he should.

 

[rascal]

Maybe I missed the link, but where is the value plays from last year?

 

[joffer]

Maybe I missed the link, but where is the value plays from last year?

link

 

[joffer]

holy Ben Watson votes batman....

i like this guy too, but i get the feeling by the time late August rolls around, he won't be underrated anymore... :(

 

[ImTheScientist]

I love being a subscriber!!!

 

[renesauz]

I loved this article last year, and it was just as interesting this year. It's kind of funny seeing guys appear on BOTH the under and over-valued lists though.

Funny thing is...many of those people appearing on both lists are guys I personally can't get a good read on either.

When they appear on both lists, doesn't that lend credence to the idea that their ADP is, in fact, probably a good spot????

 

[Sigfawn]

I loved this article last year, and it was just as interesting this year. It's kind of funny seeing guys appear on BOTH the under and over-valued lists though.

Funny thing is...many of those people appearing on both lists are guys I personally can't get a good read on either.

When they appear on both lists, doesn't that lend credence to the idea that their ADP is, in fact, probably a good spot????

Which ranking do you preferRB20 - 20 - 10 - 30 - 15 - 25 - 32 - 8

or

RB21 - 21 - 20 - 22 - 20 - 19 - 23 - 21

I prefer the one with as little variation as possible. I use the rankings/projections to build a consensus. When people can't even agree on over/under, it's a risky pick.

 

[duaneok66]

I loved this article last year, and it was just as interesting this year. It's kind of funny seeing guys appear on BOTH the under and over-valued lists though.

thank you . . .

 

[David Dodds]

Just posted the Top 200 with ADP too. This shows a more comprehensive list to the players we are projecting against their respective ADPs

 

[renesauz]

I loved this article last year, and it was just as interesting this year.  It's kind of funny seeing guys appear on BOTH the under and over-valued lists though.

Funny thing is...many of those people appearing on both lists are guys I personally can't get a good read on either.

When they appear on both lists, doesn't that lend credence to the idea that their ADP is, in fact, probably a good spot????

Which ranking do you preferRB20 - 20 - 10 - 30 - 15 - 25 - 32 - 8

or

RB21 - 21 - 20 - 22 - 20 - 19 - 23 - 21

I prefer the one with as little variation as possible. I use the rankings/projections to build a consensus. When people can't even agree on over/under, it's a risky pick.

I guess it depends on what else I have on my team! I'll take a chance here and there, but not on more then a couple of players. Playing only the safe players can lead to consistant playoff appearences, but rare championships. Would you rather finish 3rd or 4th every year, or 1st one year and 6th another?IN other words, one could argue that taking a FEW players like these near their ADP if they slip that far in your draft may give you a BETTER shot at a Championship.

Or am I way off base here? Really looking for alternate thoughts.

 

[David Dodds]

Where is Edge?  He has an ADP of 5 but he ranked at 10th.  Some of you have him rated as a late second round pick and no one chooses him?

I had him listed at first, but wound up leaving him out. I think he's borderline. While I do think he is unlikely to perform up to his ADP, I also thought there were other RBs who were less likely to perform up to theirs. Edge certainly has the talent to warrant being selected around the 6th spot...I'm just not sure if the situation will allow him to produce like he should.

I also had Edge on my initial list and then dropped him for many of the same reasons Aaron has stated.

 

[rascal]

This doesn't make any sense.

Don't take this personal I just don't understand it.

Mike Brown, Marc Levin, and Jason Wood all say that Chester Taylor is overvalued as RB21. Yet Mike has him ranked RB24, Marc Levin has him ranked RB23, and Jason has him ranked RB22. How is 1-3 spots considered overvalued? I'd be more interested in finding out why Dave Baker doesn't like him (RB33). Or why Mike has Droughns ranked RB28 compared to ADP of RB21.

Maybe it's me but 1-3 spots seems petty when there is less then 1 ppg difference between the spots.

 

[Sabertooth]

This doesn't make any sense.

Don't take this personal I just don't understand it.

Mike Brown, Marc Levin, and Jason Wood all say that Chester Taylor is overvalued as RB21. Yet Mike has him ranked RB24, Marc Levin has him ranked RB23, and Jason has him ranked RB22. How is 1-3 spots considered overvalued? I'd be more interested in finding out why Dave Baker doesn't like him (RB33).

Maybe it's me but 1-3 spots seems petty when there is less then 1 ppg difference between the spots.

and

 

[Jason Wood]

This doesn't make any sense.

Don't take this personal I just don't understand it.

Mike Brown, Marc Levin, and Jason Wood all say that Chester Taylor is overvalued as RB21. Yet Mike has him ranked RB24, Marc Levin has him ranked RB23, and Jason has him ranked RB22. How is 1-3 spots considered overvalued? I'd be more interested in finding out why Dave Baker doesn't like him (RB33). Or why Mike has Droughns ranked RB28 compared to ADP of RB21.

Maybe it's me but 1-3 spots seems petty when there is less then 1 ppg difference between the spots.

Fair point...and astute. When you see my latest rankings and projections (both tomorrow), you'll notice I've rethought my view on Chesty. Heading into the UV/OV article, I had Taylor as being THE guy in Minnesota, but I've since backed off on some of that enthusiasm.

 

[rascal]

This doesn't make any sense.

Don't take this personal I just don't understand it.

Mike Brown, Marc Levin, and Jason Wood all say that Chester Taylor is overvalued as RB21.  Yet Mike has him ranked RB24, Marc Levin has him ranked RB23, and Jason has him ranked RB22.  How is 1-3 spots considered overvalued?  I'd be more interested in finding out why Dave Baker doesn't like him (RB33).  Or why Mike has Droughns ranked RB28 compared to ADP of RB21.

Maybe it's me but 1-3 spots seems petty when there is less then 1 ppg difference between the spots.

Fair point...and astute. When you see my latest rankings and projections (both tomorrow), you'll notice I've rethought my view on Chesty. Heading into the UV/OV article, I had Taylor as being THE guy in Minnesota, but I've since backed off on some of that enthusiasm.

What lead to your rethinking considering that Childress came out and recently said he was happy with his progress in the second minicamp?

 

[Jason Wood]

This doesn't make any sense.

Don't take this personal I just don't understand it.

Mike Brown, Marc Levin, and Jason Wood all say that Chester Taylor is overvalued as RB21.  Yet Mike has him ranked RB24, Marc Levin has him ranked RB23, and Jason has him ranked RB22.  How is 1-3 spots considered overvalued?  I'd be more interested in finding out why Dave Baker doesn't like him (RB33).  Or why Mike has Droughns ranked RB28 compared to ADP of RB21.

Maybe it's me but 1-3 spots seems petty when there is less then 1 ppg difference between the spots.

Fair point...and astute. When you see my latest rankings and projections (both tomorrow), you'll notice I've rethought my view on Chesty. Heading into the UV/OV article, I had Taylor as being THE guy in Minnesota, but I've since backed off on some of that enthusiasm.

What lead to your rethinking considering that Childress came out and recently said he was happy with his progress in the second minicamp?

1) The depth of the RB corps2) The fact that Chesty's history is somewhat pedestrian

3) A lowered sense of optimism for the Vikings offense, in general

I have him at RB26 on my latest pass through.

 

[LHUCKS]

This doesn't make any sense.

Don't take this personal I just don't understand it.

Mike Brown, Marc Levin, and Jason Wood all say that Chester Taylor is overvalued as RB21.  Yet Mike has him ranked RB24, Marc Levin has him ranked RB23, and Jason has him ranked RB22.  How is 1-3 spots considered overvalued?  I'd be more interested in finding out why Dave Baker doesn't like him (RB33).  Or why Mike has Droughns ranked RB28 compared to ADP of RB21.

Maybe it's me but 1-3 spots seems petty when there is less then 1 ppg difference between the spots.

Fair point...and astute. When you see my latest rankings and projections (both tomorrow), you'll notice I've rethought my view on Chesty. Heading into the UV/OV article, I had Taylor as being THE guy in Minnesota, but I've since backed off on some of that enthusiasm.

What lead to your rethinking considering that Childress came out and recently said he was happy with his progress in the second minicamp?

1) The depth of the RB corps2) The fact that Chesty's history is somewhat pedestrian

3) A lowered sense of optimism for the Vikings offense, in general

I have him at RB26 on my latest pass through.

Chester is one of those guys you can argue as overvalued or undervalued. At his current ADP I probably will not be drafting him.

 

[Dave Baker]

I'd be more interested in finding out why Dave Baker doesn't like him (RB33). Or why Mike has Droughns ranked RB28 compared to ADP of RB21.

Pretty much summed up by Jason's thoughts.

1) The depth of the RB corps

2) The fact that Chesty's history is somewhat pedestrian

3) A lowered sense of optimism for the Vikings offense, in general

I think I have him a little higher right now, but Jason's reasons are identical to mine. Obviously things will change drastically one way or another as preseason unfolds.

 

[LHUCKS]

Props to Chris Smith for being the only staffer to recognize Reggie Williams as value.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Props to Chase Stuart for being the only staffer to recognize Tony Gonzales as value.

Fixed. I'm shocked at all the Gonzo hate.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Props to Chase Stuart for being the only staffer to recognize Tony Gonzales as value.

Fixed. I'm shocked at all the Gonzo hate.

Really? What caused his decline last year, in your opinion?

 

[LHUCKS]

Props to Chase Stuart for being the only staffer to recognize Tony Gonzales as value.

Fixed. I'm shocked at all the Gonzo hate.

I don't have a problem with Gonzo's ADP as TEs are very, very deep this year.You probably wont see me take any of the top TEs this year in the early rounds because I think there's sweet value to be had with TEs ranked #7 - #14.

 

[There it is]

This doesn't make any sense.

Don't take this personal I just don't understand it.

Mike Brown, Marc Levin, and Jason Wood all say that Chester Taylor is overvalued as RB21. Yet Mike has him ranked RB24, Marc Levin has him ranked RB23, and Jason has him ranked RB22. How is 1-3 spots considered overvalued? I'd be more interested in finding out why Dave Baker doesn't like him (RB33). Or why Mike has Droughns ranked RB28 compared to ADP of RB21.

Maybe it's me but 1-3 spots seems petty when there is less then 1 ppg difference between the spots.

Fair point...and astute. When you see my latest rankings and projections (both tomorrow), you'll notice I've rethought my view on Chesty. Heading into the UV/OV article, I had Taylor as being THE guy in Minnesota, but I've since backed off on some of that enthusiasm.

What lead to your rethinking considering that Childress came out and recently said he was happy with his progress in the second minicamp?

1) The depth of the RB corps2) The fact that Chesty's history is somewhat pedestrian

3) A lowered sense of optimism for the Vikings offense, in general

I have him at RB26 on my latest pass through.

God I love this site. Will have to look later, but

A new ADP. Now I can get serious.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Props to Chris Smith for being the only staffer to recognize Reggie Williams as value.

he was the starter entering last season too, but Wilford outplayed him. I expect the same thing to happen this year.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

btw, I can't believe nobody else mentioned Sinorice Moss being overvalued as WR48. No other ADP stood out more than that one did to me yet I was the only person who mentioned him.

 

[LHUCKS]

btw, I can't believe nobody else mentioned Sinorice Moss being overvalued as WR48. No other ADP stood out more than that one did to me yet I was the only person who mentioned him.

That's almost so comical it's not even worth writing up.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Props to Chase Stuart for being the only staffer to recognize Tony Gonzales as value.

Fixed. I'm shocked at all the Gonzo hate.

Really? What caused his decline last year, in your opinion?

From 1999-2004, Tony Gonzalez’s VBD value ranked in the top 30 each year, and in the top 15 six times. Last year, from week seven until the end of the season, Gonzalez led all TEs in receiving yards. Yet Gonzalez’s ADP is in the 5th round? The 7-time Pro Bowler started off horribly last year after LT Willie Roaf was injured and Gonzalez was utilized almost exclusively as a blocker. Despite being a stud TE once Roaf was back, and despite having a history of being worth a second or third round pick, Gonzalez can be had in the fifth right now.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Props to Chase Stuart for being the only staffer to recognize Tony Gonzales as value.

Fixed. I'm shocked at all the Gonzo hate.

Really? What caused his decline last year, in your opinion?

From 1999-2004, Tony Gonzalez’s VBD value ranked in the top 30 each year, and in the top 15 six times. Last year, from week seven until the end of the season, Gonzalez led all TEs in receiving yards. Yet Gonzalez’s ADP is in the 5th round? The 7-time Pro Bowler started off horribly last year after LT Willie Roaf was injured and Gonzalez was utilized almost exclusively as a blocker. Despite being a stud TE once Roaf was back, and despite having a history of being worth a second or third round pick, Gonzalez can be had in the fifth right now.

he was a waste of a 3rd round pick for my WCOFF team last year. Chris Cooley was better and I got him much later. Pretty sure you used the same type of reasoning above to convince me that picking him there was a good idea too.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Props to Chase Stuart for being the only staffer to recognize Tony Gonzales as value.

Fixed. I'm shocked at all the Gonzo hate.

Really? What caused his decline last year, in your opinion?

From 1999-2004, Tony Gonzalez’s VBD value ranked in the top 30 each year, and in the top 15 six times. Last year, from week seven until the end of the season, Gonzalez led all TEs in receiving yards. Yet Gonzalez’s ADP is in the 5th round? The 7-time Pro Bowler started off horribly last year after LT Willie Roaf was injured and Gonzalez was utilized almost exclusively as a blocker. Despite being a stud TE once Roaf was back, and despite having a history of being worth a second or third round pick, Gonzalez can be had in the fifth right now.

he was a waste of a 3rd round pick for my WCOFF team last year. Chris Cooley was better and I got him much later. Pretty sure you used the same type of reasoning above to convince me that picking him there was a good idea too.

Agreed -- last year he was a bad pick. But my point is he was worth a third round pick every year from '99-'04. And in '05, he was worth a third round pick from week 7-week 17. The only time he wasn't a third round pick was in the first six weeks of 2005, which coincides with an All Pro T being hurt. Roaf is healthy now, and Gonzales should be a stud again. The fact that he's in the 5th makes him a steal.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Props to Chase Stuart for being the only staffer to recognize Tony Gonzales as value.

Fixed. I'm shocked at all the Gonzo hate.

Really? What caused his decline last year, in your opinion?

From 1999-2004, Tony Gonzalez’s VBD value ranked in the top 30 each year, and in the top 15 six times. Last year, from week seven until the end of the season, Gonzalez led all TEs in receiving yards. Yet Gonzalez’s ADP is in the 5th round? The 7-time Pro Bowler started off horribly last year after LT Willie Roaf was injured and Gonzalez was utilized almost exclusively as a blocker. Despite being a stud TE once Roaf was back, and despite having a history of being worth a second or third round pick, Gonzalez can be had in the fifth right now.

he was a waste of a 3rd round pick for my WCOFF team last year. Chris Cooley was better and I got him much later. Pretty sure you used the same type of reasoning above to convince me that picking him there was a good idea too.

Agreed -- last year he was a bad pick. But my point is he was worth a third round pick every year from '99-'04. And in '05, he was worth a third round pick from week 7-week 17. The only time he wasn't a third round pick was in the first six weeks of 2005, which coincides with an All Pro T being hurt. Roaf is healthy now, and Gonzales should be a stud again. The fact that he's in the 5th makes him a steal.

yeah, except that he has a new head coach and his OLine is all a year older. That's my only worry with him. Saunders is gone, Edwards is in, who knows if Gonzo will be used the same way even if all goes well. And if the OLine needs help again due to injury or ineffectiveness, look out. I think that the plan probably would be for Dunn to be the blocking TE, but Gonzo is really such a good blocking TE himself that it would require a 2 TE set to see Dunn blocking while Gonzo is out in the pattern. Will that happen? Not sure.

 

[David Yudkin]

Props to Chase Stuart for being the only staffer to recognize Tony Gonzales as value.

Fixed. I'm shocked at all the Gonzo hate.

Really? What caused his decline last year, in your opinion?

From 1999-2004, Tony Gonzalez’s VBD value ranked in the top 30 each year, and in the top 15 six times. Last year, from week seven until the end of the season, Gonzalez led all TEs in receiving yards. Yet Gonzalez’s ADP is in the 5th round? The 7-time Pro Bowler started off horribly last year after LT Willie Roaf was injured and Gonzalez was utilized almost exclusively as a blocker. Despite being a stud TE once Roaf was back, and despite having a history of being worth a second or third round pick, Gonzalez can be had in the fifth right now.

he was a waste of a 3rd round pick for my WCOFF team last year. Chris Cooley was better and I got him much later. Pretty sure you used the same type of reasoning above to convince me that picking him there was a good idea too.

Agreed -- last year he was a bad pick. But my point is he was worth a third round pick every year from '99-'04. And in '05, he was worth a third round pick from week 7-week 17. The only time he wasn't a third round pick was in the first six weeks of 2005, which coincides with an All Pro T being hurt. Roaf is healthy now, and Gonzales should be a stud again. The fact that he's in the 5th makes him a steal.

While I think Gonzo should be his usual self again this year (the only thing different was his TD total last year), I didn't pick him for the value play article because I didn't think he met the terms of the assignment. His ADP was as the #3 TE. I happen to think that Shockey and Heap will do well this year (as will Gates), and even if Gonzalez were to do well I don't see him being leaps and bounds better than his ADP.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Props to Chase Stuart for being the only staffer to recognize Tony Gonzales as value.

Fixed. I'm shocked at all the Gonzo hate.

Really? What caused his decline last year, in your opinion?

From 1999-2004, Tony Gonzalez’s VBD value ranked in the top 30 each year, and in the top 15 six times. Last year, from week seven until the end of the season, Gonzalez led all TEs in receiving yards. Yet Gonzalez’s ADP is in the 5th round? The 7-time Pro Bowler started off horribly last year after LT Willie Roaf was injured and Gonzalez was utilized almost exclusively as a blocker. Despite being a stud TE once Roaf was back, and despite having a history of being worth a second or third round pick, Gonzalez can be had in the fifth right now.

he was a waste of a 3rd round pick for my WCOFF team last year. Chris Cooley was better and I got him much later. Pretty sure you used the same type of reasoning above to convince me that picking him there was a good idea too.

Agreed -- last year he was a bad pick. But my point is he was worth a third round pick every year from '99-'04. And in '05, he was worth a third round pick from week 7-week 17. The only time he wasn't a third round pick was in the first six weeks of 2005, which coincides with an All Pro T being hurt. Roaf is healthy now, and Gonzales should be a stud again. The fact that he's in the 5th makes him a steal.

yeah, except that he has a new head coach and his OLine is all a year older. That's my only worry with him. Saunders is gone, Edwards is in, who knows if Gonzo will be used the same way even if all goes well. And if the OLine needs help again due to injury or ineffectiveness, look out. I think that the plan probably would be for Dunn to be the blocking TE, but Gonzo is really such a good blocking TE himself that it would require a 2 TE set to see Dunn blocking while Gonzo is out in the pattern. Will that happen? Not sure.

Herm rides his studs. We saw that clearly in NY. There's no way Herm's going to forget about Gonzales, who is the Chiefs second best weapon.Mike Solari will have complete control of that offense, since Edwards doesn't know anything about offense. Terry Shea returns as the QB coach and Trent Green and Gonzales obviously know the offense as well as anyone. I'm not worried about the new coach, and expect the Chiefs to run the same offense that has been dominant for years. Solari brings continuity, which is a very good thing in this case.

The OL is older, but I don't think we'll see a repeat of last year even if Roaf got hurt. But I'm not going to go about predicting injuries for OTs.

Gonzales is a stud TE and will continue to put up huge numbers for the Chiefs. If the big worry is Edwards, that seems unfounded since he's not going to touch that offense.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Props to Chase Stuart for being the only staffer to recognize Tony Gonzales as value.

Fixed. I'm shocked at all the Gonzo hate.

Really? What caused his decline last year, in your opinion?

From 1999-2004, Tony Gonzalez’s VBD value ranked in the top 30 each year, and in the top 15 six times. Last year, from week seven until the end of the season, Gonzalez led all TEs in receiving yards. Yet Gonzalez’s ADP is in the 5th round? The 7-time Pro Bowler started off horribly last year after LT Willie Roaf was injured and Gonzalez was utilized almost exclusively as a blocker. Despite being a stud TE once Roaf was back, and despite having a history of being worth a second or third round pick, Gonzalez can be had in the fifth right now.

he was a waste of a 3rd round pick for my WCOFF team last year. Chris Cooley was better and I got him much later. Pretty sure you used the same type of reasoning above to convince me that picking him there was a good idea too.

Agreed -- last year he was a bad pick. But my point is he was worth a third round pick every year from '99-'04. And in '05, he was worth a third round pick from week 7-week 17. The only time he wasn't a third round pick was in the first six weeks of 2005, which coincides with an All Pro T being hurt. Roaf is healthy now, and Gonzales should be a stud again. The fact that he's in the 5th makes him a steal.

While I think Gonzo should be his usual self again this year (the only thing different was his TD total last year), I didn't pick him for the value play article because I didn't think he met the terms of the assignment. His ADP was as the #3 TE. I happen to think that Shockey and Heap will do well this year (as will Gates), and even if Gonzalez were to do well I don't see him being leaps and bounds better than his ADP.

Gonzales has an ADP of 53. A 20% increase of that would be ranking 42nd. Gonzo's VBD ranks the last seven years:

1999          112000           82001          232002          272003          132004          112005          44

Last year, despite a horrible start, and an abnormally low TD ratio, he ranked 44th. He seems like a no brainer to rank in the top 40 this year, and is likely (if he stays healthy, of course) to rank in the top 20 again.

 

[There it is]

Props to Chase Stuart for being the only staffer to recognize Tony Gonzales as value.

Fixed. I'm shocked at all the Gonzo hate.

Really? What caused his decline last year, in your opinion?

From 1999-2004, Tony Gonzalez’s VBD value ranked in the top 30 each year, and in the top 15 six times. Last year, from week seven until the end of the season, Gonzalez led all TEs in receiving yards. Yet Gonzalez’s ADP is in the 5th round? The 7-time Pro Bowler started off horribly last year after LT Willie Roaf was injured and Gonzalez was utilized almost exclusively as a blocker. Despite being a stud TE once Roaf was back, and despite having a history of being worth a second or third round pick, Gonzalez can be had in the fifth right now.

he was a waste of a 3rd round pick for my WCOFF team last year. Chris Cooley was better and I got him much later. Pretty sure you used the same type of reasoning above to convince me that picking him there was a good idea too.

Agreed -- last year he was a bad pick. But my point is he was worth a third round pick every year from '99-'04. And in '05, he was worth a third round pick from week 7-week 17. The only time he wasn't a third round pick was in the first six weeks of 2005, which coincides with an All Pro T being hurt. Roaf is healthy now, and Gonzales should be a stud again. The fact that he's in the 5th makes him a steal.

I'm liking Gongo this year. I'll have to chech this out tomorrow.Like I've said in other threads KC has a very easy sos this year again and a bad D. Thats FFB heaven.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Chase>TE is getting deeper and deeper every year. This year, players like Kellen Winslow and Vernon Davis will be added to the pool, and it would not be surprising to see the VBD baseline improve considerably from last year. IMO, that makes Gonzo less valuable and I'd rather wait to find value in the next tier or two of TEs who will likely put up somewhat similar numbers to him.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Chase>TE is getting deeper and deeper every year. This year, players like Kellen Winslow and Vernon Davis will be added to the pool, and it would not be surprising to see the VBD baseline improve considerably from last year. IMO, that makes Gonzo less valuable and I'd rather wait to find value in the next tier or two of TEs who will likely put up somewhat similar numbers to him.

TE12 FPs:2005: 77

2004: 69

2003: 65

2002: 63

2001: 75

2000: 61

1999: 60

I agree, TE scoring looks up, but I don't think it's significantly up. In 2003, if TE12 scored 77 points, Gonzo's VBD rank would have been 19, instead of 13. In 2004, if TE12 had scored 77 points, Gonzo's VBD rank would have been 12 instead of 11.

Gonzo had 763 yards the last 11 games; that's 1110 yards, pro-rated. If Gonzales clears 1000 yards again this year -- which seems reasonable to me -- would you agree that he'd be a steal in the 5th?

 

[Marvin88]

Props to Chris Smith for being the only staffer to recognize Reggie Williams as value.

he was the starter entering last season too, but Wilford outplayed him. I expect the same thing to happen this year.

I tend to agree with that.