Chris Baker is the TE to have in New England (1 Viewer)

[Louisville Slugger]

All reports coming out of Patriots training camp that I have heard would seem to indicate that Chris Baker is the Patriots TE to own in 2009.

As a matter of fact there have been various reports that Ben Watson may be cut (I don't believe this) before the season starts. Watson has never really clicked as a pass catching TE for the Patriots. While he has not been a total bust, I think it is fair to say that he has been disappointment as a #1 draft pick.

Assuming that Baker takes over Watson's starting role he could have considerable value in such a high powered offense. I could see the Patriots looking for him early and often around the goal line.

I think it is very possible that Baker ends up with 600-700 yds and between 5-8 td's.

Any thoughts?

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I happen to agree with you, but Yudkin has said the Pats don't use the TE and run '4 wide all day', so there will probably be some difference of opinion on this one.

It might have been revised recently, but last I saw, Yudkin's got him down for something like 10/100/1.

 

[Louisville Slugger]

I happen to agree with you, but Yudkin has said the Pats don't use the TE and run '4 wide all day', so there will probably be some difference of opinion on this one.It might have been revised recently, but last I saw, Yudkin's got him down for something like 10/100/1.

Yudkin knows a lot more than I ever will about the Patriots, but I do see Baker being a good option at the goal line.

 

[David Yudkin]

Larry has no idea what he's talking about. I have Baker ranked 15th at TE. I still question whether the offense has so many weapons that he won't be a consistent target from week to week, but he should be a decent red zone threat.

 

[Louisville Slugger]

Larry has no idea what he's talking about. I have Baker ranked 15th at TE. I still question whether the offense has so many weapons that he won't be a consistent target from week to week, but he should be a decent red zone threat.

Thanks for the clarification David.

 

[TheFanatic]

He might be the most productive Patriot TE this year but to me that's not saying much. What's the line, "on the island of the blind, the one eyed man is king."

The best of the suck is still the suck. I think last year the 15th rankes TE scored just under 70 points in a non PPR. That's a hair over 4 points a game... Take a shot on a Cook or Finley before going that route.

 

[Louisville Slugger]

He might be the most productive Patriot TE this year but to me that's not saying much. What's the line, "on the island of the blind, the one eyed man is king."The best of the suck is still the suck. I think last year the 15th rankes TE scored just under 70 points in a non PPR. That's a hair over 4 points a game... Take a shot on a Cook or Finley before going that route.

I disagee to a point. If Watson were a viable receiving threat they would have used him more often over the last several seasons. If Baker is as good as advertised, he may take on that role that Watson was supposed to fill. In this offense anyhing is possible.I like Baker to score a bunch of td's this season.

 

[LHUCKS]

Larry has no idea what he's talking about.

 

[TLEF316]

as someone who watched Baker play for the Jets for years, i will certainly say that he was underutilized. He doesnt have speed, but he was good at finding soft spots and was a decent goal line threat. They didnt throw him the ball enough.

However, on a team like the Pats, with all those weapons, i dont see him as a viable fantasy starter. He's just not that talented and they have too many other options. As a starting TE on a good pass happy team, i suppose he has value. But i dont consider him anything more than an average backup in a typical 12 yeam league.

 

[-baller]

a lot of the time in fantasy, one of the decisions you're presented with is whether to take a guy who is just one part of a group on a hot offense, or a guy who's the focus of a much less productive team.

for example, do you want your #1 receiver to have a strong complement to reduce his coverage, or a weaker player who won't steal targets, but who also won't help move the chains?

having a lot of weapons on the pats means that baker won't be the focus of the offense, like gonzalez was in kc, but it also means there's a much bigger TD pie to get a piece of, as all those weapons will put him near the endzone a lot more frequently than most other teams would.

a guy who catches 8 TDs on a team that throws for 50 is about the proportional equivalent of the guy who only nabs 3 on a weaker team that only manages to throw for 20.

just off the top of my head, so double check this, I think watson only managed to stay on the field for about 75% of the '07 season, and still put up 6-8 TDs, with his very mediocre back up, kyle brady, nabbing a couple more, and vrabel adding on another couple.

I certainly wouldn't look for baker to catch 100 balls on that team, but he has a great shot at 8 TDs, and how many TEs in the league to you project to grab 8+ TDs?

 

[Captain Spaulding]

Watson has been a bust IMO. Considering the dynamic offense he is in...years with and withoout credible WR's yet he still remains an average fantasy TE at best. When Vrabel, a LB, is brought in to catch TD passes at the goal line that should tell you something about your starting TE's reliability. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Watson gets cut, considering Baker is a decent TE.

 

[TLEF316]

Baker really got screwed out of his shining moment with the Jets. 2 or 3 years ago against Cleveland, he caught what appeared to be a game tying TD with less than a minute to go. However, 2 browns shoved him out of bounds when he clearly would have come down in. The refs made an inexplicable decision to ignore this and Cleveland won.

I did not have a good day that day.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

a lot of the time in fantasy, one of the decisions you're presented with is whether to take a guy who is just one part of a group on a hot offense, or a guy who's the focus of a much less productive team.for example, do you want your #1 receiver to have a strong complement to reduce his coverage, or a weaker player who won't steal targets, but who also won't help move the chains?having a lot of weapons on the pats means that baker won't be the focus of the offense, like gonzalez was in kc, but it also means there's a much bigger TD pie to get a piece of, as all those weapons will put him near the endzone a lot more frequently than most other teams would.a guy who catches 8 TDs on a team that throws for 50 is about the proportional equivalent of the guy who only nabs 3 on a weaker team that only manages to throw for 20.just off the top of my head, so double check this, I think watson only managed to stay on the field for about 75% of the '07 season, and still put up 6-8 TDs, with his very mediocre back up, kyle brady, nabbing a couple more, and vrabel adding on another couple.I certainly wouldn't look for baker to catch 100 balls on that team, but he has a great shot at 8 TDs, and how many TEs in the league to you project to grab 8+ TDs?

also I thought I saw something earlier that said that in one of the Pats preseason games, Baker was on the field for like every play in the first half and part of the 3rd quarter....and he was the only one that didi that....not that that is anything to write home about, but somewhat interesting....

 

[KGB]

If you're going to wait for the 16th plus round for a TE I think he's a go.

I see the floor at 35 rectpns and 5 tds. Upside at 50 with 9.

 

[-baller]

ok, just to clean up some of my earlier post, watson put up 6 TDs in '07 (and 2 more in the playoffs) for about TE7 ppg in my scoring that year, while playing only 12 games, and missing significant time in at least 3 or 4 of those 12.

 

[TheFanatic]

Baker has never had one decent season. 41 catches for 409 yards in 2007 and three TD's. That was worth 54 points in my league and the 17th TE. That's under 3.5 pts per game. Prior to that season and since he has never had more than 31 catches and 300 yards total and neber more than 4 TD's. If he were any good he would've done something by now considering this will be his 8th year in the league.

Now, maybe he doesn't have to be good in New England? Moss, Welker, Galloway, etc will get all the coverage and he's going to be covered by a LB one on one? But after 7 years I just don't see it. I realize he could very well be the #1 TE in NE but I also expect him to be extremely inconsistent. He might have a game or two where he gets two TD's. He might follow those games with games of 1 or no catches for less than 10 yards for 4 straight games...

 

[-baller]

I'd say he's in a somewhat better situation than the 2007 jets team where he put up that 41/409/3.

passing offenses:

2007 jets - 512 pa / 3014 yds / 15 TD

2007 pats - 586 pa / 4731 yds / 50 TD

 

[massraider]

I will continue to ignore Pats TEs, and be the better man for it.

 

[-baller]

I thought I'd look up another stat -- red zone targets

http://www.fantasyfootballtrader.com/2007N...ne_targets.html

in 2007, watson started 8 games and played in 12, accumulating 12 red zone looks.

here was the 2007 TE rzt ranking (with their games started in parentheses):

clark - 25 (16)

gates - 25 (15)

cooley - 21 (16)

winslow - 18 (14)

gonzo - 18 (16)

witten - 17 (16)

miller - 17 (16)

baker - 16 (15)

davis - 15 (14)

olsen - 14 (5 - 14 games played)

crumpler - 13 (12 - 14 games played)

daniels - 12 (16)

lewis - 12 (16)

watson - 12 (8 - 12 games played)

scaife - 12 (16)

every one of the top 15 in red zone targets started 14+ games with the exceptions of crumpler (12), watson (8), and olsen -- about half started all 16 games.

if we project baker to be as good as watson, replace watson, and manage another 15 starts, I don't see any reason he wouldn't have a shot at cracking top 5 in this category.

if you look at baker's production on that horrible 2007 jets team, coupled with watson's crippled 2007 pats campaign, I don't think 50/500/8 would be a reach, which also gives him a shot at cracking top 5, and is about on par w/olsen, who's one of the hottest TE pick ups right now.

of course, all this is based on him starting all year.

edit:

I thought I'd give him a shot at about 18 red zone targets on a full season, and see how that stacked up in 2008:

gonzo - 20

boss - 19

clark - 18

gates - 17

lj smith - 15

carlson - 14

keller - 14

olsen - 13

 

[LHUCKS]

I will continue to ignore Pats TEs, and be the better man for it.

yeah, just not enough consistent targets to go after them. I don't see Chris Baker changing that.Too many other sleeper TEs I like this year.Decent value in the subscriber contest though.

 

[TheFanatic]

I thought I'd look up another stat -- red zone targets

http://www.fantasyfootballtrader.com/2007N...ne_targets.html

in 2007, watson started 8 games and played in 12, accumulating 12 red zone looks.

here was the 2007 TE rzt ranking (with their games started in parentheses):

clark - 25 (16)

gates - 25 (15)

cooley - 21 (16)

winslow - 18 (14)

gonzo - 18 (16)

witten - 17 (16)

miller - 17 (16)

baker - 16 (15)

davis - 15 (14)

olsen - 14 (5 - 14 games played)

crumpler - 13 (12 - 14 games played)

daniels - 12 (16)

lewis - 12 (16)

watson - 12 (8 - 12 games played)

scaife - 12 (16)

every one of the top 15 in red zone targets started 14+ games with the exceptions of crumpler (12), watson (8), and olsen -- about half started all 16 games.

if we project baker to be as good as watson, replace watson, and manage another 15 starts, I don't see any reason he wouldn't have a shot at cracking top 5 in this category.

if you look at baker's production on that horrible 2007 jets team, coupled with watson's crippled 2007 pats campaign, I don't think 50/500/8 would be a reach, which also gives him a shot at cracking top 5, and is about on par w/olsen, who's one of the hottest TE pick ups right now.

of course, all this is based on him starting all year.

edit:

I thought I'd give him a shot at about 18 red zone targets on a full season, and see how that stacked up in 2008:

gonzo - 20

boss - 19

clark - 18

gates - 17

lj smith - 15

carlson - 14

keller - 14

olsen - 13

Even if we take this argument as a given based on how many TD's he converted from his 16 RZT's, he would still only score 3.3 TD's. Based on his conversion rate of 18.75% in 2007, even if he got that many targets he's still finishing with woefully bad numbers....

 

[-baller]

ok, here's more baker info.

*bump*

 

[The Jerk]

ok, here's more baker info.*bump*

definitely the best of the buncheerie, too, because in the end, we're both comfortable projecting a good shot at the 500-8 levelAs I said, own him in one, considering in another, he's in my subscriber roster

 

[-baller]

after all that I actually took celek over him as te2, although our draft was, like, a month ago.

I still don't have a good idea how much watson will leech, though.

 

[The Jerk]

after all that I actually took celek over him as te2, although our draft was, like, a month ago.I still don't have a good idea how much watson will leech, though.

Now THAT's funnyThere is that element of the unknown to Baker, but Celek? Remember, I'm struggling with Carlson, who I have much higher than Celek. Don't get me wrong, I like Celek. Basically, I had about 8 or so TEs on my draft board and then after that it was just avoid the position until later, where I had Baker, Celek and Finley highlighted as my fallback TEs.

 

[-baller]

oh, and just skimming through this thread ---- this is what larry was referring to:

It's still very early, but here would be my first pass projections for the Pats offense . . .

BJGE and Thomas not on the team.

Passing

Brady 360/4360/34

O'Connell 30/300/2

390/4660/36

Receiving

.....

Watson 20-200-3

Morris 15-120-0

Baker 10-100-1

Smith 10-100-1

.....

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...;#entry10391774

Why do you see Baker with only 10 receptions? I think he'll have closer to 35-40 receptions as I see him being the TE most involved with the passing game. I think he may turn out to be their most reliable option at TE.

Because I see them running out of the shotgun with 4 receivers and ignoring the TE for the most part. Also when they use one I think they have whoever it is block a lot.The TE spot combined only saw 30/300/2 in 2007.

although, posting this will most likely get me banned.

 

[-baller]

after all that I actually took celek over him as te2, although our draft was, like, a month ago.I still don't have a good idea how much watson will leech, though.

Now THAT's funnyThere is that element of the unknown to Baker, but Celek? Remember, I'm struggling with Carlson, who I have much higher than Celek. Don't get me wrong, I like Celek. Basically, I had about 8 or so TEs on my draft board and then after that it was just avoid the position until later, where I had Baker, Celek and Finley highlighted as my fallback TEs.

carlson, I was initially interested in, but then I thought the lack of wr's might have artificially inflated his production last year, and I was kind of leery of the whole sea offense.we'll see how celek pans out, but he should be on a great offense, the te over there has gotten a ton of red zone looks, and celek seems to have a pretty good knack for converting his looks into catches.LJ never really capitalized because he was hurt all the time.I'm pretty big on opportunity.

 

[The Jerk]

Why do you see Baker with only 10 receptions? I think he'll have closer to 35-40 receptions as I see him being the TE most involved with the passing game. I think he may turn out to be their most reliable option at TE.

Because I see them running out of the shotgun with 4 receivers and ignoring the TE for the most part. Also when they use one I think they have whoever it is block a lot.The TE spot combined only saw 30/300/2 in 2007.

although, posting this will most likely get me banned.

See, I remember this thread. I posted several times in it. Eventually, Yudkin admitted he had not looked at Watson's 2007 and upped Baker into the 15 spot I think. I had engaged Larry in a thread in which I advised people considering on loading their entire roster up on Patriots that there was no guarantee 2009 would be 2007 redux. My point was drafting Moss, Brady and Welker is one thing. Drafting Galloway, Lewis (at the time), all the RBs, Baker and Watson was another.And it wasn't just because the Pats are unlikely to repeat 589 points, etc. It's just that you can likely get several of the other Pats much later than the early rounds. It's not a bargain if Baker performs as a top 5 TE if you draft him 30th overall. I know you understand. Well, Larry seemed to get upset with me when I pointed out that NE was trending down in the final third of the regular season in 2007 -- for whatever reason. You can see the exchange. I was not trying to make the Patriots look bad. It appeared to me that Larry was a Patriot homer who didn't want to acknowledge the numbers as they were. In any case, his refusal for one reason or another to actually look at the numbers and/or provide projections is why I mentioned him earlier to you.

 

[The Jerk]

after all that I actually took celek over him as te2, although our draft was, like, a month ago.I still don't have a good idea how much watson will leech, though.

Now THAT's funnyThere is that element of the unknown to Baker, but Celek? Remember, I'm struggling with Carlson, who I have much higher than Celek. Don't get me wrong, I like Celek. Basically, I had about 8 or so TEs on my draft board and then after that it was just avoid the position until later, where I had Baker, Celek and Finley highlighted as my fallback TEs.

carlson, I was initially interested in, but then I thought the lack of wr's might have artificially inflated his production last year, and I was kind of leery of the whole sea offense.we'll see how celek pans out, but he should be on a great offense, the te over there has gotten a ton of red zone looks, and celek seems to have a pretty good knack for converting his looks into catches.LJ never really capitalized because he was hurt all the time.I'm pretty big on opportunity.

Carlson is interesting. It can go either way. As you stated above, he may have benefited from few options in the SEA passing game. But as you said concerning Baker, maybe better WRs makes the defense honest so they cannot favor covering him. I like Carlson more than my sleepers because I think he'll get me higher average yardage points, whereas I expect the sleepers to be more boom/bust.

 

[The Jerk]

after all that I actually took celek over him as te2, although our draft was, like, a month ago.I still don't have a good idea how much watson will leech, though.

Now THAT's funnyThere is that element of the unknown to Baker, but Celek? Remember, I'm struggling with Carlson, who I have much higher than Celek. Don't get me wrong, I like Celek. Basically, I had about 8 or so TEs on my draft board and then after that it was just avoid the position until later, where I had Baker, Celek and Finley highlighted as my fallback TEs.

carlson, I was initially interested in, but then I thought the lack of wr's might have artificially inflated his production last year, and I was kind of leery of the whole sea offense.we'll see how celek pans out, but he should be on a great offense, the te over there has gotten a ton of red zone looks, and celek seems to have a pretty good knack for converting his looks into catches.LJ never really capitalized because he was hurt all the time.I'm pretty big on opportunity.

Carlson is interesting. It can go either way. As you stated above, he may have benefited from few options in the SEA passing game. But as you said concerning Baker, maybe better WRs makes the defense honest so they cannot favor covering him. I like Carlson more than my sleepers because I think he'll get me higher average yardage points, whereas I expect the sleepers to be more boom/bust.

Oh, and with Carlson, you have to like playing in the NFC West. With Detroit on the schedule, that's almost half the season against weak pass defenses.

 

[-baller]

Well, Larry seemed to get upset with me when I pointed out that NE was trending down in the final third of the regular season in 2007 -- for whatever reason. You can see the exchange. I was not trying to make the Patriots look bad. It appeared to me that Larry was a Patriot homer who didn't want to acknowledge the numbers as they were. In any case, his refusal for one reason or another to actually look at the numbers and/or provide projections is why I mentioned him earlier to you.

haha....there are all kinds of numbers, and I think larry's pretty well versed on all numbers pertaining to pats.maybe he was trying to tip you off on something, being a close follower of the pats, and all.that whole 'trending down' thing is a canard, but it's one that gets passed around quite a lot, just like that 'running 4 wide w/no te' bit --- and we saw how that turned out.