Does anyone here still advocate taking a TE early? (1 Viewer)

[Holy Schneikes]

VBD & VBD rank of Antonio Gates for the last three years. This is based on FBG scoring. With PPR his VBD is even higher.2004: 103 (#10 overall)2005: 93 (#8 overall)2006: 65 (#17 overall)So, um, yes. I still believe in taking Gates in the third round.

VBD? What's that? Must be something for guppies. I base my draft on getting the best value for all of my draft positions! You can't do that by risking your 3rd round pick on a guy like Gates.

Actually though, this is where we could have meaning conversation, though I doubt we will. Bagger was bringing up the point that you don't necessarily get the best team strictly by drafting the player with the highest VBD numerical value. You have to take a more holistic approach in terms of building your entire team. Dodd touches on this as well when he, in his perfect draft articles, often ignores VBD values and goes with running backs. Unfortunately, this conversation usually quickly becomes a useless back and forth of "Look at the big picture, idiot" vs. the "Look at the VBD value, idiot." It is too bad.In redrafts, I have seen more bad teams than good teams with convential draft picks drafting Gates in the 3rd. In mocks,I find it hard, even with a prepared strategy, to get a good balance if you draft a QB or a TE early. The teams that I have seen have the most success taking Gates in third have often traded back out of round 1 or 2 and picked up additional picks iin rounds 3-5. These owners have both an elite talent and more flexibility.

I would buy the "not-strict" VBD valuation if Gates weren't consistently and significantly UNDERvalued for quite a few league setups. If he was being taken right around where he "belonged" VBD-wise (end of 1st, early 2nd), it would be easier to make a case for doing something else. And in leagues where TE is required, TEs only get a full PPR, and only one RB required (I play in such a league), Gates would be an outrageous value at the end of round 3, VBD-wise (and any other-wise). There are more than a few of those leagues (and similar ones) out there, and lumping those scenarios in with the others is just weak IMO.I have also had the opposite experience with mocks and general evaluations of teams with Gates. I generally like the look of them when they are done. I think what may be happening here is that there is automatic bias against teams like that. When evaluating any team, the first thing people always look at are the RBs, then the WRs/QBs and then everything else. I do this myself sometimes, it's just easier than looking at the "big picture" for each team. But that doesn't mean that the teams with slightly better RBs are always the better teams overall.I suspect that if you ran stats on how well teams did after having drafted Gates in the 3rd round in each of the last three years, they would fare very well. Sure, some would tank because they didn't get good early backs, but that happens to a LOT of teams and is not specific to "Gates-teams". Some of the big "guppy" (yahoo??) league management services used to do evaluations like that, but I honestly haven't looked for it in a while.

 

[Gatorman]

I LOVE this thread.Love the holier than thou attitude that is so pervasive in this hobby (very entertaining).Love the broad generalized statements based on very sketchy assumptions.Love the fact that threads like this keep "off-position" studs' values as low as they are (in certain scenarios).Love the Joe quote about not wanting the #1 pick to support this argument. Because God knows people who had the #1 pick last year were REALLY hating life.Love when guys talk about the "risk" of a guy who in an off-position has produced monster stats every year for three years straight, compared to the risk of taking a 20th ranked RB and then say "yeah, you can get a guy who outperforms his draft position there". So let me get this straight, when you pick guys who outperform their draft position you are going to do well? BRILLIANT. Why didn't I think of that? Never any mention of course of the DISTINCT possibility that you get exactly SQUAT out of that draft slot with that 3rd tier RB. Here's an even MORE mind-boggling option - draft lower tier RB in round four! Maybe HE will outperform his draft position!In SOME leagues, yes a 3rd rounder would be too high for Gates. But lineup requirments and league size (primarily), and to a lesser degree scoring and roster limitations, are HUGE factors in the value of a guy like that. Making blanket statements about guppies drafting a TE in the 3rd WITHOUT discussing league parameters is about as guppy as it gets. What's next, an offer in big bold print to join your league where the REAL fantasy experts play?

Okay, I'll play.Not being holier than thou in the suggestion here. I have seen many advocate taking gates in the third round (I usually am in 12 team leagues, so I mean somewhere between 3.01 and 3.12, although he never makes it to 3.12).All I am saying (and it was echoed above) is that you have a 2-3 round slide to the next TE and even those tend to be bunched up from round 5-12. The "value" play here is getting TE #3-6 4 rounds later. I post this also because I have seen some people make the "shark" move of grabbing him at 2.12 after taking LT or LJ last year (could be 3.01 or 2.112, what's the difference).I guess FWIW I am talking about a 12 team draft with WCOFF style scoring (to keep the discussion simple).GatorFinally: I guess this comes down to game theory here. Lets look at the perfect draft for the first 3 rounds on VBD or whatever. Arguably it would be LT, Manning, and Gates. Now you have to wait till 4.12 to start grabbing RB #2, and WRs. Are you better off? Even in the case where you draft LT, your RB #2, and then Gates; or LT, WR#1 and then Gates are you better off or are you now scraping tiers to make a squad?Believe me, certain drafters who I have a lot of respect for and have done well advcate taking a TE early, I am just looking for a discussion here.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

I LOVE this thread.Love the holier than thou attitude that is so pervasive in this hobby (very entertaining).Love the broad generalized statements based on very sketchy assumptions.Love the fact that threads like this keep "off-position" studs' values as low as they are (in certain scenarios).Love the Joe quote about not wanting the #1 pick to support this argument. Because God knows people who had the #1 pick last year were REALLY hating life.Love when guys talk about the "risk" of a guy who in an off-position has produced monster stats every year for three years straight, compared to the risk of taking a 20th ranked RB and then say "yeah, you can get a guy who outperforms his draft position there". So let me get this straight, when you pick guys who outperform their draft position you are going to do well? BRILLIANT. Why didn't I think of that? Never any mention of course of the DISTINCT possibility that you get exactly SQUAT out of that draft slot with that 3rd tier RB. Here's an even MORE mind-boggling option - draft lower tier RB in round four! Maybe HE will outperform his draft position!In SOME leagues, yes a 3rd rounder would be too high for Gates. But lineup requirments and league size (primarily), and to a lesser degree scoring and roster limitations, are HUGE factors in the value of a guy like that. Making blanket statements about guppies drafting a TE in the 3rd WITHOUT discussing league parameters is about as guppy as it gets. What's next, an offer in big bold print to join your league where the REAL fantasy experts play?

Okay, I'll play.Not being holier than thou in the suggestion here. I have seen many advocate taking gates in the third round (I usually am in 12 team leagues, so I mean somewhere between 3.01 and 3.12, although he never makes it to 3.12).All I am saying (and it was echoed above) is that you have a 2-3 round slide to the next TE and even those tend to be bunched up from round 5-12. The "value" play here is getting TE #3-6 4 rounds later. I post this also because I have seen some people make the "shark" move of grabbing him at 2.12 after taking LT or LJ last year (could be 3.01 or 2.112, what's the difference).I guess FWIW I am talking about a 12 team draft with WCOFF style scoring (to keep the discussion simple).GatorFinally: I guess this comes down to game theory here. Lets look at the perfect draft for the first 3 rounds on VBD or whatever. Arguably it would be LT, Manning, and Gates. Now you have to wait till 4.12 to start grabbing RB #2, and WRs. Are you better off? Even in the case where you draft LT, your RB #2, and then Gates; or LT, WR#1 and then Gates are you better off or are you now scraping tiers to make a squad?Believe me, certain drafters who I have a lot of respect for and have done well advcate taking a TE early, I am just looking for a discussion here.

Cool. That's something we can work with. Don't honestly know why it struck a nerve, just did. I guess I've been around long enough to have seen a lot of good stuff from you and was surprised at what I thought was the original tone of the post.This discussion is kind of a catch-22. On one hand it's really hard to discuss a bunch of specifics because the discussion would get bogged down. On the other hand, the Devil's on the details for this issue in particular since we are talking about a specific player in a semi-specific draft position.First, there is a big difference between 2.12/3.01 and 3.13 or 3.14. I would be TEMPTED in some leagues (or many leagues) to grab him in the early 3rd, but it would be lot easier in the late 3rd.2nd, your Tomlinson, Manning, Gates team sure doesn't seem that bad to me, even if the WRs are a little weak. But again, this depends very heavily on starting requirements and league size. If you NEED a lot of WRs to make a good team, then you lean away from the off-positions a little more. WCOFF leans a little this way, with essentially 6 starting RBs/WRs. But with 12 teams rather than 14 (or more) that actually reduces the scarcity a little bit.Honestly, with those rules, I think I could make a case for Gates fairly easily somewhere in the 3rd and still field a solid team overall with a sizeable advantage at TE.As for getting the #3 TE considerably later, the problem with that is FINDING THE #3 TE instead of the #4 or #5 or #8 TE at that slot. Maybe you will, maybe you won't. If you do, yeah, you've maybe got a better "value" than Gates. But counting on that goes back to what I was saying earlier - you can't assume all things equal that you are going to automatically get that value (can't really assume Gates either, but your odds are good). The reason Gates goes high is that over the mid-term, he has been exceptionally reliable. There may not be a huge drop from #1 to #2 every year, but if you AVERAGE a guy like Heap, Shockey, etc over the past couple of years, the gap is pretty wide due to up and down years by the other guys.

 

[gregjcross]

In 2005 i tried the logic of leveraging a great TE to have a superior offense. I took Ladanian Tomlinson #1 overall, and as i thought was a no brainer, at the top of the third, TE Tony Gonzales. Well, it didnt work out, Gonzo was mediocre all year. I still however parlayed LT and others into a very good season.

Ok, I'll bite. Why wouldn't you want to take someone like Gates in the 3rd round when he has far and away been the best TE in the last 3 years? Certainly he's better value than some 2nd or 3rd tier RB/WR.

I disagree. Gates did not live up to this ranking, and some of the RBs or WR selected, even though they were in a lower "tier" outperformed their draft spot. Gates doesn't justify his.Joe used to say that he hated having a top pick (back when he played FF) because the upside of the top pick is limited. I say the same thing with gates in the third. I'd rather have a second tier guy in the 5th or 6th (hell 8th) round than the top guy in the third (even if you are sure he is the top guy).

By the same token, you can find a lower tier RB in the lower rounds who outperforms his draft spot while sewing up the #1 TE and giving yourself a big lineup advantage.

 

[John Mamula]

just curious if people who advocate taking gates in the 3rd have looked at the impact of their prospective draft and how it impacts them during bye weeks at other positions like RB and WR in addition to what (if any) point gain they have from taking a TE in the 3rd and another position in the 7th compared to another position in the 3rd and a TE in the 7th.

What's more likely?A TE late round or waiver wire pickup outperforming Gates

A WR/RB late round or waiver wire pickup outperforming a 3rd round RB20 or WR 10

you're not comparing what i said. grabbing someone in the 7th does have a better shot at outperforming gates than a waiver wire pickup, especially when you add in the probability that you get that magical waiver wire pickup.everyone treats WW pickups like they are so easy to get, when in reality there are 1 or 2 guys a season that have that kind of impact. all 12 teams can't get them.

 

[John Mamula]

I LOVE this thread.Love the holier than thou attitude that is so pervasive in this hobby (very entertaining).Love the broad generalized statements based on very sketchy assumptions.Love the fact that threads like this keep "off-position" studs' values as low as they are (in certain scenarios).Love the Joe quote about not wanting the #1 pick to support this argument. Because God knows people who had the #1 pick last year were REALLY hating life.Love when guys talk about the "risk" of a guy who in an off-position has produced monster stats every year for three years straight, compared to the risk of taking a 20th ranked RB and then say "yeah, you can get a guy who outperforms his draft position there". So let me get this straight, when you pick guys who outperform their draft position you are going to do well? BRILLIANT. Why didn't I think of that? Never any mention of course of the DISTINCT possibility that you get exactly SQUAT out of that draft slot with that 3rd tier RB. Here's an even MORE mind-boggling option - draft lower tier RB in round four! Maybe HE will outperform his draft position!In SOME leagues, yes a 3rd rounder would be too high for Gates. But lineup requirments and league size (primarily), and to a lesser degree scoring and roster limitations, are HUGE factors in the value of a guy like that. Making blanket statements about guppies drafting a TE in the 3rd WITHOUT discussing league parameters is about as guppy as it gets. What's next, an offer in big bold print to join your league where the REAL fantasy experts play?

Okay, I'll play.Not being holier than thou in the suggestion here. I have seen many advocate taking gates in the third round (I usually am in 12 team leagues, so I mean somewhere between 3.01 and 3.12, although he never makes it to 3.12).All I am saying (and it was echoed above) is that you have a 2-3 round slide to the next TE and even those tend to be bunched up from round 5-12. The "value" play here is getting TE #3-6 4 rounds later. I post this also because I have seen some people make the "shark" move of grabbing him at 2.12 after taking LT or LJ last year (could be 3.01 or 2.112, what's the difference).I guess FWIW I am talking about a 12 team draft with WCOFF style scoring (to keep the discussion simple).GatorFinally: I guess this comes down to game theory here. Lets look at the perfect draft for the first 3 rounds on VBD or whatever. Arguably it would be LT, Manning, and Gates. Now you have to wait till 4.12 to start grabbing RB #2, and WRs. Are you better off? Even in the case where you draft LT, your RB #2, and then Gates; or LT, WR#1 and then Gates are you better off or are you now scraping tiers to make a squad?Believe me, certain drafters who I have a lot of respect for and have done well advcate taking a TE early, I am just looking for a discussion here.

Cool. That's something we can work with. Don't honestly know why it struck a nerve, just did. I guess I've been around long enough to have seen a lot of good stuff from you and was surprised at what I thought was the original tone of the post.This discussion is kind of a catch-22. On one hand it's really hard to discuss a bunch of specifics because the discussion would get bogged down. On the other hand, the Devil's on the details for this issue in particular since we are talking about a specific player in a semi-specific draft position.First, there is a big difference between 2.12/3.01 and 3.13 or 3.14. I would be TEMPTED in some leagues (or many leagues) to grab him in the early 3rd, but it would be lot easier in the late 3rd.2nd, your Tomlinson, Manning, Gates team sure doesn't seem that bad to me, even if the WRs are a little weak. But again, this depends very heavily on starting requirements and league size. If you NEED a lot of WRs to make a good team, then you lean away from the off-positions a little more. WCOFF leans a little this way, with essentially 6 starting RBs/WRs. But with 12 teams rather than 14 (or more) that actually reduces the scarcity a little bit.Honestly, with those rules, I think I could make a case for Gates fairly easily somewhere in the 3rd and still field a solid team overall with a sizeable advantage at TE.As for getting the #3 TE considerably later, the problem with that is FINDING THE #3 TE instead of the #4 or #5 or #8 TE at that slot. Maybe you will, maybe you won't. If you do, yeah, you've maybe got a better "value" than Gates. But counting on that goes back to what I was saying earlier - you can't assume all things equal that you are going to automatically get that value (can't really assume Gates either, but your odds are good). The reason Gates goes high is that over the mid-term, he has been exceptionally reliable. There may not be a huge drop from #1 to #2 every year, but if you AVERAGE a guy like Heap, Shockey, etc over the past couple of years, the gap is pretty wide due to up and down years by the other guys.

does gates really belong in the 2nd?the fundamental flaw in vbd is that in the perfect example of 2 players taken in two rounds with points known, it is an easy decision. with multiple rounds and multiple players, the water becomes murky.if gates has projected points of 250 and the next best te has projected points of 220 (but 3 rounds later), and a RB has projected points of 220 and the next best RB has projected points of 215 (within a couple picks), is gates still the best value?the answer is no. the reason is because you aren't look at apples to apples. you have to look at what you forego in the 3rd compared to what you get in the 5th or 6th if you take that next best TE. the variance between those two scenarios makes the gates pick look much worse than looking at what is on the surface - the static vbd value. compounding the complexity is that the more starters per position you have, the greater importance depth becomes at that position. this is a major reason why positions with single starters have a depressed value than those with multiple starters. let's not even get into adding in a flex.looking at a static number and simply doing a MAX() formula in your head and picking the guy at the top of the list is way too simplistic of a method by not factoring in the other multiple factors that make a draft pick "good" or "bad".vbd is a great concept to allow you to draft with training wheels. however, you have to understand the limiting factors of it and expand your draft strategy to fully maximize your draft's potential.

 

[John Mamula]

But counting on that goes back to what I was saying earlier - you can't assume all things equal that you are going to automatically get that value (can't really assume Gates either, but your odds are good).

 

[LHUCKS]

In redrafts this year I'm targeting a few TEs in the middle rounds...but I'll outline that in the details of my rankings critiques.

 

[Gatorman]

In redrafts this year I'm targeting a few TEs in the middle rounds...but I'll outline that in the details of my rankings critiques.

No teasers for other threads here. Be relavent or get out.TIA

 

[John Mamula]

2nd, your Tomlinson, Manning, Gates team sure doesn't seem that bad to me, even if the WRs are a little weak. But again, this depends very heavily on starting requirements and league size. If you NEED a lot of WRs to make a good team, then you lean away from the off-positions a little more. WCOFF leans a little this way, with essentially 6 starting RBs/WRs. But with 12 teams rather than 14 (or more) that actually reduces the scarcity a little bit.Honestly, with those rules, I think I could make a case for Gates fairly easily somewhere in the 3rd and still field a solid team overall with a sizeable advantage at TE.

you will straight up get slaughtered in wcoff not picking a WR in the first 3 rounds.,S

 

[heidbrink]

...

Face it, in FF you have to hit on a player (or 2) that outperform their draft spot. At round 3, Gates has little to no chance of doing that.

...

Bang Nail ------> Head

 

[LHUCKS]

In redrafts this year I'm targeting a few TEs in the middle rounds...but I'll outline that in the details of my rankings critiques.

No teasers for other threads here. Be relavent or get out.TIA

Allow me to rephrase my comment. TE shouldn't be taken until the middle rounds upon my initial analysis. There are a few high upside guys I'm targeting in the middle rounds....Gates in the third is too early in most leagues.

 

[moneyman]

just curious if people who advocate taking gates in the 3rd have looked at the impact of their prospective draft and how it impacts them during bye weeks at other positions like RB and WR in addition to what (if any) point gain they have from taking a TE in the 3rd and another position in the 7th compared to another position in the 3rd and a TE in the 7th.

What's more likely?A TE late round or waiver wire pickup outperforming Gates

A WR/RB late round or waiver wire pickup outperforming a 3rd round RB20 or WR 10

you're not comparing what i said. grabbing someone in the 7th does have a better shot at outperforming gates than a waiver wire pickup, especially when you add in the probability that you get that magical waiver wire pickup.everyone treats WW pickups like they are so easy to get, when in reality there are 1 or 2 guys a season that have that kind of impact. all 12 teams can't get them.

So only 1 or 2 guys make an impact off the waiver wire every year? No way. Every year I come up with a late round or waiver wire WR, QB, or RB that puts up starter numbers - and I'm not getting every emerging guy either. Missed Colston, MJD, etc. last year. There are a ton of injuries and emerging stars every year that put up good (but not elite) numbers in the WR, QB, and RB2 slots. Elite TE and RB are harder to catch after their ADP. That matters to me even if the VBD numbers of your 3rd and 7th example point to passing on Gates.In the example mentioned earlier, I take the LT, Manning, Gates scenario all day long and take a lot of risk in later rounds coming up with RB2 and WR core. It's easier to drum up 2nd and 3rd tier talent through late round picks and the waiver wire than replace proven dependable elite stars.

 

[Driver]

just curious if people who advocate taking gates in the 3rd have looked at the impact of their prospective draft and how it impacts them during bye weeks at other positions like RB and WR in addition to what (if any) point gain they have from taking a TE in the 3rd and another position in the 7th compared to another position in the 3rd and a TE in the 7th.

What's more likely?A TE late round or waiver wire pickup outperforming Gates

A WR/RB late round or waiver wire pickup outperforming a 3rd round RB20 or WR 10

you're not comparing what i said. grabbing someone in the 7th does have a better shot at outperforming gates than a waiver wire pickup, especially when you add in the probability that you get that magical waiver wire pickup.everyone treats WW pickups like they are so easy to get, when in reality there are 1 or 2 guys a season that have that kind of impact. all 12 teams can't get them.

I think it's a little more complicated than you indicate. For example, assume that Owners 1 and 2 both take RBs in rounds 1, 2 and 5 -- and a QB in round 6.Owner 1 takes Gates in round 3, WR1 in round 4 and WR2 in round 7. Owner 2 takes WRs in rounds 3 and 4 and a TE in round 7. For a fair comparison, I think you need to compare the differences in expected fpts for all 3 players combined. Using this framework, Gates has averaged 164 pts the past 3 years, and TE8 has averaged 94 pts the past 3 years.

I don't have demonstrable proof to offer, but I don't think that Owner 2's deficit of 70 pts (164 - 94) would be overcome by the pts from his WR1 in round 3 and WR2 in round 4, compared to WR1 in round 4 and WR2 in round 7 (for Owner 1)?

Of course, it would be more favorable to Owner 2 in ppr leagues and with WCOFF-type starters, and more favorable to Owner 1 in non-ppr leagues and required starters like QB/2 RB/2 WR/flex RB-WR/TE/D/K. I don't know where the break-even point would be, but it would be interesting to figure it out.

 

[radballs]

In redrafts this year I'm targeting a few TEs in the middle rounds...but I'll outline that in the details of my rankings critiques.

No teasers for other threads here. Be relavent or get out.TIA

2nd, your Tomlinson, Manning, Gates team sure doesn't seem that bad to me, even if the WRs are a little weak. But again, this depends very heavily on starting requirements and league size. If you NEED a lot of WRs to make a good team, then you lean away from the off-positions a little more. WCOFF leans a little this way, with essentially 6 starting RBs/WRs. But with 12 teams rather than 14 (or more) that actually reduces the scarcity a little bit.Honestly, with those rules, I think I could make a case for Gates fairly easily somewhere in the 3rd and still field a solid team overall with a sizeable advantage at TE.

you will straight up get slaughtered in wcoff not picking a WR in the first 3 rounds.,S

I've played in the WCOFF for the last four years and have made my league's championship game in the last three. I'm a big proponent of taking a TE early. Early is a relative term though, and it always boils down to value. Generalizations don't work one way or the other. But, even if a steady top 3-5 projected TE might cost you a 5th-8th round pick, you don't have to worry about platooning and guessing which of your two schleps to start each week if you wait too long.

 

[Driver]

In redrafts this year I'm targeting a few TEs in the middle rounds...but I'll outline that in the details of my rankings critiques.

No teasers for other threads here. Be relavent or get out.TIA

2nd, your Tomlinson, Manning, Gates team sure doesn't seem that bad to me, even if the WRs are a little weak. But again, this depends very heavily on starting requirements and league size. If you NEED a lot of WRs to make a good team, then you lean away from the off-positions a little more. WCOFF leans a little this way, with essentially 6 starting RBs/WRs. But with 12 teams rather than 14 (or more) that actually reduces the scarcity a little bit.

Honestly, with those rules, I think I could make a case for Gates fairly easily somewhere in the 3rd and still field a solid team overall with a sizeable advantage at TE.

you will straight up get slaughtered in wcoff not picking a WR in the first 3 rounds.,S

I've played in the WCOFF for the last four years and have made my league's championship game in the last three. I'm a big proponent of taking a TE early. Early is a relative term though, and it always boils down to value. Generalizations don't work one way or the other. But, even if a steady top 3-5 projected TE might cost you a 5th-8th round pick, you don't have to worry about platooning and guessing which of your two schleps to start each week if you wait too long.

I agree. If it were possible for one owner to draft the best QB, best RB and WR corps, best TE, best D, and best K, then that would obviously be the strongest team. But since that's impossible, then the goal is to assemble a balanced and strong team that produces more total points than your opponent each week. And there are a lot of different ways to do that. Luck, avoiding injuries, and having a stud (or undervalued pick or WW pickup) explode are major factors, too.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Anyone have a comparison to how Gates has scored compared to WRs that were drafted in the 3rd round the last few years in 12 team leagues? I'm talking just straight up points comparison, regardless of position.

I've got to think even if Gates were a WR he would be near the top of that list. Getting those numbers out of the TE spot should propel him towards the top of where they're picked.

A guy like Anquan Boldin is a typical 3rd/4th round WR, and Gates has outscored him by a ton the last 3 years from a position that is harder to fill.

Gates' last 3 seasons in standard scoring leagues he scored 174, 170, and 146 points. Boldin's last 3 seasons he scored 68 (missed 6 games to injury), 182, and 144 points. Gates is outscoring him straight up even discounting position.

So people saying Gates is not worth a 3rd round pick had better either A) be unwilling to pick Boldin until the 5th or 6th round or B) better believe through some strange nonsensical theory that WRs have more VBD value than TEs, at which point they'd better be unwilling to draft a guy like Heap or Shockey until round 11.

Otherwise, it just doesn't add up.

Oh, and just as a note, I'm probably the most anti-'Manning in the 1st round' guy playing FF right now. Manning in the 1st and Gates in the 3rd are two totally different beasts.

 

[BassNBrew]

I LOVE this thread.Love the holier than thou attitude that is so pervasive in this hobby (very entertaining).Love the broad generalized statements based on very sketchy assumptions.Love the fact that threads like this keep "off-position" studs' values as low as they are (in certain scenarios).Love the Joe quote about not wanting the #1 pick to support this argument. Because God knows people who had the #1 pick last year were REALLY hating life.Love when guys talk about the "risk" of a guy who in an off-position has produced monster stats every year for three years straight, compared to the risk of taking a 20th ranked RB and then say "yeah, you can get a guy who outperforms his draft position there". So let me get this straight, when you pick guys who outperform their draft position you are going to do well? BRILLIANT. Why didn't I think of that? Never any mention of course of the DISTINCT possibility that you get exactly SQUAT out of that draft slot with that 3rd tier RB. Here's an even MORE mind-boggling option - draft lower tier RB in round four! Maybe HE will outperform his draft position!In SOME leagues, yes a 3rd rounder would be too high for Gates. But lineup requirments and league size (primarily), and to a lesser degree scoring and roster limitations, are HUGE factors in the value of a guy like that. Making blanket statements about guppies drafting a TE in the 3rd WITHOUT discussing league parameters is about as guppy as it gets. What's next, an offer in big bold print to join your league where the REAL fantasy experts play?

Okay, I'll play.Not being holier than thou in the suggestion here. I have seen many advocate taking gates in the third round (I usually am in 12 team leagues, so I mean somewhere between 3.01 and 3.12, although he never makes it to 3.12).All I am saying (and it was echoed above) is that you have a 2-3 round slide to the next TE and even those tend to be bunched up from round 5-12. The "value" play here is getting TE #3-6 4 rounds later. I post this also because I have seen some people make the "shark" move of grabbing him at 2.12 after taking LT or LJ last year (could be 3.01 or 2.112, what's the difference).I guess FWIW I am talking about a 12 team draft with WCOFF style scoring (to keep the discussion simple).GatorFinally: I guess this comes down to game theory here. Lets look at the perfect draft for the first 3 rounds on VBD or whatever. Arguably it would be LT, Manning, and Gates. Now you have to wait till 4.12 to start grabbing RB #2, and WRs. Are you better off? Even in the case where you draft LT, your RB #2, and then Gates; or LT, WR#1 and then Gates are you better off or are you now scraping tiers to make a squad?Believe me, certain drafters who I have a lot of respect for and have done well advcate taking a TE early, I am just looking for a discussion here.

Did exactly that last year...

Manning, Peyton IND QB 329.48  6 Rivers, Philip SDC QB 230.48  3 Bell, Mike DEN RB 131.50  4 Foster, De'shaun CAR RB 123.60  9 Harris, Arlen DET RB 35.00  8 Johnson, Larry KCC RB 333.90  3 Lundy, Wali HOU RB 94.10  5 Turner, Michael SDC RB 66.90  3 Bennett, Drew TEN WR 93.70  7 Booker, Marty MIA WR 116.70  8 Galloway, Joey TBB WR 148.60  4 Johnson, Keyshawn CAR WR 111.90  9 Jurevicius, Joe CLE WR 67.50  6 Gates, Antonio SDC TE 146.40  3 Vinatieri, Adam IND PK 113.00  6 Jaguars, Jacksonville JAC Def 143.00  6 Seahawks, Seattle SEA Def 142.00  5 Vikings, Minnesota MIN Def 159.00  6

Finished 8th out of 60 teams.Next 12 players off the board after Gates...WardChambersDillons. MossROYDunnDriverDjaxBushJ. JonesJ. LewisPertinent PlayersGates 146Gonzo 122 available in 5thHeap 112 available in 5thDelta of 29 points v. Gonzo/Heap averageBest case scenarios at WR in the 3rd (assuming you got the pick right)Driver 179 and ROY 173...176First two WRs drafted in the 5thEvans 177Galloway 149So assuming I knew enough to draft Driver over ROY, Chambers, DJax, Moss, and Ward I would have 179 + 122 (assuming that I picked Gonzo over Heap) = 301Gates + Galloway = 295Gates + Evans = 324By taking the stud TE who had an off year I lost 6 points to the perfect draft in the worst case scenario and netted 23 in the only other likely scenario. Seems to me like Gates at 3.1 was the shark move.FYI...standard scoring, no ppr, TE mandatory, league comprised of invitees from the five top fantasy sites.Discuss...

 

[radballs]

Discuss...

So, obviously we need to be talking about what kind of league format and scoring. I thought it would be interesting to run a sheet based off of David Dodds' original projections that came out a few days ago, and the SSLs that are currently being drafted. Granted, these numbers are based off of static VBD baselines using QB16, RB32, WR48, and TE16 as the baselines given the SSL scoring. But still, Gates is the number 4 overall player and Gonzo, Winslow, and Heap are 9, 10, and 11.What does this mean? I'm not sure but it seems to indicate that TEs in general are completely undervalued given past and present ADPs and how valuable they can be in certain scoring systems. I guess I disagree with Gator.

 

[bostonfred]

In redrafts this year I'm targeting a few TEs in the middle rounds...but I'll outline that in the details of my rankings critiques.

No teasers for other threads here. Be relavent or get out.TIA

Awesome. I agree with Gator on pretty much everything in this thread, btw.

 

[bostonfred]

Discuss...

So, obviously we need to be talking about what kind of league format and scoring. I thought it would be interesting to run a sheet based off of David Dodds' original projections that came out a few days ago, and the SSLs that are currently being drafted. Granted, these numbers are based off of static VBD baselines using QB16, RB32, WR48, and TE16 as the baselines given the SSL scoring. But still, Gates is the number 4 overall player and Gonzo, Winslow, and Heap are 9, 10, and 11.What does this mean? I'm not sure but it seems to indicate that TEs in general are completely undervalued given past and present ADPs and how valuable they can be in certain scoring systems. I guess I disagree with Gator.

Those numbers also assume two points per TE reception and use a 16 team league with no flex position. Most leagues are 12 (or fewer) teams, and have zero to one points per TE reception, and many allow you to start three backs per week.

 

[bostonfred]

fyi to all: stating what happens in your league is not an acceptable rebuttal to an argument. considering nobody knows the talent in your league (or if your league even exists) we need to do better than this.just because everyone in my league drafts a kicker in the first round doesn't automatically make gramatica a steal on the turn.

 

[radballs]

Discuss...

So, obviously we need to be talking about what kind of league format and scoring. I thought it would be interesting to run a sheet based off of David Dodds' original projections that came out a few days ago, and the SSLs that are currently being drafted. Granted, these numbers are based off of static VBD baselines using QB16, RB32, WR48, and TE16 as the baselines given the SSL scoring. But still, Gates is the number 4 overall player and Gonzo, Winslow, and Heap are 9, 10, and 11.

What does this mean? I'm not sure but it seems to indicate that TEs in general are completely undervalued given past and present ADPs and how valuable they can be in certain scoring systems.

I guess I disagree with Gator.

Those numbers also assume two points per TE reception and use a 16 team league with no flex position. Most leagues are 12 (or fewer) teams, and have zero to one points per TE reception, and many allow you to start three backs per week.

You know I agree with that. That's why I mentioned league format and scoring in the first line. I just find it funny that Gator could come out and say "Taking a TE in round 3 is a mistake". Obviously, in the message board survivor leagues, we have about 4 TEs that should be taken in round 1 and another two or three in round 2 using standard and static VBD baselines (I understand the shortcomings of VBD in survivor leagues but it's not off as far as Gator assumes).

 

[bostonfred]

Discuss...

So, obviously we need to be talking about what kind of league format and scoring. I thought it would be interesting to run a sheet based off of David Dodds' original projections that came out a few days ago, and the SSLs that are currently being drafted. Granted, these numbers are based off of static VBD baselines using QB16, RB32, WR48, and TE16 as the baselines given the SSL scoring. But still, Gates is the number 4 overall player and Gonzo, Winslow, and Heap are 9, 10, and 11.

What does this mean? I'm not sure but it seems to indicate that TEs in general are completely undervalued given past and present ADPs and how valuable they can be in certain scoring systems.

I guess I disagree with Gator.

Those numbers also assume two points per TE reception and use a 16 team league with no flex position. Most leagues are 12 (or fewer) teams, and have zero to one points per TE reception, and many allow you to start three backs per week.

You know I agree with that. That's why I mentioned league format and scoring in the first line. I just find it funny that Gator could come out and say "Taking a TE in round 3 is a mistake". Obviously, in the message board survivor leagues, we have about 4 TEs that should be taken in round 1 and another two or three in round 2 using standard and static VBD baselines (I understand the shortcomings of VBD in survivor leagues but it's not off as far as Gator assumes).

Right. Sorry. I wasn't disagreeing with your whole post, so much as the line that "TEs in general are completely undervalued given past and present ADPs and how valuable they can be in certain scoring systems". In general, people using VBD to determine the value of TEs will be overvaluing them, because their actual value is lower than their VBD number because taking a TE early forces you to take risks at RB, WR and QB in later rounds, and typically has less upside than the RB/WR you could have gotten at that pick instead.

In the SSLs, not everyone is using VBD, which is why TEs are lasting longer than they probably should (although the best ball format and early drafts play a role, too).

 

[Driver]

Discuss...

So, obviously we need to be talking about what kind of league format and scoring. I thought it would be interesting to run a sheet based off of David Dodds' original projections that came out a few days ago, and the SSLs that are currently being drafted. Granted, these numbers are based off of static VBD baselines using QB16, RB32, WR48, and TE16 as the baselines given the SSL scoring. But still, Gates is the number 4 overall player and Gonzo, Winslow, and Heap are 9, 10, and 11.

What does this mean? I'm not sure but it seems to indicate that TEs in general are completely undervalued given past and present ADPs and how valuable they can be in certain scoring systems.

I guess I disagree with Gator.

Those numbers also assume two points per TE reception and use a 16 team league with no flex position. Most leagues are 12 (or fewer) teams, and have zero to one points per TE reception, and many allow you to start three backs per week.

You know I agree with that. That's why I mentioned league format and scoring in the first line. I just find it funny that Gator could come out and say "Taking a TE in round 3 is a mistake". Obviously, in the message board survivor leagues, we have about 4 TEs that should be taken in round 1 and another two or three in round 2 using standard and static VBD baselines (I understand the shortcomings of VBD in survivor leagues but it's not off as far as Gator assumes).

Right. Sorry. I wasn't disagreeing with your whole post, so much as the line that "TEs in general are completely undervalued given past and present ADPs and how valuable they can be in certain scoring systems". In general, people using VBD to determine the value of TEs will be overvaluing them, because their actual value is lower than their VBD number because taking a TE early forces you to take risks at RB, WR and QB in later rounds, and typically has less upside than the RB/WR you could have gotten at that pick instead.

In the SSLs, not everyone is using VBD, which is why TEs are lasting longer than they probably should (although the best ball format and early drafts play a role, too).

I agree with the bolded part above to a certain degree. For example, in leagues with 2-QB starters required, QBs are as important or more important than any other position. With a WCOFF format, you can't ignore the WR position and this usually translates into TEs being taken later. In RB-heavy leagues, you're usually at a disadvantage if you don't take 3 RBs in your first 4-6 picks.Given those exceptions, however, in many leagues taking Gates at 3.06 or higher has been a very good strategy the past 3 years -- and will continue to be a good strategy in the future as long as Gates maintains the high level of performance that he's demonstrated the past 3 years. Unless league format, scoring, starting requirements and other league characteristics dictate otherwise, Gates is undervalued at 3.06 or above IMO for the VBD pts that he contributes to a team's overall total pts. week in and week out.

 

[SSOG]

Are we going to see people in drafts taking a TE in round 3, or has that particular bit of nonsense finally perished?

Just wondering what the thinking is here in the shark pool about this "shark" move.

TIA

Nonsense? Taking a TE in rounds 3/4 is suddenly nonsense?Hey, let's play a fun game, shall we? Name the only player in NFL history who finished with a higher season-ending VBD than season-beginning ADP (while still maintaining starter-caliber status)... for 6 straight seasons.

Before I get to the answer, let me explain what I'm asking. VBD is generally speaking an indicator of where, if everyone drafted perfectly, a player *SHOULD* go. In other words, the guy who finishes with the #1 VBD should have had the #1 ADP if everyone drafted "perfectly". Obviously not everyone drafts perfectly, but if your player finishes with a higher VBD than ADP, that player was underrated before the season and outperformed expectations. So basically, the question boils down to "name the only player who was underrated for 6 straight seasons".

Anyway, answer time: Tony Gonzalez. That's right, Tony Gonzalez is the only player in fantasy history to be underrated for 6 straight seasons. And even the last two seasons, Gonzo finished with an ADP of 44 and 31, so picking him in the fourth round both of the last two seasons still would have represented value.

Let's look at Antonio Gates, shall we. Gates has finished the last 3 seasons with VBDs of 8, 8, and 16. That's incredibly powerful stuff- Gates has been worth more than a top-10 RB in two of the past three years. It's ludicrous to think that you could have an almost certain top-10 RB in the third round... and yet here's Antonio Gates, a player who carries every bit as much value (with far less uncertainty), and there he is in the third round or later. And the reason why he's available is because of people like you who think it's "nonsense" to take him so "high".

I say Antonio Gates in the third round is a steal. Heck, Antonio Gates at the end of the second round still presents significant value.

Joe used to say that he hated having a top pick (back when he played FF) because the upside of the top pick is limited. I say the same thing with gates in the third. I'd rather have a second tier guy in the 5th or 6th (hell 8th) round than the top guy in the third (even if you are sure he is the top guy).

The UPSIDE of Gates is 100+ points of VBD. I'd hardly describe that as limited. In fact, there are probably only 15 or so other players with a comparable "upside"- and none of those players are going to be available in the third round.Remember, too, that all of these numbers are in non-PPR. In PPR, the value just becomes even greater.

Now, if you want to talk about the UPSIDE of other TEs, I'm all ears. What other TEs have an upside of 1000 yards and 10+ TDs? I can see giving Heap or Shockey or Winslow an upside of 800/8, but that's still an advantage of at least 200/2 to Gates.

this is the same argument mnnnglvrs give. just because you can do something doesn't mean it puts you in the best position to win going into the draft. it may work out, but it is a big gamble.

i think that is the thing that gets me. people who take gates in the third (or whoever the top te is at the time) act like that player will:

1. be #1

2. be #1 at such a high margin to take him by sacrificing a RB or WR

3. think that there is absolutely no risk in doing so

i think if someone said that they were taking a high risk move to get the #1 player at their position, it would at least acknowledge that they understand what tradeoff they are making.

Historically, TE is the most predictable position. Guys that are predicted as the preseason #1 TE almost never finish lower than #2 by the end of the season. It's INCREDIBLE stability at the position, making Gates a far less risky pick than pretty much anyone else.I mean, 50% of first round picks bust, but #1 TEs only bust... what, 10% of the time, if that? Describing taking a TE early as a high-risk strategy is just categorically untrue.

...

Face it, in FF you have to hit on a player (or 2) that outperform their draft spot. At round 3, Gates has little to no chance of doing that.

...

Bang Nail ------> Head

Again, the #1 TE according to ADP has outperformed his draft spot in something like 9 of the last 10 seasons, and the one season the #1 drafted TE "underperformed" his draft spot, it was by a handful of slots. Gates has outperformed his draft spot by a huge margin for three straight years. I'd hardly classify that as "little chance". In fact, I would classify that as "a great chance".

 

[SSOG]

In general, people using VBD to determine the value of TEs will be overvaluing them, because their actual value is lower than their VBD number because taking a TE early forces you to take risks at RB, WR and QB in later rounds, and typically has less upside than the RB/WR you could have gotten at that pick instead.

What RB/WRs available in the middle of the third round have an upside of 100+ VBD points? And how many of those pair that upside with the almost complete lack of a downside?

 

[Driver]

Are we going to see people in drafts taking a TE in round 3, or has that particular bit of nonsense finally perished?

Just wondering what the thinking is here in the shark pool about this "shark" move.

TIA

Nonsense? Taking a TE in rounds 3/4 is suddenly nonsense?Hey, let's play a fun game, shall we? Name the only player in NFL history who finished with a higher season-ending VBD than season-beginning ADP (while still maintaining starter-caliber status)... for 6 straight seasons.

Before I get to the answer, let me explain what I'm asking. VBD is generally speaking an indicator of where, if everyone drafted perfectly, a player *SHOULD* go. In other words, the guy who finishes with the #1 VBD should have had the #1 ADP if everyone drafted "perfectly". Obviously not everyone drafts perfectly, but if your player finishes with a higher VBD than ADP, that player was underrated before the season and outperformed expectations. So basically, the question boils down to "name the only player who was underrated for 6 straight seasons".

Anyway, answer time: Tony Gonzalez. That's right, Tony Gonzalez is the only player in fantasy history to be underrated for 6 straight seasons. And even the last two seasons, Gonzo finished with an ADP of 44 and 31, so picking him in the fourth round both of the last two seasons still would have represented value.

Let's look at Antonio Gates, shall we. Gates has finished the last 3 seasons with VBDs of 8, 8, and 16. That's incredibly powerful stuff- Gates has been worth more than a top-10 RB in two of the past three years. It's ludicrous to think that you could have an almost certain top-10 RB in the third round... and yet here's Antonio Gates, a player who carries every bit as much value (with far less uncertainty), and there he is in the third round or later. And the reason why he's available is because of people like you who think it's "nonsense" to take him so "high".

I say Antonio Gates in the third round is a steal. Heck, Antonio Gates at the end of the second round still presents significant value.

Joe used to say that he hated having a top pick (back when he played FF) because the upside of the top pick is limited. I say the same thing with gates in the third. I'd rather have a second tier guy in the 5th or 6th (hell 8th) round than the top guy in the third (even if you are sure he is the top guy).

The UPSIDE of Gates is 100+ points of VBD. I'd hardly describe that as limited. In fact, there are probably only 15 or so other players with a comparable "upside"- and none of those players are going to be available in the third round.Remember, too, that all of these numbers are in non-PPR. In PPR, the value just becomes even greater.

Now, if you want to talk about the UPSIDE of other TEs, I'm all ears. What other TEs have an upside of 1000 yards and 10+ TDs? I can see giving Heap or Shockey or Winslow an upside of 800/8, but that's still an advantage of at least 200/2 to Gates.

this is the same argument mnnnglvrs give. just because you can do something doesn't mean it puts you in the best position to win going into the draft. it may work out, but it is a big gamble.

i think that is the thing that gets me. people who take gates in the third (or whoever the top te is at the time) act like that player will:

1. be #1

2. be #1 at such a high margin to take him by sacrificing a RB or WR

3. think that there is absolutely no risk in doing so

i think if someone said that they were taking a high risk move to get the #1 player at their position, it would at least acknowledge that they understand what tradeoff they are making.

Historically, TE is the most predictable position. Guys that are predicted as the preseason #1 TE almost never finish lower than #2 by the end of the season. It's INCREDIBLE stability at the position, making Gates a far less risky pick than pretty much anyone else.I mean, 50% of first round picks bust, but #1 TEs only bust... what, 10% of the time, if that? Describing taking a TE early as a high-risk strategy is just categorically untrue.

...

Face it, in FF you have to hit on a player (or 2) that outperform their draft spot. At round 3, Gates has little to no chance of doing that.

...

Bang Nail ------> Head

Again, the #1 TE according to ADP has outperformed his draft spot in something like 9 of the last 10 seasons, and the one season the #1 drafted TE "underperformed" his draft spot, it was by a handful of slots. Gates has outperformed his draft spot by a huge margin for three straight years. I'd hardly classify that as "little chance". In fact, I would classify that as "a great chance".

I agree 100%. Not saying there isn't any risk, but the risk/reward ratio for Gates in the 3rd round is better than any other player IMO -- and certain league characteristics may put other players above Gates according to risk/reward ratios -- but Gates is still in the picture as a reasonable choice.

 

[BassNBrew]

Discuss...

So, obviously we need to be talking about what kind of league format and scoring. I thought it would be interesting to run a sheet based off of David Dodds' original projections that came out a few days ago, and the SSLs that are currently being drafted. Granted, these numbers are based off of static VBD baselines using QB16, RB32, WR48, and TE16 as the baselines given the SSL scoring. But still, Gates is the number 4 overall player and Gonzo, Winslow, and Heap are 9, 10, and 11.

What does this mean? I'm not sure but it seems to indicate that TEs in general are completely undervalued given past and present ADPs and how valuable they can be in certain scoring systems.

I guess I disagree with Gator.

Those numbers also assume two points per TE reception and use a 16 team league with no flex position. Most leagues are 12 (or fewer) teams, and have zero to one points per TE reception, and many allow you to start three backs per week.

You know I agree with that. That's why I mentioned league format and scoring in the first line. I just find it funny that Gator could come out and say "Taking a TE in round 3 is a mistake". Obviously, in the message board survivor leagues, we have about 4 TEs that should be taken in round 1 and another two or three in round 2 using standard and static VBD baselines (I understand the shortcomings of VBD in survivor leagues but it's not off as far as Gator assumes).

Right. Sorry. I wasn't disagreeing with your whole post, so much as the line that "TEs in general are completely undervalued given past and present ADPs and how valuable they can be in certain scoring systems". In general, people using VBD to determine the value of TEs will be overvaluing them, because their actual value is lower than their VBD number because taking a TE early forces you to take risks at RB, WR and QB in later rounds, and typically has less upside than the RB/WR you could have gotten at that pick instead.

Yet I just posted an example where almost every player selected in the 3rd round was a worst pick than Gates and the only two WRs selected in the 5th round were better selections than virtually every WR selected in the 3rd round. Something tells me that this year may be a similiar circumstance if the ADPs for Walker and DJax among others hold steady.

 

[Gatorman]

Nice discussion going here.

Rad -- This thread was mainly set up b/c of what you do in WCOFF, but still, You aren't advocating Gates in the third as much as you are taking one of the top 5 TE that are "plug and play" for the season. I agree with this idea, and disagree with Gates as a third rounder.

SSOG -- Nice post, and very well written (enough to almost change my way of thinking). However, My point on Gates in this case is waiting 3-5 more rounds and taking a Heap, Shockey, or Winslow type player.

THe third round last year was a minefield of Bad picks. The only salvagable guys were Driver, ROY, Palmer, and Gore (who was the ding ding pick here if he was there). Last year, gates may have been a decent pick because everyone else suxored, but that is not my point. Usually you would like to have your "I got no one to draft" moment in round 8 rather than round 3.

As for the idea of Gonzo outscoring his spot, I agree with you, but in those days Gonzo went in the 4th. The TE position has creeped up into the third while the TE position overall has all gotten better (there are 5-7 guys who are really worth taking, and 3-4 of those could all be #1). Back in the Gonzo days it was him and usually Sharpe and that was it.

VBD (static and Dynamic) don't do a good job taking into account small numbers. If you have 5 good players and the VBD baseline is at player 12, of course that guy is going to look great. However, if you set that baseline to 5, all of a sudden you can wait a little. Probably my biggest issue with VBD is that player "clumps" are not able to be broen down well (even dynamically)

A good discussion overall, BTW.

 

[bostonfred]

In general, people using VBD to determine the value of TEs will be overvaluing them, because their actual value is lower than their VBD number because taking a TE early forces you to take risks at RB, WR and QB in later rounds, and typically has less upside than the RB/WR you could have gotten at that pick instead.

What RB/WRs available in the middle of the third round have an upside of 100+ VBD points? And how many of those pair that upside with the almost complete lack of a downside?

1.01 - Twilight - LaDainain Tomlinson - RB1 - SD1.02 - Preds - Frank Gore - RB2 - SF

1.03 - Pimpin' Aint Easy - Steven Jackson - RB3 - STL

1.04 - Shadowfax - Larry Johnson - RB4 - KC

1.05 - Duke1948 - Reggie Bush - RB5 - NO

1.06 - Valence - Shaun Alexander - RB6 - Sea

1.07 - Construx Boy - Brian Westbrook - RB7 Philly

1.08 - Jeter23 - Jospeh Addai - RB8 - Indy

1.09 - Family Matters - Willie Parker - RB9 - Pitt

1.10 - Reaper - Rudi Johnson - RB10 - Cincy

1.11 - Razorback77 - Clinton Portis - RB11 - Wash

1.12 - Aaron Rudnicki - Travis Henry - RB12 - Den

1.13 - Chaz - Laurence Maroney - RB13 - NE

1.14 - Ravzfan - Steve Smith - WR1 - Car

1.15 - Bicycle Seat Sniffer - Antonio Gates - TE1

1.16 - Team Legacy -Ronnie Brown - RB14 - Mia

2.01 - Team Legacy - Larry Fitzgerald - WR2- Arz

2.02 - Bicycle Seat Sniffer - -Edgerrin James - RB15 - Arz

2.03 - Ravnzfan -Willis McGahee - RB16 - Balt

2.04 - Chaz - Maurice Jones-Drew- RB17 - Jax

2.05 - Aaron Rudnicki -Chad Johnson - WR3- Cincy

2.06- Razorback77- Cedric Benson- RB18 - Chi

2.07 - Reaper - Peyton Manning - QB1 - Indy

2.08 - Family Matters --Torry Holt - WR4- STL

2.09 - Jeter23 - Reggie Wayne - WR5- Indy

2.10 - Construx Boy - Marvin Harrison - WR6- Indy

2.11 - Valence - Terrell Owens - WR7- Dallas

2.12 - Duuke1948 - Andre Johnson - WR8- Hou

2.13 - Shadowfax - Donald Driver - WR9- GB

2.14 - Pimpin Ain't Easy - Roy Williams - WR10- Det

2.15 - Preds - Anquan Boldin - WR11 - Arz

2.16 - Twilight - Javon Walker - WR12- Den

3.01 - Twilight -Thomas Jones - RB19 - NYJ

3.02 - Preds -Randy Moss - WR13- NE

34 picks into SSL1 (which would be mid-late third round in a 12 team league) and I would say that Driver, Roy Williams, Anquan Boldin and Randy Moss all have the potential to get 100 VBD points at their position, and have as good a downside case as Gates/Gonzo/Heap/Shockey/whatever in a traditional 12 team league that doesn't give 2 pts per TE reception.

 

[BoltBacker]

SSOG -- Nice post, and very well written (enough to almost change my way of thinking). However, My point on Gates in this case is waiting 3-5 more rounds and taking a Heap, Shockey, or Winslow type player.

What actual picks are you talking about when you say "3-5 rounds later"? Because in my experience if you wait until round 8 to grab a guy like Heap you'll be way to late unless you're talking about a very small league.

 

[Gatorman]

SSOG -- Nice post, and very well written (enough to almost change my way of thinking). However, My point on Gates in this case is waiting 3-5 more rounds and taking a Heap, Shockey, or Winslow type player.

What actual picks are you talking about when you say "3-5 rounds later"? Because in my experience if you wait until round 8 to grab a guy like Heap you'll be way to late unless you're talking about a very small league.

Heap, Shockey, and maybe Winslow will go in the next 2 rounds (maybe by round 5 or 6) then you have some of the other guys (The guy in Dallas (drawing a blank)), etc a few rounds later.All I am saying in that post is that there are a bunch of guys in the 2-7 rankings that could all have good years and the #7 guy in that group could be had after round 8, more like round 10.

 

[moleculo]

VBD (static and Dynamic) don't do a good job taking into account small numbers. If you have 5 good players and the VBD baseline is at player 12, of course that guy is going to look great. However, if you set that baseline to 5, all of a sudden you can wait a little. Probably my biggest issue with VBD is that player "clumps" are not able to be broen down well (even dynamically)

I think that this is the key to the whole debate.

 

[BassNBrew]

SSOG -- Nice post, and very well written (enough to almost change my way of thinking). However, My point on Gates in this case is waiting 3-5 more rounds and taking a Heap, Shockey, or Winslow type player.

What actual picks are you talking about when you say "3-5 rounds later"? Because in my experience if you wait until round 8 to grab a guy like Heap you'll be way to late unless you're talking about a very small league.

Heap, Shockey, and maybe Winslow will go in the next 2 rounds (maybe by round 5 or 6) then you have some of the other guys (The guy in Dallas (drawing a blank)), etc a few rounds later.All I am saying in that post is that there are a bunch of guys in the 2-7 rankings that could all have good years and the #7 guy in that group could be had after round 8, more like round 10.

The types of guys you're talking about are Witten and everyone's shark TE pick of the year Watson who scored 82 points last year. That's a 64 point delta to Gates in his "off year".Once again, assuming you navigated the horrible 3rd round landscape and drafted Driver, the 64 drop off from him puts you in the range of guys like Clayton, Kennison, Booker, Muhammad, Henry, Berrian, Keyshawn, Henderson (didn't cherry pick here from the final standings, those guys are in order with no one left out). In the league I've been referencing those guys were drafted in rounds 9, 6, 13, 6, 13, undrafted, 8, undrafted.From what I'm seeing, the shark drafts Gates in round 3 and loads up on WR late. Or they save the TEBC roster spot for an early FA move at WR.Here are you first 7 TEs draft by the way...2.12 24. BassNBrew (FBG) Gates, Antonio SDC TE Tue Aug 8 10:34:38 p.m. ET 2006 4.06 42. Royal Slave (FSW) Shockey, Jeremy NYG TE Wed Aug 9 9:36:01 p.m. ET 2006 Pick made based on Pre-Draft List 5.05 53. Rock Farmers(War) Gonzalez, Tony KCC TE Thu Aug 10 7:17:43 p.m. ET 2006 5.08 56. remote controller (FFT) Heap, Todd BAL TE Thu Aug 10 9:15:25 p.m. ET 2006 Pick made for Fumbleweed 6.04 64. Bangers and Mash (Hud) Cooley, Chris WAS TE Fri Aug 11 6:09:20 a.m. ET 2006 Pick made based on Pre-Draft List 6.06 66. PhatNastyCat (FSW) Crumpler, Alge ATL TE Fri Aug 11 11:46:04 a.m. ET 2006 6.11 71. GBG (FSW) McMichael, Randy MIA TE All gone by the end of round of 6.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Anyone have a comparison to how Gates has scored compared to WRs that were drafted in the 3rd round the last few years in 12 team leagues? I'm talking just straight up points comparison, regardless of position.I've got to think even if Gates were a WR he would be near the top of that list. Getting those numbers out of the TE spot should propel him towards the top of where they're picked.A guy like Anquan Boldin is a typical 3rd/4th round WR, and Gates has outscored him by a ton the last 3 years from a position that is harder to fill.Gates' last 3 seasons in standard scoring leagues he scored 174, 170, and 146 points. Boldin's last 3 seasons he scored 68 (missed 6 games to injury), 182, and 144 points. Gates is outscoring him straight up even discounting position.So people saying Gates is not worth a 3rd round pick had better either A) be unwilling to pick Boldin until the 5th or 6th round or B) better believe through some strange nonsensical theory that WRs have more VBD value than TEs, at which point they'd better be unwilling to draft a guy like Heap or Shockey until round 11.Otherwise, it just doesn't add up.Oh, and just as a note, I'm probably the most anti-'Manning in the 1st round' guy playing FF right now. Manning in the 1st and Gates in the 3rd are two totally different beasts.

Still waiting on someone that doesn't think Gates is worth a 3rd to tell me where they'd draft Boldin...Also wondering if someone can tell me where I can find ADP's from 2004, 2005, and 2006 if they're out there somewhere.

 

[John Mamula]

In redrafts this year I'm targeting a few TEs in the middle rounds...but I'll outline that in the details of my rankings critiques.

No teasers for other threads here. Be relavent or get out.TIA

2nd, your Tomlinson, Manning, Gates team sure doesn't seem that bad to me, even if the WRs are a little weak. But again, this depends very heavily on starting requirements and league size. If you NEED a lot of WRs to make a good team, then you lean away from the off-positions a little more. WCOFF leans a little this way, with essentially 6 starting RBs/WRs. But with 12 teams rather than 14 (or more) that actually reduces the scarcity a little bit.Honestly, with those rules, I think I could make a case for Gates fairly easily somewhere in the 3rd and still field a solid team overall with a sizeable advantage at TE.

you will straight up get slaughtered in wcoff not picking a WR in the first 3 rounds.,S

I've played in the WCOFF for the last four years and have made my league's championship game in the last three. I'm a big proponent of taking a TE early. Early is a relative term though, and it always boils down to value. Generalizations don't work one way or the other. But, even if a steady top 3-5 projected TE might cost you a 5th-8th round pick, you don't have to worry about platooning and guessing which of your two schleps to start each week if you wait too long.

i am all for taking a top 3-5 TE in the 5-8 rounds.your success in wcoff is impressive to say the least.my response was to someone who takes a RB/QB/TE in a format like wcoff. that's trouble.

 

[John Mamula]

Anyone have a comparison to how Gates has scored compared to WRs that were drafted in the 3rd round the last few years in 12 team leagues? I'm talking just straight up points comparison, regardless of position.I've got to think even if Gates were a WR he would be near the top of that list. Getting those numbers out of the TE spot should propel him towards the top of where they're picked.A guy like Anquan Boldin is a typical 3rd/4th round WR, and Gates has outscored him by a ton the last 3 years from a position that is harder to fill.Gates' last 3 seasons in standard scoring leagues he scored 174, 170, and 146 points. Boldin's last 3 seasons he scored 68 (missed 6 games to injury), 182, and 144 points. Gates is outscoring him straight up even discounting position.So people saying Gates is not worth a 3rd round pick had better either A) be unwilling to pick Boldin until the 5th or 6th round or B) better believe through some strange nonsensical theory that WRs have more VBD value than TEs, at which point they'd better be unwilling to draft a guy like Heap or Shockey until round 11.Otherwise, it just doesn't add up.Oh, and just as a note, I'm probably the most anti-'Manning in the 1st round' guy playing FF right now. Manning in the 1st and Gates in the 3rd are two totally different beasts.

Still waiting on someone that doesn't think Gates is worth a 3rd to tell me where they'd draft Boldin...Also wondering if someone can tell me where I can find ADP's from 2004, 2005, and 2006 if they're out there somewhere.

scoring format?comparing gross points scored between positions is fairly pointless as QBs score the most points typically but their value is much lower. i'm not sure what you are driving at here.in a ppr league i take boldin in the late 2nd / early 3rd if it is start 3 WR and especially if there is a flex.don't gloss over the point of # of starters required which = more bye weeks, more injuries, etc.the easiest way to see this impact is set up a matrix of your roster and who you expect to start each week and what their average ppg is. slot in your starters taking into consideration bye weeks and all of a sudden you see that depth is a huge issue. compare that to having 1 starter at TE you just don't need the depth. next time you do a mock do this exercies afterwards and estimate what some alternative scenarios would be.talking about VBD and comparing 1 TE to 1 WR just scratches the surface of the analysis that needs to be done. i know it sounds great and is the depth of what most here talk about, but it doesn't even come close to truly analyzing the impact of this tradeoff.i used to be the biggest proponent of VBD out there a few years ago. but there is much more to drafting than just that. it is a good framework to set up an initial decision tree, but there should be an overall draft strategy that overrides VBD on a round by round basis. you can't be a slave to a number that is not an absolute given the inherent inaccuracy of all projections. i think there is more to think of than VBD, but not everyone agrees, and that's ok.

 

[rabidfireweasel]

the easiest way to see this impact is set up a matrix of your roster and who you expect to start each week and what their average ppg is. slot in your starters taking into consideration bye weeks and all of a sudden you see that depth is a huge issue. compare that to having 1 starter at TE you just don't need the depth. next time you do a mock do this exercies afterwards and estimate what some alternative scenarios would be.

This is an excellent point. There is this mentality where we often evaluate our teams by the star power in taken in first four rounds. Depth is often glossed over. In a start 3 wr league, your #4 wr (who we rarely talk about) will probably play between 4-6 games due to bye weeks, injuries, and poor match-ups of your other wrs. If you play a 14 week season, that is roughly between 30-40% of your games. My opinion is, if you want to Gates early, you need to be better than most of the rest of your legue in drafting in the 7-12 area of the draft.

 

[John Mamula]

fyi to all: stating what happens in your league is not an acceptable rebuttal to an argument. considering nobody knows the talent in your league (or if your league even exists) we need to do better than this.just because everyone in my league drafts a kicker in the first round doesn't automatically make gramatica a steal on the turn.

are you questioning the superior intellect of my league?it consists of me, my sister, my grandmother, half of :11:, and my stuffed animal Pookie.PS: it is run on yahoo so i have credibility right there.

 

[apkballa]

I wouldn't pick Gates in the third round. Not because I think its too much of a risk. I just would rather have two quality Rb's and A quality WR. Then later on say round 5 take a guy like Kellen Winslow who I know will produce some pretty good #'s during the season.

 

[John Mamula]

the easiest way to see this impact is set up a matrix of your roster and who you expect to start each week and what their average ppg is. slot in your starters taking into consideration bye weeks and all of a sudden you see that depth is a huge issue. compare that to having 1 starter at TE you just don't need the depth. next time you do a mock do this exercies afterwards and estimate what some alternative scenarios would be.

This is an excellent point. There is this mentality where we often evaluate our teams by the star power in taken in first four rounds. Depth is often glossed over. In a start 3 wr league, your #4 wr (who we rarely talk about) will probably play between 4-6 games due to bye weeks, injuries, and poor match-ups of your other wrs. If you play a 14 week season, that is roughly between 30-40% of your games. My opinion is, if you want to Gates early, you need to be better than most of the rest of your legue in drafting in the 7-12 area of the draft.

that is a bold prediction to make IMO, and not only do you have to do better, you have to do significantly better, even assuming gates will produce as expected.it can be done, but why would you want to do it this way?in a start 3 WR league, WRs are vastly underrated for the point you mention above. you just touched on WR4, your WR6 will likely play in 25% of your games. once you start adding up a lot of these lower ranked WRs and the lost production you get, you really understand what a risky proposition gates in the 3rd is.some people don't mind the risk, and that's ok. but it is not some open and shut case due to some arbitrary VBD baseline.

 

[BassNBrew]

In redrafts this year I'm targeting a few TEs in the middle rounds...but I'll outline that in the details of my rankings critiques.

No teasers for other threads here. Be relavent or get out.TIA

2nd, your Tomlinson, Manning, Gates team sure doesn't seem that bad to me, even if the WRs are a little weak. But again, this depends very heavily on starting requirements and league size. If you NEED a lot of WRs to make a good team, then you lean away from the off-positions a little more. WCOFF leans a little this way, with essentially 6 starting RBs/WRs. But with 12 teams rather than 14 (or more) that actually reduces the scarcity a little bit.Honestly, with those rules, I think I could make a case for Gates fairly easily somewhere in the 3rd and still field a solid team overall with a sizeable advantage at TE.

you will straight up get slaughtered in wcoff not picking a WR in the first 3 rounds.,S

I've played in the WCOFF for the last four years and have made my league's championship game in the last three. I'm a big proponent of taking a TE early. Early is a relative term though, and it always boils down to value. Generalizations don't work one way or the other. But, even if a steady top 3-5 projected TE might cost you a 5th-8th round pick, you don't have to worry about platooning and guessing which of your two schleps to start each week if you wait too long.

i am all for taking a top 3-5 TE in the 5-8 rounds.your success in wcoff is impressive to say the least.my response was to someone who takes a RB/QB/TE in a format like wcoff. that's trouble.

And I give a clear example where it wasn't, supported with actual numbers that fit most accepted ADPs and scoring systems...yet I haven't gotten a rebuttal other than some general theory.

 

[John Mamula]

In redrafts this year I'm targeting a few TEs in the middle rounds...but I'll outline that in the details of my rankings critiques.

No teasers for other threads here. Be relavent or get out.TIA

2nd, your Tomlinson, Manning, Gates team sure doesn't seem that bad to me, even if the WRs are a little weak. But again, this depends very heavily on starting requirements and league size. If you NEED a lot of WRs to make a good team, then you lean away from the off-positions a little more. WCOFF leans a little this way, with essentially 6 starting RBs/WRs. But with 12 teams rather than 14 (or more) that actually reduces the scarcity a little bit.Honestly, with those rules, I think I could make a case for Gates fairly easily somewhere in the 3rd and still field a solid team overall with a sizeable advantage at TE.

you will straight up get slaughtered in wcoff not picking a WR in the first 3 rounds.,S

I've played in the WCOFF for the last four years and have made my league's championship game in the last three. I'm a big proponent of taking a TE early. Early is a relative term though, and it always boils down to value. Generalizations don't work one way or the other. But, even if a steady top 3-5 projected TE might cost you a 5th-8th round pick, you don't have to worry about platooning and guessing which of your two schleps to start each week if you wait too long.

i am all for taking a top 3-5 TE in the 5-8 rounds.your success in wcoff is impressive to say the least.my response was to someone who takes a RB/QB/TE in a format like wcoff. that's trouble.

And I give a clear example where it wasn't, supported with actual numbers that fit most accepted ADPs and scoring systems...yet I haven't gotten a rebuttal other than some general theory.

i missed that. could you link please?TIAi hope this is not going back and looking at actual data and fitting a draft based on known #s. back testing any model can make the #s look how you like and has almost no predictability in future results. just ask anyone who has created a model for analysis on stocks. in theory it looks great in hindsight, but unpredictability murkies the waters significantly.cherry picking guys based on known results is the entire reason VBD is bunk. it looks great when all results are known. unless you have a time machine you don't have that luxury in the draft.

 

[moneyman]

In redrafts this year I'm targeting a few TEs in the middle rounds...but I'll outline that in the details of my rankings critiques.

No teasers for other threads here. Be relavent or get out.TIA

2nd, your Tomlinson, Manning, Gates team sure doesn't seem that bad to me, even if the WRs are a little weak. But again, this depends very heavily on starting requirements and league size. If you NEED a lot of WRs to make a good team, then you lean away from the off-positions a little more. WCOFF leans a little this way, with essentially 6 starting RBs/WRs. But with 12 teams rather than 14 (or more) that actually reduces the scarcity a little bit.Honestly, with those rules, I think I could make a case for Gates fairly easily somewhere in the 3rd and still field a solid team overall with a sizeable advantage at TE.

you will straight up get slaughtered in wcoff not picking a WR in the first 3 rounds.,S

I've played in the WCOFF for the last four years and have made my league's championship game in the last three. I'm a big proponent of taking a TE early. Early is a relative term though, and it always boils down to value. Generalizations don't work one way or the other. But, even if a steady top 3-5 projected TE might cost you a 5th-8th round pick, you don't have to worry about platooning and guessing which of your two schleps to start each week if you wait too long.

i am all for taking a top 3-5 TE in the 5-8 rounds.your success in wcoff is impressive to say the least.my response was to someone who takes a RB/QB/TE in a format like wcoff. that's trouble.

And I give a clear example where it wasn't, supported with actual numbers that fit most accepted ADPs and scoring systems...yet I haven't gotten a rebuttal other than some general theory.

i missed that. could you link please?

Scroll up. post #68

 

[John Mamula]

I LOVE this thread.Love the holier than thou attitude that is so pervasive in this hobby (very entertaining).Love the broad generalized statements based on very sketchy assumptions.Love the fact that threads like this keep "off-position" studs' values as low as they are (in certain scenarios).Love the Joe quote about not wanting the #1 pick to support this argument. Because God knows people who had the #1 pick last year were REALLY hating life.Love when guys talk about the "risk" of a guy who in an off-position has produced monster stats every year for three years straight, compared to the risk of taking a 20th ranked RB and then say "yeah, you can get a guy who outperforms his draft position there". So let me get this straight, when you pick guys who outperform their draft position you are going to do well? BRILLIANT. Why didn't I think of that? Never any mention of course of the DISTINCT possibility that you get exactly SQUAT out of that draft slot with that 3rd tier RB. Here's an even MORE mind-boggling option - draft lower tier RB in round four! Maybe HE will outperform his draft position!In SOME leagues, yes a 3rd rounder would be too high for Gates. But lineup requirments and league size (primarily), and to a lesser degree scoring and roster limitations, are HUGE factors in the value of a guy like that. Making blanket statements about guppies drafting a TE in the 3rd WITHOUT discussing league parameters is about as guppy as it gets. What's next, an offer in big bold print to join your league where the REAL fantasy experts play?

Okay, I'll play.Not being holier than thou in the suggestion here. I have seen many advocate taking gates in the third round (I usually am in 12 team leagues, so I mean somewhere between 3.01 and 3.12, although he never makes it to 3.12).All I am saying (and it was echoed above) is that you have a 2-3 round slide to the next TE and even those tend to be bunched up from round 5-12. The "value" play here is getting TE #3-6 4 rounds later. I post this also because I have seen some people make the "shark" move of grabbing him at 2.12 after taking LT or LJ last year (could be 3.01 or 2.112, what's the difference).I guess FWIW I am talking about a 12 team draft with WCOFF style scoring (to keep the discussion simple).GatorFinally: I guess this comes down to game theory here. Lets look at the perfect draft for the first 3 rounds on VBD or whatever. Arguably it would be LT, Manning, and Gates. Now you have to wait till 4.12 to start grabbing RB #2, and WRs. Are you better off? Even in the case where you draft LT, your RB #2, and then Gates; or LT, WR#1 and then Gates are you better off or are you now scraping tiers to make a squad?Believe me, certain drafters who I have a lot of respect for and have done well advcate taking a TE early, I am just looking for a discussion here.

Did exactly that last year...

Manning, Peyton IND QB 329.48  6 Rivers, Philip SDC QB 230.48  3 Bell, Mike DEN RB 131.50  4 Foster, De'shaun CAR RB 123.60  9 Harris, Arlen DET RB 35.00  8 Johnson, Larry KCC RB 333.90  3 Lundy, Wali HOU RB 94.10  5 Turner, Michael SDC RB 66.90  3 Bennett, Drew TEN WR 93.70  7 Booker, Marty MIA WR 116.70  8 Galloway, Joey TBB WR 148.60  4 Johnson, Keyshawn CAR WR 111.90  9 Jurevicius, Joe CLE WR 67.50  6 Gates, Antonio SDC TE 146.40  3 Vinatieri, Adam IND PK 113.00  6 Jaguars, Jacksonville JAC Def 143.00  6 Seahawks, Seattle SEA Def 142.00  5 Vikings, Minnesota MIN Def 159.00  6

Finished 8th out of 60 teams.Next 12 players off the board after Gates...WardChambersDillons. MossROYDunnDriverDjaxBushJ. JonesJ. LewisPertinent PlayersGates 146Gonzo 122 available in 5thHeap 112 available in 5thDelta of 29 points v. Gonzo/Heap averageBest case scenarios at WR in the 3rd (assuming you got the pick right)Driver 179 and ROY 173...176First two WRs drafted in the 5thEvans 177Galloway 149So assuming I knew enough to draft Driver over ROY, Chambers, DJax, Moss, and Ward I would have 179 + 122 (assuming that I picked Gonzo over Heap) = 301Gates + Galloway = 295Gates + Evans = 324By taking the stud TE who had an off year I lost 6 points to the perfect draft in the worst case scenario and netted 23 in the only other likely scenario. Seems to me like Gates at 3.1 was the shark move.FYI...standard scoring, no ppr, TE mandatory, league comprised of invitees from the five top fantasy sites.Discuss...

the inherant problem with this is that you can't just switch the two and leaving everything else static (aka Chaos Theory). depending on your choice likely changes the draft for others. this is why this discussion can be so tricky.how many WRs do you start?what was the effect of your depth? what did you lose when WR4,5,6 had to start over their WR4,5,6 due to bye weeks and/or injuries?would you have really drafted galloway or evans? what other options were there with ADP and what was the likelihood that someone would have picked that WR who may have performed much worse?if all we're going to do is compare these two positions ignoring everything else, we're not going to get very far. that analysis is flawed to begin with.

 

[BassNBrew]

In redrafts this year I'm targeting a few TEs in the middle rounds...but I'll outline that in the details of my rankings critiques.

No teasers for other threads here. Be relavent or get out.TIA

2nd, your Tomlinson, Manning, Gates team sure doesn't seem that bad to me, even if the WRs are a little weak. But again, this depends very heavily on starting requirements and league size. If you NEED a lot of WRs to make a good team, then you lean away from the off-positions a little more. WCOFF leans a little this way, with essentially 6 starting RBs/WRs. But with 12 teams rather than 14 (or more) that actually reduces the scarcity a little bit.Honestly, with those rules, I think I could make a case for Gates fairly easily somewhere in the 3rd and still field a solid team overall with a sizeable advantage at TE.

you will straight up get slaughtered in wcoff not picking a WR in the first 3 rounds.,S

I've played in the WCOFF for the last four years and have made my league's championship game in the last three. I'm a big proponent of taking a TE early. Early is a relative term though, and it always boils down to value. Generalizations don't work one way or the other. But, even if a steady top 3-5 projected TE might cost you a 5th-8th round pick, you don't have to worry about platooning and guessing which of your two schleps to start each week if you wait too long.

i am all for taking a top 3-5 TE in the 5-8 rounds.your success in wcoff is impressive to say the least.my response was to someone who takes a RB/QB/TE in a format like wcoff. that's trouble.

And I give a clear example where it wasn't, supported with actual numbers that fit most accepted ADPs and scoring systems...yet I haven't gotten a rebuttal other than some general theory.

i missed that. could you link please?

Scroll up. post #68

Thanks...also see #85.Also wanted to add that the draft I'm referencing was a 12 teamer, however 48 additional teams had the ability to trade into this draft if they saw value sliding.

 

[yellowdog]

I plan on drafting Colston early and plugging him in as my TE.

 

[bostonfred]

Anyone have a comparison to how Gates has scored compared to WRs that were drafted in the 3rd round the last few years in 12 team leagues? I'm talking just straight up points comparison, regardless of position.I've got to think even if Gates were a WR he would be near the top of that list. Getting those numbers out of the TE spot should propel him towards the top of where they're picked.A guy like Anquan Boldin is a typical 3rd/4th round WR, and Gates has outscored him by a ton the last 3 years from a position that is harder to fill.Gates' last 3 seasons in standard scoring leagues he scored 174, 170, and 146 points. Boldin's last 3 seasons he scored 68 (missed 6 games to injury), 182, and 144 points. Gates is outscoring him straight up even discounting position.So people saying Gates is not worth a 3rd round pick had better either A) be unwilling to pick Boldin until the 5th or 6th round or B) better believe through some strange nonsensical theory that WRs have more VBD value than TEs, at which point they'd better be unwilling to draft a guy like Heap or Shockey until round 11.Otherwise, it just doesn't add up.Oh, and just as a note, I'm probably the most anti-'Manning in the 1st round' guy playing FF right now. Manning in the 1st and Gates in the 3rd are two totally different beasts.

Still waiting on someone that doesn't think Gates is worth a 3rd to tell me where they'd draft Boldin...Also wondering if someone can tell me where I can find ADP's from 2004, 2005, and 2006 if they're out there somewhere.

Boldin scores a lot more than that in PPR leagues. Gates gets a lot of receptions for a TE, but he doesn't get as many as Boldin. Boldin's score was low in 2004 because he was injured. It was low in 2006 because they had a bad O line and changed QB midseason to a rookie. I expect them to go up because he has an improved O line and Leinart is going into his second year, with his first full training camp as the starter. Gates' numbers also dropped last year. Why? Why do you expect them to go up?

 

[corpcow]

Ok, I'll bite. Why wouldn't you want to take someone like Gates in the 3rd round when he has far and away been the best TE in the last 3 years? Certainly he's better value than some 2nd or 3rd tier RB/WR.

True. Also in leagues that use PPR, and TE mandatory leagues, you should take a quality TE in the 3rd. That is 80-90pts in receptions right there.

Some leagues also score receptions more for TEs vs. WRs. Obviously, a top 3 TE with 80+ catches is gold in a league like this.