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

[corpcow]

Gates' numbers also dropped last year. Why? Why do you expect them to go up?

Ok, I'll bite. I see 4 major reasons: 1) First year starter at QB, 2) he was often kept in to help a rookie LT with a broken hand early in the season, 3) LT had a record-shattering year, 4) losing Brees who obviously loves big receiving targets (see Colston). 4 is the only one that won't improve this year.I expect Rivers and this offense to continue to progress. McNeil obviously starting being a dominant force by the end of the year and will be healthy this year, freeing up Gates more. LT's production will slow, teams will gameplan more against the running game which opens things up more in the passing game. WRs are young and improving but still Gates is the top target (not including LT here). Offseason talk about using Gates more creatively, lining him up in the backfield and out in the slot to create matchup problems.

 

[SSOG]

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.

You get what you pay for. A similar case could be made for passing on Manning in the 2nd and waiting and grabbing a 2nd or 3rd tier QB in the 6th/7th/8th. The thing is though, you might get a reasonable facsimile, or you might not. you lose out on what makes Peyton Manning Peyton Manning- the complete and utter lack of bust potential.50% of high draft picks bust. That's a simple, easily demonstrable fact. The thing with Peyton Manning and Antonio Gates is that, instead of a 50% bust chance, they have maybe a 10% bust chance. There's a LOT of value in that, because you can make plans with the assurance that they're not going to fall apart (unlike if you draft, say, Shaun Alexander in the first round and your entire team is thrown in disarray when he unexpectedly gets injured).You can find people in the 6th who might be able to match the production of a Manning/Gates, but there's no way you can find people who pair that potential production with the safety and security of Manning/Gates. It's a gamble- one that might pay off, and might not. Gates and Manning, on the other hand, are the closest thing to a sure thing in all of football.

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.

The third round is a minefield EVERY year. Out of 12 picks, you can expect 4-6 of them to hit. If you draft Gates, you might be behind the 3 other guys who got a hit... but you're ahead of the 8 other guys who got a miss.Now, some people might say that they'd rather swing for the fences and try to finish with the best pick in the round instead of the 4th best pick... to which I reply that if you get the 4th best pick of the round in EVERY round, you've got yourself a championship team.

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.

Gonzo could have been drafted #28 overall every year (4th pick of the third round) and he still would have outperformed his draft position every year. The fact that Gates is now a 3rd rounder instead of a 4th rounder means he's not AS underrated. It doesn't mean he's not still underrated.As for those other TEs who could all be #1... how's that been working out for them so far?

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.

Donald Driver's career high VBD is 63 points. Anquan Boldin's career high VBD is 84 points. Roy Williams' career high VBD is 57 points. Randy Moss is the only one of the four who's ever had a 100 VBD season.And to say they have as good of a downside case as Gates is simply ludicrous. Absolutely, positively ludicrous. Every single one of those WRs except for Driver have posted a VBD of 0 at least once in the past 3 years. Driver is 32 and not getting younger. Boldin is an extensive injury risk and still hasn't replicated his rookie season. Roy Williams plays in Detroit, which is historically an offensive black hole. And Randy Moss... please, don't make me explain why Randy Moss has more of downside than Antonio Gates.Antonio Gates's worst season (last year) was 65 VBD. In the last three years, do you know how many times those 4 WRs you mentioned have scored more than 65 VBD? Once. Boldin had 70 VBD in 2005. Meaning the *BEST SEASON* from those four WRs *COMBINED* was 5 VBD points better than Gates' worst season (despite last year being the "worst case scenario" for Gates, with a first-year QB and Tomlinson vulturing all the TDs). Of the 15 individual seasons those players accounted for over the past 3 years, Gates accounted for the best, second best, and fourth best. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that he's anything but far and away the best player in that group.Seriously, Gates is getting so underrated at this point it's practically CRIMINAL.

 

[bostonfred]

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.

Donald Driver's career high VBD is 63 points. Anquan Boldin's career high VBD is 84 points. Roy Williams' career high VBD is 57 points. Randy Moss is the only one of the four who's ever had a 100 VBD season.And to say they have as good of a downside case as Gates is simply ludicrous. Absolutely, positively ludicrous. Every single one of those WRs except for Driver have posted a VBD of 0 at least once in the past 3 years. Driver is 32 and not getting younger. Boldin is an extensive injury risk and still hasn't replicated his rookie season. Roy Williams plays in Detroit, which is historically an offensive black hole. And Randy Moss... please, don't make me explain why Randy Moss has more of downside than Antonio Gates.Antonio Gates's worst season (last year) was 65 VBD. In the last three years, do you know how many times those 4 WRs you mentioned have scored more than 65 VBD? Once. Boldin had 70 VBD in 2005. Meaning the *BEST SEASON* from those four WRs *COMBINED* was 5 VBD points better than Gates' worst season (despite last year being the "worst case scenario" for Gates, with a first-year QB and Tomlinson vulturing all the TDs). Of the 15 individual seasons those players accounted for over the past 3 years, Gates accounted for the best, second best, and fourth best. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that he's anything but far and away the best player in that group.Seriously, Gates is getting so underrated at this point it's practically CRIMINAL.

I'll set aside the question of whether you're including PPR for now. That's not useful data from an actual draft perspective. If I took Boldin and TE12, you're saying I'd get fewer points than if I took Gates and WR36. I'd actually be taking Gates, and then maybe WR22 the following round, WR 30 a little later, and WR 40 as my WR3. My depth would be WR50+. If, instead, I could take Boldin, then WR22, WR30, and TE5, then the real question is how much of a dropoff is there from TE1 to TE5? How much of a dropoff is there from Boldin to WR40? Those numbers will be far more favorable to Boldin. The number of starters at a position necessarily changes the VBD value of a player at that position, as does the availability of players at that position in subsequent rounds.

 

[Gatorman]

Boston fred is right here. This is a dynamic example on how it affects your draft.

The past few years in drafts I have been in, I have seen the guy who took Gates having the opportunity to take another good TE later in the draft...someone who is screaming value at some point (round 6 or later) who dropped because everyone started playing chicken after Gates was gone.

In one case, the guy took the player 3 rounds later. In another, the guy took his need (a wr) who was no where as good as the TE he passed on.

I myself had a situation in WCOFF a few years ago where I took McMichael in the 8th (I always thought that "this year was going to be the year" with McM) and passing on Cooley until I had no choice because he was still there at 11.

I guess the other side to this arguement is that if you take gates at 3 (whether or not he screams value here), are you setting yourself up to miss value later. The same could be said about the QB position (different topic)

I guess another way to put it is: In a draft spot where you need only 1 player for the spot, do you handcuff yourself in flexibility by taking that guy early?

 

[BassNBrew]

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.

Donald Driver's career high VBD is 63 points. Anquan Boldin's career high VBD is 84 points. Roy Williams' career high VBD is 57 points. Randy Moss is the only one of the four who's ever had a 100 VBD season.And to say they have as good of a downside case as Gates is simply ludicrous. Absolutely, positively ludicrous. Every single one of those WRs except for Driver have posted a VBD of 0 at least once in the past 3 years. Driver is 32 and not getting younger. Boldin is an extensive injury risk and still hasn't replicated his rookie season. Roy Williams plays in Detroit, which is historically an offensive black hole. And Randy Moss... please, don't make me explain why Randy Moss has more of downside than Antonio Gates.Antonio Gates's worst season (last year) was 65 VBD. In the last three years, do you know how many times those 4 WRs you mentioned have scored more than 65 VBD? Once. Boldin had 70 VBD in 2005. Meaning the *BEST SEASON* from those four WRs *COMBINED* was 5 VBD points better than Gates' worst season (despite last year being the "worst case scenario" for Gates, with a first-year QB and Tomlinson vulturing all the TDs). Of the 15 individual seasons those players accounted for over the past 3 years, Gates accounted for the best, second best, and fourth best. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that he's anything but far and away the best player in that group.Seriously, Gates is getting so underrated at this point it's practically CRIMINAL.

I'll set aside the question of whether you're including PPR for now. That's not useful data from an actual draft perspective. If I took Boldin and TE12, you're saying I'd get fewer points than if I took Gates and WR36. I'd actually be taking Gates, and then maybe WR22 the following round, WR 30 a little later, and WR 40 as my WR3. My depth would be WR50+. If, instead, I could take Boldin, then WR22, WR30, and TE5, then the real question is how much of a dropoff is there from TE1 to TE5? How much of a dropoff is there from Boldin to WR40? Those numbers will be far more favorable to Boldin. The number of starters at a position necessarily changes the VBD value of a player at that position, as does the availability of players at that position in subsequent rounds.

Still don't agree with the assumptions you and Gator are using. Actual data from 5 leagues with std scoring (no ppr). Will list where TE5 was drafted and the next two WRs drafted.6.2 Witten TE5R. Smith WR24L. Evans WR256.11 Witten TE5R. Brown WR28L. Coles WR296.2 Crumpler TE5M. Clayton (Buc) WR25M. Jones WR266.9 Crumpler TE5Muhammy WR31Glenn WR326.4 Cooley TE5Clayton WR27R. Smith WR28LOL...this gets better.WR12 was the median 3rd round WR draft = 159 + 112 TE5 = 271 total points146 (Gates) + 125 (WR27, the average theorectical WR drafted after TE5) = 271 total pointsIt's a wash in what many consider a down year for Gates.Going back to SSOG's points, what odds do you like better....Scenario 1: Nail the TE5 in round 6 and WR12 in round 3 (avoiding the likes of Moss, Chambers, Fitz).Scenario 2: Gates in a blah year + drafting WR27 in round 6.The upside of hitting TE2 (Crumpler) in rd 6 over TE5 was 14 pts, the downside (Witten) was -30 points.The upside of hitting Evans over WR27 was 53 points.

 

[bostonfred]

That seems reasonable. Some rebuttals:

If you're going to consider the upside and downside of players at each pick, naming Lee Evans' upside is not persuasive unless you also name Kellen Winslow's upside. There are good late round players at each position. Also, if you have Gates, you can't get Winslow into your lineup, even if you hit the jackpot with him. If you have Boldin, you can still get Lee Evans into your lineup.

It appears that TE is a position where points are increasing year-over-year. The VBD number of Gates is not static, especially relative to the middle tier TEs. Gates had his best years with Brees, who had an MVP season. It's easy to say that he had a down year last year, but why? Meanwhile the scoring of second tier TEs like Winslow, Shockey, Gonzalez, Heap, Crumpler, Cooley, and guys like LJ Smith and Ben Watson are all climbing. While some of those TEs will bust each year, it's incorrect to predict it while assuming Gates will go back to the numbers he had with Brees.

You mentioned several WRs that failed last year, and that's certainly true. But that's an argument for taking more top WRs, not less. If you need to fill a lineup with three good receivers, it becomes more valuable to take WRs earlier and more often to get as many good players as possible to fill those spots. You also chose last year, when Gates was considered the runaway TE1, but failed to mention the past failures of top TEs line Gonzo, Heap, Shockey, and even guys like Wesley Walls and Ben Coates. TE1 is not infallible. And the team that takes the #1 TE off the board inevitable passes on TE2, or doesn't take one until very late, which leaves them in a much worse spot if their stud TE busts or gets hurt than an injury to their third round receiver.

 

[Gatorman]

That seems reasonable. Some rebuttals:If you're going to consider the upside and downside of players at each pick, naming Lee Evans' upside is not persuasive unless you also name Kellen Winslow's upside. There are good late round players at each position. Also, if you have Gates, you can't get Winslow into your lineup, even if you hit the jackpot with him. If you have Boldin, you can still get Lee Evans into your lineup. It appears that TE is a position where points are increasing year-over-year. The VBD number of Gates is not static, especially relative to the middle tier TEs. Gates had his best years with Brees, who had an MVP season. It's easy to say that he had a down year last year, but why? Meanwhile the scoring of second tier TEs like Winslow, Shockey, Gonzalez, Heap, Crumpler, Cooley, and guys like LJ Smith and Ben Watson are all climbing. While some of those TEs will bust each year, it's incorrect to predict it while assuming Gates will go back to the numbers he had with Brees. You mentioned several WRs that failed last year, and that's certainly true. But that's an argument for taking more top WRs, not less. If you need to fill a lineup with three good receivers, it becomes more valuable to take WRs earlier and more often to get as many good players as possible to fill those spots. You also chose last year, when Gates was considered the runaway TE1, but failed to mention the past failures of top TEs line Gonzo, Heap, Shockey, and even guys like Wesley Walls and Ben Coates. TE1 is not infallible. And the team that takes the #1 TE off the board inevitable passes on TE2, or doesn't take one until very late, which leaves them in a much worse spot if their stud TE busts or gets hurt than an injury to their third round receiver.

I agree with everything said here. From a game theory idea, the idea of gates in the third is a nice pick assuming his production continues (barring injury, if course) and the lack of a bona fide #2 TE. However, this is a one slot grab. If you get someone to fall to you later in the draft at TE, you cannot insert him into your lineup, so you lose the "value points" for that pick. WRs give you more flexibility in that you start more than 1.Positional advantages based on numbers started should apply here.If we had a 1 1 1 1 1 league, then Gates would be a top 5 pick, as would manning. We are not in that world however.

 

[LHUCKS]

From a game theory idea, the idea of gates in the third is a nice pick assuming his production continues (barring injury, if course) and the lack of a bona fide #2 TE. However, this is a one slot grab. If you get someone to fall to you later in the draft at TE, you cannot insert him into your lineup, so you lose the "value points" for that pick. WRs give you more flexibility in that you start more than 1.Positional advantages based on numbers started should apply here.If we had a 1 1 1 1 1 league, then Gates would be a top 5 pick, as would manning. We are not in that world however.

If you're new to ff you should read this post by Gator about 15 times, or until it sinks in. There is a huge difference between value for a one slot position and value for a three slot position.

 

[LHUCKS]

That seems reasonable. Some rebuttals:If you're going to consider the upside and downside of players at each pick, naming Lee Evans' upside is not persuasive unless you also name Kellen Winslow's upside. There are good late round players at each position. Also, if you have Gates, you can't get Winslow into your lineup, even if you hit the jackpot with him. If you have Boldin, you can still get Lee Evans into your lineup. It appears that TE is a position where points are increasing year-over-year. The VBD number of Gates is not static, especially relative to the middle tier TEs. Gates had his best years with Brees, who had an MVP season. It's easy to say that he had a down year last year, but why? Meanwhile the scoring of second tier TEs like Winslow, Shockey, Gonzalez, Heap, Crumpler, Cooley, and guys like LJ Smith and Ben Watson are all climbing. While some of those TEs will bust each year, it's incorrect to predict it while assuming Gates will go back to the numbers he had with Brees. You mentioned several WRs that failed last year, and that's certainly true. But that's an argument for taking more top WRs, not less. If you need to fill a lineup with three good receivers, it becomes more valuable to take WRs earlier and more often to get as many good players as possible to fill those spots. You also chose last year, when Gates was considered the runaway TE1, but failed to mention the past failures of top TEs line Gonzo, Heap, Shockey, and even guys like Wesley Walls and Ben Coates. TE1 is not infallible. And the team that takes the #1 TE off the board inevitable passes on TE2, or doesn't take one until very late, which leaves them in a much worse spot if their stud TE busts or gets hurt than an injury to their third round receiver.

Another great posting.I have a lot of TE strategies this year, none of them entail taking Gates in the first 3 rounds.(in most formats)

 

[SSOG]

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.

Donald Driver's career high VBD is 63 points. Anquan Boldin's career high VBD is 84 points. Roy Williams' career high VBD is 57 points. Randy Moss is the only one of the four who's ever had a 100 VBD season.And to say they have as good of a downside case as Gates is simply ludicrous. Absolutely, positively ludicrous. Every single one of those WRs except for Driver have posted a VBD of 0 at least once in the past 3 years. Driver is 32 and not getting younger. Boldin is an extensive injury risk and still hasn't replicated his rookie season. Roy Williams plays in Detroit, which is historically an offensive black hole. And Randy Moss... please, don't make me explain why Randy Moss has more of downside than Antonio Gates.

Antonio Gates's worst season (last year) was 65 VBD. In the last three years, do you know how many times those 4 WRs you mentioned have scored more than 65 VBD? Once. Boldin had 70 VBD in 2005. Meaning the *BEST SEASON* from those four WRs *COMBINED* was 5 VBD points better than Gates' worst season (despite last year being the "worst case scenario" for Gates, with a first-year QB and Tomlinson vulturing all the TDs). Of the 15 individual seasons those players accounted for over the past 3 years, Gates accounted for the best, second best, and fourth best. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that he's anything but far and away the best player in that group.

Seriously, Gates is getting so underrated at this point it's practically CRIMINAL.

I'll set aside the question of whether you're including PPR for now. That's not useful data from an actual draft perspective. If I took Boldin and TE12, you're saying I'd get fewer points than if I took Gates and WR36.

I'd actually be taking Gates, and then maybe WR22 the following round, WR 30 a little later, and WR 40 as my WR3. My depth would be WR50+.

If, instead, I could take Boldin, then WR22, WR30, and TE5, then the real question is how much of a dropoff is there from TE1 to TE5? How much of a dropoff is there from Boldin to WR40? Those numbers will be far more favorable to Boldin.

The number of starters at a position necessarily changes the VBD value of a player at that position, as does the availability of players at that position in subsequent rounds.

I can answer that, too. The dropoff from WR12 to WR22 last season was 22 points. The dropoff from TE1 to TE5 was 37 points. TE1 + WR22 > TE5 + WR12.Actually, let's look at this scientifically using last year's ADP values. Let's define "third round pick" as pick #30, which is right in the middle of the third round. At Pick#30 last year, 10 WRs had been drafted. You also mentioned grabbing TE5 later- TE5 last year went in the 6th round, and the WR drafted immediately afterwards was the 26th WR taken. In other words, based on last year's ADP, you could have TE1/WR26, or you could have TE5/WR11. Last year, the difference between WR11 and WR26 was 37.6 points, meaning the scoring difference between those two pairs was a mere .6 points. For all intents and purposes, even if you knew beforehand how everyone was going to do, both pairs would have scored essentially the exact same.

Once again, though, this fails to factor in Antonio Gates' most valuable trait- his RELIABILITY. If they hit, TE1/WR26 is likely to score exactly as well as TE5/WR11... but TE1/WR26 is much, much more likely to hit, thanks to the reliability (read: extremely low bust rate) of Antonio Gates.

There are other factors in the analysis, too. For instance, if one of your late-round WRs or free-agent WRs hits (think Galloway or Glenn in recent years), then WR26 gets relegated to the bench, and the TE1 team gets an even bigger advantages. And remember, too, that this was sort of a "worst case scenario" for Antonio Gates, and if he turns it back up a little next year, TE1/WR26 will blow TE5/WR11 entirely out of the water.

No matter how you slice it, TE in the 3rd is a very viable strategy- one that, I think, actually makes more sense than WR in the 3rd.

You mentioned several WRs that failed last year, and that's certainly true. But that's an argument for taking more top WRs, not less. If you need to fill a lineup with three good receivers, it becomes more valuable to take WRs earlier and more often to get as many good players as possible to fill those spots. You also chose last year, when Gates was considered the runaway TE1, but failed to mention the past failures of top TEs line Gonzo, Heap, Shockey, and even guys like Wesley Walls and Ben Coates. TE1 is not infallible. And the team that takes the #1 TE off the board inevitable passes on TE2, or doesn't take one until very late, which leaves them in a much worse spot if their stud TE busts or gets hurt than an injury to their third round receiver.

What failures by top TEs?First off, I don't consider Heap or Shockey a "top TE". Both of those guys have always been second tier behind Gonzo, Gates, Sharpe, etc. You want some historical "top TEs"? How about Gonzo, Sharpe, and Ben Coates? Can we agree that those qualify as "elite TEs", guys that Gates is now in the company of?

Let's look at those luminaries, shall we? Let's say that their "prime" started the first season they cracked the top 5. Coates first cracked the top 5 in 1993. He finished 3rd, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 2nd, 3rd over the next six seasons, posting a VBD of 57, 106, 60, 60, 60, and 36. Next up, we have Sharpe- he cracked the top 5 in 1992, and finished in the top 5 of ELEVEN OF THE NEXT TWELVE SEASONS. From '93 to '98, only once did Sharpe finish with less than 67 VBD- he had 32 in 1995 (in 13 games). What a bust . Even on the downside of his career, he had 50, 18, 24, and 60 VBD. That's phenominal compared to every single one of those WRs you listed (all of whom, except for Driver, have had a VDB of 0 in the past 3 years). And then we have Tony Gonzalez and his famous "bust season" in 2005. In 2005, when Gonzo was a "bust", he still accumulated 26 VBD, good for 44th in the entire NFL. What a scrub!

This type of analysis doesn't take into account the past failures of preseason TE1s for a very simple reason- historically, preseason TE1s DO NOT FAIL. Maybe 10% of the time they'll have a worse season than expected, but Sharpe's injury-shortened 1999 season was the only time in the past decade that a "top TE" has had no fantasy value. Unless Gates suffers a season-ending injury, he is going to finish the season in the top 50 in VBD. It's a mortal lock. That puts Gates in the company of players like Marvin Harrison, Torry Holt, Steve Smith, and Chad Johnson- guys who, you might have noticed, never last until the middle of the third round.

 

[Gatorman]

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.

Donald Driver's career high VBD is 63 points. Anquan Boldin's career high VBD is 84 points. Roy Williams' career high VBD is 57 points. Randy Moss is the only one of the four who's ever had a 100 VBD season.And to say they have as good of a downside case as Gates is simply ludicrous. Absolutely, positively ludicrous. Every single one of those WRs except for Driver have posted a VBD of 0 at least once in the past 3 years. Driver is 32 and not getting younger. Boldin is an extensive injury risk and still hasn't replicated his rookie season. Roy Williams plays in Detroit, which is historically an offensive black hole. And Randy Moss... please, don't make me explain why Randy Moss has more of downside than Antonio Gates.

Antonio Gates's worst season (last year) was 65 VBD. In the last three years, do you know how many times those 4 WRs you mentioned have scored more than 65 VBD? Once. Boldin had 70 VBD in 2005. Meaning the *BEST SEASON* from those four WRs *COMBINED* was 5 VBD points better than Gates' worst season (despite last year being the "worst case scenario" for Gates, with a first-year QB and Tomlinson vulturing all the TDs). Of the 15 individual seasons those players accounted for over the past 3 years, Gates accounted for the best, second best, and fourth best. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that he's anything but far and away the best player in that group.

Seriously, Gates is getting so underrated at this point it's practically CRIMINAL.

I'll set aside the question of whether you're including PPR for now. That's not useful data from an actual draft perspective. If I took Boldin and TE12, you're saying I'd get fewer points than if I took Gates and WR36.

I'd actually be taking Gates, and then maybe WR22 the following round, WR 30 a little later, and WR 40 as my WR3. My depth would be WR50+.

If, instead, I could take Boldin, then WR22, WR30, and TE5, then the real question is how much of a dropoff is there from TE1 to TE5? How much of a dropoff is there from Boldin to WR40? Those numbers will be far more favorable to Boldin.

The number of starters at a position necessarily changes the VBD value of a player at that position, as does the availability of players at that position in subsequent rounds.

I can answer that, too. The dropoff from WR12 to WR22 last season was 22 points. The dropoff from TE1 to TE5 was 37 points. TE1 + WR22 > TE5 + WR12.Actually, let's look at this scientifically using last year's ADP values. Let's define "third round pick" as pick #30, which is right in the middle of the third round. At Pick#30 last year, 10 WRs had been drafted. You also mentioned grabbing TE5 later- TE5 last year went in the 6th round, and the WR drafted immediately afterwards was the 26th WR taken. In other words, based on last year's ADP, you could have TE1/WR26, or you could have TE5/WR11. Last year, the difference between WR11 and WR26 was 37.6 points, meaning the scoring difference between those two pairs was a mere .6 points. For all intents and purposes, even if you knew beforehand how everyone was going to do, both pairs would have scored essentially the exact same.

Once again, though, this fails to factor in Antonio Gates' most valuable trait- his RELIABILITY. If they hit, TE1/WR26 is likely to score exactly as well as TE5/WR11... but TE1/WR26 is much, much more likely to hit, thanks to the reliability (read: extremely low bust rate) of Antonio Gates.

There are other factors in the analysis, too. For instance, if one of your late-round WRs or free-agent WRs hits (think Galloway or Glenn in recent years), then WR26 gets relegated to the bench, and the TE1 team gets an even bigger advantages. And remember, too, that this was sort of a "worst case scenario" for Antonio Gates, and if he turns it back up a little next year, TE1/WR26 will blow TE5/WR11 entirely out of the water.

No matter how you slice it, TE in the 3rd is a very viable strategy- one that, I think, actually makes more sense than WR in the 3rd.

You mentioned several WRs that failed last year, and that's certainly true. But that's an argument for taking more top WRs, not less. If you need to fill a lineup with three good receivers, it becomes more valuable to take WRs earlier and more often to get as many good players as possible to fill those spots. You also chose last year, when Gates was considered the runaway TE1, but failed to mention the past failures of top TEs line Gonzo, Heap, Shockey, and even guys like Wesley Walls and Ben Coates. TE1 is not infallible. And the team that takes the #1 TE off the board inevitable passes on TE2, or doesn't take one until very late, which leaves them in a much worse spot if their stud TE busts or gets hurt than an injury to their third round receiver.

What failures by top TEs?First off, I don't consider Heap or Shockey a "top TE". Both of those guys have always been second tier behind Gonzo, Gates, Sharpe, etc. You want some historical "top TEs"? How about Gonzo, Sharpe, and Ben Coates? Can we agree that those qualify as "elite TEs", guys that Gates is now in the company of?

Let's look at those luminaries, shall we? Let's say that their "prime" started the first season they cracked the top 5. Coates first cracked the top 5 in 1993. He finished 3rd, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 2nd, 3rd over the next six seasons, posting a VBD of 57, 106, 60, 60, 60, and 36. Next up, we have Sharpe- he cracked the top 5 in 1992, and finished in the top 5 of ELEVEN OF THE NEXT TWELVE SEASONS. From '93 to '98, only once did Sharpe finish with less than 67 VBD- he had 32 in 1995 (in 13 games). What a bust . Even on the downside of his career, he had 50, 18, 24, and 60 VBD. That's phenominal compared to every single one of those WRs you listed (all of whom, except for Driver, have had a VDB of 0 in the past 3 years). And then we have Tony Gonzalez and his famous "bust season" in 2005. In 2005, when Gonzo was a "bust", he still accumulated 26 VBD, good for 44th in the entire NFL. What a scrub!

This type of analysis doesn't take into account the past failures of preseason TE1s for a very simple reason- historically, preseason TE1s DO NOT FAIL. Maybe 10% of the time they'll have a worse season than expected, but Sharpe's injury-shortened 1999 season was the only time in the past decade that a "top TE" has had no fantasy value. Unless Gates suffers a season-ending injury, he is going to finish the season in the top 50 in VBD. It's a mortal lock. That puts Gates in the company of players like Marvin Harrison, Torry Holt, Steve Smith, and Chad Johnson- guys who, you might have noticed, never last until the middle of the third round.

Nice post.What happens if an injury occurs here? Considering most draft strategies allow you to go after 5 or 6 wrs to fill your bucket as well as the waiver wire, you can withstand an injury to 1 guy and still keep chugging.

If you take gates in the third, when do you draft TE #2? Since you are now "behind" at other large bucket positions, will you tend to take your backup TE later? If so, how well are you insulated against disaster vs. Taking WRs? If you can use 2 of your top 12 spots to get a TE vs. one of your top 5, which one is "safer"?

This is also a QB discussion, but it seems by taking Gates there, you have effectively put all your eggs in one basket. If gates fails, so does your team.

 

[bostonfred]

I can answer that, too. The dropoff from WR12 to WR22 last season was 22 points. The dropoff from TE1 to TE5 was 37 points. TE1 + WR22 > TE5 + WR12.Actually, let's look at this scientifically using last year's ADP values. Let's define "third round pick" as pick #30, which is right in the middle of the third round. At Pick#30 last year, 10 WRs had been drafted. You also mentioned grabbing TE5 later- TE5 last year went in the 6th round, and the WR drafted immediately afterwards was the 26th WR taken. In other words, based on last year's ADP, you could have TE1/WR26, or you could have TE5/WR11. Last year, the difference between WR11 and WR26 was 37.6 points, meaning the scoring difference between those two pairs was a mere .6 points. For all intents and purposes, even if you knew beforehand how everyone was going to do, both pairs would have scored essentially the exact same.

I think you missed my earlier point. We shouldn't be comparing the WR I'd take instead of Gates with the one I'd take in the fourth. We should be comparing him with the one I'd take instead of Winslow/Heap/Gonzo/Crumpler/Shockey, which won't be until the sixth. Let's say for simplicity's sake that I plan on either WR/WR/WR/TE, or TE/WR/WR/WR. The math works out the same regardless, but it's easier to explain this way. So my choice is (for example) WR12/WR22/WR28/TE5, or TE1/WR22/WR28/WR35. Your comparison between WR12 and WR22 is irrelevant. We should be comparing the dropoff from WR12 to WR35 to the dropoff from TE1 to TE5. I also think Winslow/Heap/Gonzo/Crumpler/Shockey are a lot less likely to bust than the WR I could take in the sixth/seventh. Sure, they might not put up career years. But the chances that Reggie Brown, or Calvin Johnson, or Joey Galloway, or Chris Chambers, or Jerricho Cotchery will fail to put up big numbers are greater than the chance that Heap will. The only way my TE should drop off is if they get hurt or their offensive line does. Overall, if Heap starts for Baltimore, he starts for me. With a bust at WR, you'll keep them in your lineup where they'll kill you for several weeks before you finally give up on them. The argument for Gates is that it lets you take a lot more shots at WR. If you end up picking this year's Lee Evans, or the Joey Galloway from years past, or whoever that mid-late round WR is that blows up each year, then you're in great shape, and passing on early WRs will mean you have more chances to get that huge value at WR. But Winslow was a huge value last year, and Gates was a huge value before him. TEs can blow up, too.

 

[bostonfred]

Once again, though, this fails to factor in Antonio Gates' most valuable trait- his RELIABILITY. If they hit, TE1/WR26 is likely to score exactly as well as TE5/WR11... but TE1/WR26 is much, much more likely to hit, thanks to the reliability (read: extremely low bust rate) of Antonio Gates.There are other factors in the analysis, too. For instance, if one of your late-round WRs or free-agent WRs hits (think Galloway or Glenn in recent years), then WR26 gets relegated to the bench, and the TE1 team gets an even bigger advantages. And remember, too, that this was sort of a "worst case scenario" for Antonio Gates, and if he turns it back up a little next year, TE1/WR26 will blow TE5/WR11 entirely out of the water.

Yes, if you pick the breakout WR, and none of your earlier round WRs bust, then Gates is more valuable. But it's actually more likely that one of your first three WRs will bust - lots of early round receivers bust, but very few late round receivers hit. If you have Gates, that leaves you starting a receiver you didn't draft until late in the draft. If you take safer, better receivers early, you're less likely to bust and more protected in the case of a bust, and can still get one of the second tier of TEs.

 

[bostonfred]

(snip...) What failures by top TEs?

First off, I don't consider Heap or Shockey a "top TE". Both of those guys have always been second tier behind Gonzo, Gates, Sharpe, etc. You want some historical "top TEs"? How about Gonzo, Sharpe, and Ben Coates? Can we agree that those qualify as "elite TEs", guys that Gates is now in the company of?

Let's look at those luminaries, shall we? Let's say that their "prime" started the first season they cracked the top 5. Coates first cracked the top 5 in 1993. He finished 3rd, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 2nd, 3rd over the next six seasons, posting a VBD of 57, 106, 60, 60, 60, and 36. Next up, we have Sharpe- he cracked the top 5 in 1992, and finished in the top 5 of ELEVEN OF THE NEXT TWELVE SEASONS. From '93 to '98, only once did Sharpe finish with less than 67 VBD- he had 32 in 1995 (in 13 games). What a bust . Even on the downside of his career, he had 50, 18, 24, and 60 VBD. That's phenominal compared to every single one of those WRs you listed (all of whom, except for Driver, have had a VDB of 0 in the past 3 years). And then we have Tony Gonzalez and his famous "bust season" in 2005. In 2005, when Gonzo was a "bust", he still accumulated 26 VBD, good for 44th in the entire NFL. What a scrub!

This type of analysis doesn't take into account the past failures of preseason TE1s for a very simple reason- historically, preseason TE1s DO NOT FAIL. Maybe 10% of the time they'll have a worse season than expected, but Sharpe's injury-shortened 1999 season was the only time in the past decade that a "top TE" has had no fantasy value. Unless Gates suffers a season-ending injury, he is going to finish the season in the top 50 in VBD. It's a mortal lock. That puts Gates in the company of players like Marvin Harrison, Torry Holt, Steve Smith, and Chad Johnson- guys who, you might have noticed, never last until the middle of the third round.

I think that deciding who is a "TE1" after the fact is easier than during the fact. Is Gonzo a TE1? At one point he was, but does SSOG think he is this year? Did you think he was last year? Is Gonzalez a TE1? Last year, Gates had 71 receptions for 924 yards and 9 TDs. Gonzo had 73 receptions for 900 yards and 5 TDs. Gonzo had two more receptions, 24 fewer yards, and 4 fewer TDs than Gates. Since 1999, Gonzo has averaged 78 receptions for 950 yards and 7 TDs. He had almost exactly those numbers last year. And yet Gates currently has an ADP in the third, while Gonzo's in the fifth, which is where FBG suggests taking him. Why would you take Gates over Gonzo?

By the way, is Gates even a TE1 by your definition? Did you know that he was a TE1 after his first year? Wesley Walls had 63 catches for 822 yards and 12 TDs in 1999. He was never good again. How many years of production do you need before you declare a guy a TE1? If you didn't think he was a "TE1" after one year of production, did you think he was after two? Too bad, because his numbers dropped off significantly in his third year.

And what about the fact that Brees left town? You mentioned Shannon Sharpe as a beacon of consistency. What you failed to mention was, when did he drop off from being a TE1? It wasn't the last year of his career, or at some magical age. It was the year Elway retired. Sharpe was injured the first half of 1999, but even in 2000, he never put up 80 receptions, 1000 yards, or 9 TDs again.

Is it possible that Gates' numbers were higher because he had MVP-caliber Brees throwing to him, but will be lower now that he has good-but-not-great Rivers?

Why is Gates considered bustproof, when his first down year came after a quarterback change?

 

[greggorymac]

I would definitely consider Gates in the third if I drafted two RBs in the first two rounds and the top 4-5 WRs were gone.

Ditto

 

[BassNBrew]

I can answer that, too. The dropoff from WR12 to WR22 last season was 22 points. The dropoff from TE1 to TE5 was 37 points. TE1 + WR22 > TE5 + WR12.Actually, let's look at this scientifically using last year's ADP values. Let's define "third round pick" as pick #30, which is right in the middle of the third round. At Pick#30 last year, 10 WRs had been drafted. You also mentioned grabbing TE5 later- TE5 last year went in the 6th round, and the WR drafted immediately afterwards was the 26th WR taken. In other words, based on last year's ADP, you could have TE1/WR26, or you could have TE5/WR11. Last year, the difference between WR11 and WR26 was 37.6 points, meaning the scoring difference between those two pairs was a mere .6 points. For all intents and purposes, even if you knew beforehand how everyone was going to do, both pairs would have scored essentially the exact same.

I think you missed my earlier point. We shouldn't be comparing the WR I'd take instead of Gates with the one I'd take in the fourth. We should be comparing him with the one I'd take instead of Winslow/Heap/Gonzo/Crumpler/Shockey, which won't be until the sixth. Let's say for simplicity's sake that I plan on either WR/WR/WR/TE, or TE/WR/WR/WR. The math works out the same regardless, but it's easier to explain this way. So my choice is (for example) WR12/WR22/WR28/TE5, or TE1/WR22/WR28/WR35. Your comparison between WR12 and WR22 is irrelevant. We should be comparing the dropoff from WR12 to WR35 to the dropoff from TE1 to TE5. I also think Winslow/Heap/Gonzo/Crumpler/Shockey are a lot less likely to bust than the WR I could take in the sixth/seventh. Sure, they might not put up career years. But the chances that Reggie Brown, or Calvin Johnson, or Joey Galloway, or Chris Chambers, or Jerricho Cotchery will fail to put up big numbers are greater than the chance that Heap will. The only way my TE should drop off is if they get hurt or their offensive line does. Overall, if Heap starts for Baltimore, he starts for me. With a bust at WR, you'll keep them in your lineup where they'll kill you for several weeks before you finally give up on them. The argument for Gates is that it lets you take a lot more shots at WR. If you end up picking this year's Lee Evans, or the Joey Galloway from years past, or whoever that mid-late round WR is that blows up each year, then you're in great shape, and passing on early WRs will mean you have more chances to get that huge value at WR. But Winslow was a huge value last year, and Gates was a huge value before him. TEs can blow up, too.

WR12 was the median 3rd round WR draft = 159 + 112 TE5 = 271 total points146 (Gates) + 125 (WR27, the average theorectical WR drafted after TE5) = 271 total points

Just wanted to remind you of the reference point I've been using.

 

[pizzatyme]

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.

Donald Driver's career high VBD is 63 points. Anquan Boldin's career high VBD is 84 points. Roy Williams' career high VBD is 57 points. Randy Moss is the only one of the four who's ever had a 100 VBD season.And to say they have as good of a downside case as Gates is simply ludicrous. Absolutely, positively ludicrous. Every single one of those WRs except for Driver have posted a VBD of 0 at least once in the past 3 years. Driver is 32 and not getting younger. Boldin is an extensive injury risk and still hasn't replicated his rookie season. Roy Williams plays in Detroit, which is historically an offensive black hole. And Randy Moss... please, don't make me explain why Randy Moss has more of downside than Antonio Gates.

Antonio Gates's worst season (last year) was 65 VBD. In the last three years, do you know how many times those 4 WRs you mentioned have scored more than 65 VBD? Once. Boldin had 70 VBD in 2005. Meaning the *BEST SEASON* from those four WRs *COMBINED* was 5 VBD points better than Gates' worst season (despite last year being the "worst case scenario" for Gates, with a first-year QB and Tomlinson vulturing all the TDs). Of the 15 individual seasons those players accounted for over the past 3 years, Gates accounted for the best, second best, and fourth best. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that he's anything but far and away the best player in that group.

Seriously, Gates is getting so underrated at this point it's practically CRIMINAL.

I'll set aside the question of whether you're including PPR for now. That's not useful data from an actual draft perspective. If I took Boldin and TE12, you're saying I'd get fewer points than if I took Gates and WR36.

I'd actually be taking Gates, and then maybe WR22 the following round, WR 30 a little later, and WR 40 as my WR3. My depth would be WR50+.

If, instead, I could take Boldin, then WR22, WR30, and TE5, then the real question is how much of a dropoff is there from TE1 to TE5? How much of a dropoff is there from Boldin to WR40? Those numbers will be far more favorable to Boldin.

The number of starters at a position necessarily changes the VBD value of a player at that position, as does the availability of players at that position in subsequent rounds.

I can answer that, too. The dropoff from WR12 to WR22 last season was 22 points. The dropoff from TE1 to TE5 was 37 points. TE1 + WR22 > TE5 + WR12.Actually, let's look at this scientifically using last year's ADP values. Let's define "third round pick" as pick #30, which is right in the middle of the third round. At Pick#30 last year, 10 WRs had been drafted. You also mentioned grabbing TE5 later- TE5 last year went in the 6th round, and the WR drafted immediately afterwards was the 26th WR taken. In other words, based on last year's ADP, you could have TE1/WR26, or you could have TE5/WR11. Last year, the difference between WR11 and WR26 was 37.6 points, meaning the scoring difference between those two pairs was a mere .6 points. For all intents and purposes, even if you knew beforehand how everyone was going to do, both pairs would have scored essentially the exact same.

Once again, though, this fails to factor in Antonio Gates' most valuable trait- his RELIABILITY. If they hit, TE1/WR26 is likely to score exactly as well as TE5/WR11... but TE1/WR26 is much, much more likely to hit, thanks to the reliability (read: extremely low bust rate) of Antonio Gates.

There are other factors in the analysis, too. For instance, if one of your late-round WRs or free-agent WRs hits (think Galloway or Glenn in recent years), then WR26 gets relegated to the bench, and the TE1 team gets an even bigger advantages. And remember, too, that this was sort of a "worst case scenario" for Antonio Gates, and if he turns it back up a little next year, TE1/WR26 will blow TE5/WR11 entirely out of the water.

No matter how you slice it, TE in the 3rd is a very viable strategy- one that, I think, actually makes more sense than WR in the 3rd.

You mentioned several WRs that failed last year, and that's certainly true. But that's an argument for taking more top WRs, not less. If you need to fill a lineup with three good receivers, it becomes more valuable to take WRs earlier and more often to get as many good players as possible to fill those spots. You also chose last year, when Gates was considered the runaway TE1, but failed to mention the past failures of top TEs line Gonzo, Heap, Shockey, and even guys like Wesley Walls and Ben Coates. TE1 is not infallible. And the team that takes the #1 TE off the board inevitable passes on TE2, or doesn't take one until very late, which leaves them in a much worse spot if their stud TE busts or gets hurt than an injury to their third round receiver.

What failures by top TEs?First off, I don't consider Heap or Shockey a "top TE". Both of those guys have always been second tier behind Gonzo, Gates, Sharpe, etc. You want some historical "top TEs"? How about Gonzo, Sharpe, and Ben Coates? Can we agree that those qualify as "elite TEs", guys that Gates is now in the company of?

Let's look at those luminaries, shall we? Let's say that their "prime" started the first season they cracked the top 5. Coates first cracked the top 5 in 1993. He finished 3rd, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 2nd, 3rd over the next six seasons, posting a VBD of 57, 106, 60, 60, 60, and 36. Next up, we have Sharpe- he cracked the top 5 in 1992, and finished in the top 5 of ELEVEN OF THE NEXT TWELVE SEASONS. From '93 to '98, only once did Sharpe finish with less than 67 VBD- he had 32 in 1995 (in 13 games). What a bust . Even on the downside of his career, he had 50, 18, 24, and 60 VBD. That's phenominal compared to every single one of those WRs you listed (all of whom, except for Driver, have had a VDB of 0 in the past 3 years). And then we have Tony Gonzalez and his famous "bust season" in 2005. In 2005, when Gonzo was a "bust", he still accumulated 26 VBD, good for 44th in the entire NFL. What a scrub!

This type of analysis doesn't take into account the past failures of preseason TE1s for a very simple reason- historically, preseason TE1s DO NOT FAIL. Maybe 10% of the time they'll have a worse season than expected, but Sharpe's injury-shortened 1999 season was the only time in the past decade that a "top TE" has had no fantasy value. Unless Gates suffers a season-ending injury, he is going to finish the season in the top 50 in VBD. It's a mortal lock. That puts Gates in the company of players like Marvin Harrison, Torry Holt, Steve Smith, and Chad Johnson- guys who, you might have noticed, never last until the middle of the third round.

Nice post.What happens if an injury occurs here? Considering most draft strategies allow you to go after 5 or 6 wrs to fill your bucket as well as the waiver wire, you can withstand an injury to 1 guy and still keep chugging.

If you take gates in the third, when do you draft TE #2? Since you are now "behind" at other large bucket positions, will you tend to take your backup TE later? If so, how well are you insulated against disaster vs. Taking WRs? If you can use 2 of your top 12 spots to get a TE vs. one of your top 5, which one is "safer"?

This is also a QB discussion, but it seems by taking Gates there, you have effectively put all your eggs in one basket. If gates fails, so does your team.

Great discussion in this thread BTW!

I don't think you should factor in possible injuries into the equation. I mean, if you draft LT and he gets injured or "busts" your team will most likely fail as well. Right?

 

[Gatorman]

Great discussion in this thread BTW!I don't think you should factor in possible injuries into the equation. I mean, if you draft LT and he gets injured or "busts" your team will most likely fail as well. Right?

Not really. I think that with the "multiple" positions of RB and WR you tend to draft with the idea that you will lose a player for a certain amount of time + bye weeks. That is why we draft 3 or more RBs (in a start 2) and 5 or more wrs (in a start 3). With the TE, QB, K, and D positions we tend to just take "one" extra guy if at all (in the case of D and K). We may take 3 QBs, but we never take 3 TEs. TE is a 2 draft spot position for the most part. Losing any stud hurts, but if you take gates and then some crapshoot TE on the back end you are more prone to a problem than if you took 2 lesser players.This is a reach example, but taking what others have said that "TEs on the waiver wire are harder than WRs and QBs and even RBs" why aren't we taking 2 studs in the top 8? Why stop just

 

[Driver]

I think one important aspect of this problem relates to consistency of production (both (1) consistency over time and (2) the opposite of bust potential). At the end of each season, the pts are what they are. But predicting performance before a season starts has a large component of statistical variation -- part of which is just random and part of which is a function of each player's past performance and current status.

For example, if I could draft a player that produced 85 VBD pts with 100% certainty, then I would draft that player over a player who had an expected value of 100 VBD pts, but 50% of the time it was 50 and the other 50% it was 150.

I think that Gates' value is enhanced because of his relative consistency over the past 3 years (even with last year's slight dropoff), combined with the general expectation that he will improve this year to at least his 3-year average. In general, even the best WRs are more inconsistent and have higher variation from year to year.

 

[SSOG]

Nice post.

What happens if an injury occurs here? Considering most draft strategies allow you to go after 5 or 6 wrs to fill your bucket as well as the waiver wire, you can withstand an injury to 1 guy and still keep chugging.

If you take gates in the third, when do you draft TE #2? Since you are now "behind" at other large bucket positions, will you tend to take your backup TE later? If so, how well are you insulated against disaster vs. Taking WRs? If you can use 2 of your top 12 spots to get a TE vs. one of your top 5, which one is "safer"?

This is also a QB discussion, but it seems by taking Gates there, you have effectively put all your eggs in one basket. If gates fails, so does your team.

I don't really get it. You're saying that having your 3rd rounder fail is worse if it's a TE than a WR. Well, it is, but only because Gates is a better pick than any of the 3rd round WRs, so you're losing more .Injury is an everpresent risk in the NFL, whether you take a WR or a TE or an RB. Looking at it historically, TEs seem to have a drastically lower injury rate than WRs or RBs, (again, out of the 20 or so TE seasons I just referenced, only one of them was impacted by injury)... which makes it seem pretty ironic that you bring up injury potential as a reason *AGAINST* drafting a TE in the 3rd. Besides, how is the risk any different than if you draft a TE in the 5th or so? If you draft a TE in the fifth, are you going to get a backup high? I don't get this "two of your top 12 vs. one of your top 5" stuff, since in either situation you have to get a backup or you're screwed if your starter goes down. In fact, you need to draft a backup higher if you draft your starter later. I mean, would you feel a more pressing need to draft another QB if your primary guy was Peyton Manning, or Vince Young?

I'm not denying that there's some bust potential with Gates. It's just far less than anyone else you could get in the 3rd round, which makes it seem a little silly (to me at least) that you'll argue against drafting him because he might bust.

As for who I draft as my TE2... whoever presents value. If I have Gates, I don't shy away from a quality TE if it's the best player on the board. Last season I drafted Cooley around the 10th (iirc), and I wound up packaging him for Lee Evans early in the season. If I feel like someone else presents better value, I'll draft them instead, and if I later need a TE2, I can trade one of those other quality players that I drafted. By the end of the seasons, usually half or more of my roster are guys that I never drafted.

If you're in a no-trade league, that might be a point to consider, but as long as trades are allowed, drafting BPA is always the way to go. Depth can be acquired later when you know where you'll need it, and where you'll have it to spare.

Your comparison between WR12 and WR22 is irrelevant. We should be comparing the dropoff from WR12 to WR35 to the dropoff from TE1 to TE5.

You've obviously not researched your numbers. Read my post again. The WR that was drafted immediately after TE5 last year was WR26. With the pick you were going to use on TE5, you could have selected WR26.The WR that was drafted immediately after TE1 was WR11. The WR that was drafted immediately after TE5 was WR26. Therefore, the pick you could have used on TE1 could have instead gone towards WR11. The pick that you would have used on TE5 could instead have gone towards WR26. The comparison, therefore, is TE1/WR26 to TE5/WR11. What a coincidence, that's the comparison I just made!

The argument for Gates is that it lets you take a lot more shots at WR. If you end up picking this year's Lee Evans, or the Joey Galloway from years past, or whoever that mid-late round WR is that blows up each year, then you're in great shape, and passing on early WRs will mean you have more chances to get that huge value at WR. But Winslow was a huge value last year, and Gates was a huge value before him. TEs can blow up, too.

I know that TEs can blow up. So let's compare strategiesWR early, TE late- high chance for WR to bust, decent chance for TE to blow up.

TE early, WR late- low chance for TE to bust, decent chance for WR to blow up.

Yes, if you pick the breakout WR, and none of your earlier round WRs bust, then Gates is more valuable. But it's actually more likely that one of your first three WRs will bust - lots of early round receivers bust, but very few late round receivers hit. If you have Gates, that leaves you starting a receiver you didn't draft until late in the draft. If you take safer, better receivers early, you're less likely to bust and more protected in the case of a bust, and can still get one of the second tier of TEs.

What are you talking about? Even if your WRs perform exactly at the slot they are slotted at, not blowing up in the slightest, the TE strategy holds even with the WR strategy. Even if your WRs wind up being sub-par, your TE is so far above his peers that it makes up for it.Also, I fail to see how taking a TE early impacts your entire WR corps, like you claim it does. It only impacts ONE WR. Even in your example, two of the three WRs are exactly the same on both sample teams- the only difference is ONE WR. You don't need "several WRs to blow up", you just need that *ONE WR* to perform up to his position (assuming the high WR performs up to his- if the higher WR busts, the lower WR doesn't even need to do that).

I think that deciding who is a "TE1" after the fact is easier than during the fact. Is Gonzo a TE1? At one point he was, but does SSOG think he is this year? Did you think he was last year?

Simple solution: ADP.

Is Gonzalez a TE1? Last year, Gates had 71 receptions for 924 yards and 9 TDs. Gonzo had 73 receptions for 900 yards and 5 TDs. Gonzo had two more receptions, 24 fewer yards, and 4 fewer TDs than Gates. Since 1999, Gonzo has averaged 78 receptions for 950 yards and 7 TDs. He had almost exactly those numbers last year. And yet Gates currently has an ADP in the third, while Gonzo's in the fifth, which is where FBG suggests taking him. Why would you take Gates over Gonzo?

Because Gates is younger, more talented, in a better offense, and has put up better numbers for three straight seasons?

By the way, is Gates even a TE1 by your definition? Did you know that he was a TE1 after his first year? Wesley Walls had 63 catches for 822 yards and 12 TDs in 1999. He was never good again. How many years of production do you need before you declare a guy a TE1? If you didn't think he was a "TE1" after one year of production, did you think he was after two? Too bad, because his numbers dropped off significantly in his third year.

Despite Gates's numbers "dropping off significantly", he was still the 16th best football player according to VBD.Oh, boo hoo hoo, woe is me. That 4th round TE I took underperformed and only finished worthy of a high second round draft pick. My season is ruined!

And what about the fact that Brees left town? You mentioned Shannon Sharpe as a beacon of consistency. What you failed to mention was, when did he drop off from being a TE1? It wasn't the last year of his career, or at some magical age. It was the year Elway retired. Sharpe was injured the first half of 1999, but even in 2000, he never put up 80 receptions, 1000 yards, or 9 TDs again.

So? Since when does a TE have to go for 80/1000/9 to have fantasy value? Sharpe played 4 seasons after his injury, and despite extreme advancing age for an NFL TE, he still posted VBDs of 50 and 60 during those 4 seasons. In fact, Shannon Sharpe is the only TE in NFL history with more than 43 receptions, 450 yards, or 5 TDs at age 35 (he had 62/770/8). TEs tend to fall off drastically with age. Blame the loss of Elway all you want, but Sharpe finished with a VBD rank of 26th at age 35 with Jake Plummer at the helm. Doesn't look to me like the loss of Elway hurt him all that badly.Besides, again, look at the ADPs. Sharpe was no longer considered a TE1 at that stage of his career, so discussion there is irrelevant.

Is it possible that Gates' numbers were higher because he had MVP-caliber Brees throwing to him, but will be lower now that he has good-but-not-great Rivers?

Why is Gates considered bustproof, when his first down year came after a quarterback change?

Because his first "down year" still had him ranked as the #16th best fantasy player in the league! If that's Gates's downside, I would take that in the third round every time. If Gates performed exactly as well as he did last year, I would be *ECSTATIC* with the pick.

 

[Gatorman]

interesting SSOG.

Let me ask this: How do the others compare? You have been using the stat of VBD player to justify Gates. What about the rest of the TEs in the Top 5. How do they perform?

Crumpler and Gonzo finished 20 points Behind Gates.

Heap Cooley Winslow and Shockey finished about 35 points behind.

We'll throw out Winslow, since he was the "value" pick here if you hit on him.

Still a 1 ppg difference in getting Gonzo or Crumpler a few rounds later is nothing to sneeze at. While we look at Gates as this sure thing, The other guys in the top 5 are within 2 - 2.5 ppg from him. Round 3 suxored last year, but even a guy lie D jax or Hines ward would more than make up for the difference (and D Jax was available).

The interesting thing here is that the TE consistency you speak of holds true for the top 5 as well as the top 1. Hell, it holds true for most of the projections. Looking at last year vs. looking at last years' projections, only Winslow and Watson seem to have flip flopped spots (shockey was overvalued as well ( )as was vernon davis).

There were very few surprises here.

There may be real credence to the idea that getting a TE earlier than we have thought in the past may have merit (the Radballs method), but it doesn't mean Gates. As with all things in FF, I believe that there is something lurking behind the numbers that disproves this. My "gut" tells me that Gates in the 3rd < One of the other guys a few rounds later. If you target a TE in the third, it can only be gates. If you target a TE in the 6th, it can be any of those guys that fall to you. Yeah, they will be a few ppg less than gates, but you have more flexibility in the draft.

Good discussion, lets keep it going if we can

(Also, I have started discussions on all the other major positions)

 

[BassNBrew]

My "gut" tells me that Gates in the 3rd < One of the other guys a few rounds later. If you target a TE in the third, it can only be gates. If you target a TE in the 6th, it can be any of those guys that fall to you. Yeah, they will be a few ppg less than gates, but you have more flexibility in the draft.

Good discussion, lets keep it going if we can

(Also, I have started discussions on all the other major positions)

First of all, good topic and posts...reminds me of this place a few years ago.Both you and Fred have relied on gut type arguments like flexibility. Both SSOG and myself have given you numbers that demonstrate why Gates is a somewhat better pick or at least a push. With all things being relatively equal, gut does come into play. Some of us are more comfortable finding that upside TE so your argument has more merit in that case. Personally I end up drafting Watson's and the Titan's sleeper of the year instead of Winslow at TE. On the other hand I seem to do much better finding the Muhammy (3 years ago), Smith (2 years ago), or Galloway/Evans types at WR. The are many ways to skin this cat and each drafter should develop a strategy that plays to their strengths.

 

[dparker713]

interesting SSOG.

Let me ask this: How do the others compare? You have been using the stat of VBD player to justify Gates. What about the rest of the TEs in the Top 5. How do they perform?

Crumpler and Gonzo finished 20 points Behind Gates.

Heap Cooley Winslow and Shockey finished about 35 points behind.

We'll throw out Winslow, since he was the "value" pick here if you hit on him.

Still a 1 ppg difference in getting Gonzo or Crumpler a few rounds later is nothing to sneeze at. While we look at Gates as this sure thing, The other guys in the top 5 are within 2 - 2.5 ppg from him. Round 3 suxored last year, but even a guy lie D jax or Hines ward would more than make up for the difference (and D Jax was available).

The interesting thing here is that the TE consistency you speak of holds true for the top 5 as well as the top 1. Hell, it holds true for most of the projections. Looking at last year vs. looking at last years' projections, only Winslow and Watson seem to have flip flopped spots (shockey was overvalued as well ( )as was vernon davis).

There were very few surprises here.

There may be real credence to the idea that getting a TE earlier than we have thought in the past may have merit (the Radballs method), but it doesn't mean Gates. As with all things in FF, I believe that there is something lurking behind the numbers that disproves this. My "gut" tells me that Gates in the 3rd < One of the other guys a few rounds later. If you target a TE in the third, it can only be gates. If you target a TE in the 6th, it can be any of those guys that fall to you. Yeah, they will be a few ppg less than gates, but you have more flexibility in the draft.

Good discussion, lets keep it going if we can

(Also, I have started discussions on all the other major positions)

The season doesn't end with the draft. Sure, if you take Gates you're unlikely to select another TE until you starting roster has been filled out, maybe plus your first backup WR/RB. But while Gates will have limited value in the 3rd during the draft, as soon as the draft ends he is emminently more tradeable then whichever WR you select. This gives you increased flexibility after the draft during the season. You're also more likely to be willing to start a WW WR because you haven't invested as much in the big names. Fact of the matter is, during the season the most valueable commodity outside of a 20 ppg RB is consistency. If you don't need to worry about matchups and the player is a low injury risk, you're much more likely to get full value out of a player over the course of the season.

Just compare your team post draft with the team you finish the season with. Barring injury, you're much more likely to have the same starting TE than the same WR corps. The turnover at WR happens for any number of reasons, not the least of which is high variability from year to year, not to mention game to game. The TE slot is alot more stable and while Gates in the third won't win you your league, he's unlikely to cost you your league either.

 

[bostonfred]

My "gut" tells me that Gates in the 3rd < One of the other guys a few rounds later. If you target a TE in the third, it can only be gates. If you target a TE in the 6th, it can be any of those guys that fall to you. Yeah, they will be a few ppg less than gates, but you have more flexibility in the draft.

Good discussion, lets keep it going if we can

(Also, I have started discussions on all the other major positions)

First of all, good topic and posts...reminds me of this place a few years ago.Both you and Fred have relied on gut type arguments like flexibility. Both SSOG and myself have given you numbers that demonstrate why Gates is a somewhat better pick or at least a push. With all things being relatively equal, gut does come into play. Some of us are more comfortable finding that upside TE so your argument has more merit in that case. Personally I end up drafting Watson's and the Titan's sleeper of the year instead of Winslow at TE. On the other hand I seem to do much better finding the Muhammy (3 years ago), Smith (2 years ago), or Galloway/Evans types at WR. The are many ways to skin this cat and each drafter should develop a strategy that plays to their strengths.

Disagre that it's all gut type arguments. I am using a gut description of good mathematical principles; I just don't feel like doing math right now. Agree that if you're better at picking late round WRs than at finding late round TEs, Gates becomes more attractive, and vice versa.

Agree that this is one of the better threads in a while.

 

[bostonfred]

SSOG that's a marathon post and I don't have the time to respond to it in full but here's a couple quick responses:

1) I refuse to use ADP to define TE1. That's not meaningful at all.

2) The point that Sharpe dropped off when Elway retired is an important one. He had two good years, two mediocre/bad years, and one injury year after that. His age played a part, but wasn't the only reason. Tight ends, like receivers, depend on their QB, and at this point, Rivers does not appear to be as high scoring a QB as Brees. This is not an argument that Gates' numbers will increase, only that it's wrong to act as though last year was just a down year and his numbers should go back up this year.

3) The point that WRs bust more is an important one. Let's assume that Gates is bustproof and worth every point you think he is. It's still important to get receivers who are less inclined to bust, because you'll be starting three of them. If the top one busts, then you'll be starting your WR2/3/4, who may also bust. Yes, some might boom, and yes, you may be able to pick up receivers off the waiver wire. But you're still losing a lot of points when those receivers bust because you'll start the bust WR1 while he's doing poorly, and you'll switch him out for a weaker WR when you finally give up on him. So you'll get significantly less than the VBD value of the replacement WR out of your WR1 position, which is a big dropoff. Just like you say consistency is important, it's also important to have guys you can safely put and keep in your lineup (or guys for whom you can play matchups/pick up the hot player) especially at positions where you have to start multiple players. There is an intrinsic value to having a WR1 that doesn't show up in VBD, so your VBD based arguments aren't pursuasive to me.

4) Speaking of VBD, if Gates was worth a second rounder last year, what was Gonzo worth? It's got to be pretty close, since Gonzalez had more receptions compared with Gates who had more TDs and a couple more yards. Since we're comparing taking Gates in the third with taking Gonzo in the 5th/6th, this seems relevant, but you keep leaving that part out because you're trying to prove how valuable Gates is. That seems wrong to me.

 

[Gatorman]

First of all, good topic and posts...reminds me of this place a few years ago.

Agree that this is one of the better threads in a while.

This year, my role here is going to be to challenge some of the FF assumptions. I have heard all the other arguments over the years on VBD baseline, this player vs. that player upside, etc. Lets get back to this.For SSOG and Bass, (as well as in the QB early advocacy group)...My question is: If you can get the best guy early, why not take the second best guy 2 rounds later.Assume that LJ (or SJax) ADP was 2 rounds later than LT. Also assume that there was this new WR out there, Marvin Moss CJ Owens who is a lock for 50 VBD points (using a number I hate) > any other WR. Would you still take LT if you could grab SJax 2 rounds later + MMCJO? I think you have convinced me that a TE earlier than I used to may be a good idea, but why the best one? Especially if the pool at 2-5 is very similar.BFred is right about consistant starters for WR. I would like my WR choices to be based on "start your studs" not "matchup city"If I draft SJax, Ronnie Brown, Reggie Wayne, Hines Ward, and then Gonzo that means less thinking for me than matchups....

 

[David Yudkin]

My question is: If you can get the best guy early, why not take the second best guy 2 rounds later.

While this may not fit with the TE class of 2007, here's my answer.There are 32 women in a room. One is Jessica Alba. The rest are Rosie O'Donnell clones. Would picking second be worth it?I know that is an extreme example, but again this all boils down to how well you think (or project) each TE will do. Last year, my take was that Gates would again be the #1 TE (and he was) but his value would drop (and it did from 93 to 65).If you (or anyone else) feel that Gates' numbers are more in line with the field of TEs, then no he's not worth taking early and take the next best guy instead. Last year that would have "cost" 20 points *IF* you had Crumpler as the #2 TE. The year before, it would have "cost" roughly 40 points *IF* you had Shockey pegged as the #2 TE.The debate then focuses on how reliable are your other TE candidates and is waiting onthem worth the value differential. And that is not easy to answer or prove.

 

[Gatorman]

My question is: If you can get the best guy early, why not take the second best guy 2 rounds later.

While this may not fit with the TE class of 2007, here's my answer.There are 32 women in a room. One is Jessica Alba. The rest are Rosie O'Donnell clones. Would picking second be worth it?

Bad example. Better to be said, 32 women in a room. 1 is Jessica Alba, 1 is scarlett johansen, one is Jennifer Aniston, one is Angelina Jolie (she is tony gonzalez in this example), and one is tyra banks, after that you have a few Kate winslets, then a bunch of rosie o donnells.Even if you think that Alba is the hottest thing on the planet, if you can wait two rounds and draft Johansen how bad off are you?

 

[BassNBrew]

For SSOG and Bass, (as well as in the QB early advocacy group)...My question is: If you can get the best guy early, why not take the second best guy 2 rounds later.Assume that LJ (or SJax) ADP was 2 rounds later than LT. Also assume that there was this new WR out there, Marvin Moss CJ Owens who is a lock for 50 VBD points (using a number I hate) > any other WR. Would you still take LT if you could grab SJax 2 rounds later + MMCJO? I think you have convinced me that a TE earlier than I used to may be a good idea, but why the best one? Especially if the pool at 2-5 is very similar.BFred is right about consistant starters for WR. I would like my WR choices to be based on "start your studs" not "matchup city"If I draft SJax, Ronnie Brown, Reggie Wayne, Hines Ward, and then Gonzo that means less thinking for me than matchups....

1 TE Gates,Antonio SD 16 0 0 0 71 924 9 0 146.4 2 TE Crumpler,Alge ATL 16 0 0 0 56 780 8 0 126.0 3 TE Gonzalez,Tony KC 15 0 0 0 73 900 5 0 120.0 4 TE Heap,Todd BAL 16 0 0 0 73 765 6 0 112.5 5 TE Cooley,Chris WAS 16 0 0 0 57 734 6 0 109.4 6 TE Winslow,Kellen CLE 16 0 0 0 89 875 3 0 105.5 7 TE Shockey,Jeremy NYG 15 0 0 0 66 623 7 0 104.3 8 TE Clark,Desmond CHI 16 0 0 0 45 626 6 0 98.6 9 TE Smith,L.J. PHI 16 0 0 0 50 611 5 0 91.1 10 TE Watson,Ben NE 13 0 0 0 49 645 3 1 83.7Well let's start by talking last year. Here were my preseason rankings and concerns...1. Gates - Rivers was a concern and his actually production was close to my downside2. Watson - Bought into the hype, didn't like the WRs in NE3. Heap - Was concerned with the addition of McNair and Mason and don't like his weekly questionable status.4. Shockey - Always seems to miss a game or two.5. LJ Smith - Probably was right here if McNabb didn't get hurt once again.6. Gonzalez - I forget why I was down on him.7. McMichael - Questions at QB8. Witten - Questions about usage with crummy line and the addition of TO9. Crumpler - Vick10. Cooley - Brunell to Campbell conversion11. Winslow Jr. - Hadn't shown anything yet due to injury.12. Troupe - Kinney/Scaife13. Wiggins - QB issues14. Davis - rookie15. Graham - Watson16. Clark 17. Eric JohnsonTo answer your question directly, the 2nd/3rd best guys were ranked 6th and 9th by me and long gone before I could draft them.In the league I went Gates early I would have pulled the trigger on Kevin Jones who went one pick earlier and grab a TE later (just to let you know that I wasn't set on an option). I didn't see a RB in the early 3rd that I liked. In retrospect I did like Parker but shyed off becuase I had him on numerous other teams where I'd gotten him late in the 3rd. That left S. Moss, Driver, Ward, DJax, and ROY on my board. I really couldn't differentiate between them and liked Housh, Galloway, Evans, and Coles about as much who I expected at least one or two to be around late in the 4th. For me, Gates was a tier of his own and I had nine WRs in a tier where I would be selecting the first one from that tier in the 3rd.

 

[BassNBrew]

Even if you think that Alba is the hottest thing on the planet, if you can wait two rounds and draft Johansen how bad off are you?

Another bad example as I'd trade my whole draft for Alba and fill out the rest of the roster from the waiver wire.

 

[kensat30]

Let's say there is equal chance that you land a sleeper at WR vs a sleeper at TE later in the draft, regardless of what you did in the first few rounds. For every Galloway there is a Winslow. And the equal chance of landing a sleeper at either position is less than 50/50, closer to 1 in 4. In other words any single sleeper pick looked at in a microscope is unlikely to hit.

The main basis I see for drafting a WR in the third over Gates is because you start 3 WRs and only 1 TE. The value in lining up WR11 versus WR35, is much greater than lining up TE1 versus TE5. But isn't that a double-edged sword if you MISS with your TE draft picks?

Compare TE1/WR35 to TE5/WR11 all you want, the draft could very well turn out to be closer to TE1/WR45, TE14/WR11. Could be you miss on your "second tier" TE, or maybe there was a run and you missed out on drafting one more solid TEs in the 5th ot 6th and you decide to draft your first TE in the 8th or 9th: sleeper territory. It's a lot less important to hit on every single one of your WR picks versus your TE picks, simply because there are more bullets in your WR chamber than there are in your TE chamber.

Face it, if you are starting only 1 TE, chances are you are rostering 2 TEs at the most, and maybe only a single TE. If you start 3 WRs you are loading up on them in the draft, just like RBs. Throw em against the wall and see what sticks theory. You just can't do that with the TE position.

 

[kensat30]

SSOG that's a marathon post and I don't have the time to respond to it in full but here's a couple quick responses: 1) I refuse to use ADP to define TE1. That's not meaningful at all.2) The point that Sharpe dropped off when Elway retired is an important one. He had two good years, two mediocre/bad years, and one injury year after that. His age played a part, but wasn't the only reason. Tight ends, like receivers, depend on their QB, and at this point, Rivers does not appear to be as high scoring a QB as Brees. This is not an argument that Gates' numbers will increase, only that it's wrong to act as though last year was just a down year and his numbers should go back up this year. 3) The point that WRs bust more is an important one. Let's assume that Gates is bustproof and worth every point you think he is. It's still important to get receivers who are less inclined to bust, because you'll be starting three of them. If the top one busts, then you'll be starting your WR2/3/4, who may also bust. Yes, some might boom, and yes, you may be able to pick up receivers off the waiver wire. But you're still losing a lot of points when those receivers bust because you'll start the bust WR1 while he's doing poorly, and you'll switch him out for a weaker WR when you finally give up on him. So you'll get significantly less than the VBD value of the replacement WR out of your WR1 position, which is a big dropoff. Just like you say consistency is important, it's also important to have guys you can safely put and keep in your lineup (or guys for whom you can play matchups/pick up the hot player) especially at positions where you have to start multiple players. There is an intrinsic value to having a WR1 that doesn't show up in VBD, so your VBD based arguments aren't pursuasive to me. 4) Speaking of VBD, if Gates was worth a second rounder last year, what was Gonzo worth? It's got to be pretty close, since Gonzalez had more receptions compared with Gates who had more TDs and a couple more yards. Since we're comparing taking Gates in the third with taking Gonzo in the 5th/6th, this seems relevant, but you keep leaving that part out because you're trying to prove how valuable Gates is. That seems wrong to me.

Where did Gonzales rank in 2005? And where did Gates rank in 2005? There is a reason Gonzalez went in the 5th last year, because he showed a ***** in the armor. Gates has been #1 at his position for the last 3 consecutive years, and he's only been in the league 4 years! I can't even think of another player at ANY position who has achieved that feat over the course of their entier career.edit: Jerry Rice did it twice, and Steve Young did it as well. Maybe I exaggerated.

 

[SSOG]

interesting SSOG.Let me ask this: How do the others compare? You have been using the stat of VBD player to justify Gates. What about the rest of the TEs in the Top 5. How do they perform?

That was already considered in the comparison I made. When I compared TE1/WR26 to TE5/WR11, the comparison being made is "how much greater is the VBD of TE1 compared to TE5, and how does that compare to the VBD difference between WR11 and WR26".The other TEs in the top5 perform pretty well, too... but the value dropoff from TE1 to TE5 corresponds almost exactly with the value dropoff between the WR drafted immediately after TE1 and the WR drafted immediately after TE5.

There may be real credence to the idea that getting a TE earlier than we have thought in the past may have merit (the Radballs method), but it doesn't mean Gates. As with all things in FF, I believe that there is something lurking behind the numbers that disproves this. My "gut" tells me that Gates in the 3rd < One of the other guys a few rounds later. If you target a TE in the third, it can only be gates. If you target a TE in the 6th, it can be any of those guys that fall to you. Yeah, they will be a few ppg less than gates, but you have more flexibility in the draft.

Again, a straight comparison of Gates + 6th round WR to 3rd round WR + 6th round TE has been made several times. Your "gut" might tell you that the second method is better, but the numbers disagree.

SSOG that's a marathon post and I don't have the time to respond to it in full but here's a couple quick responses: 1) I refuse to use ADP to define TE1. That's not meaningful at all.2) The point that Sharpe dropped off when Elway retired is an important one. He had two good years, two mediocre/bad years, and one injury year after that. His age played a part, but wasn't the only reason. Tight ends, like receivers, depend on their QB, and at this point, Rivers does not appear to be as high scoring a QB as Brees. This is not an argument that Gates' numbers will increase, only that it's wrong to act as though last year was just a down year and his numbers should go back up this year. 3) The point that WRs bust more is an important one. Let's assume that Gates is bustproof and worth every point you think he is. It's still important to get receivers who are less inclined to bust, because you'll be starting three of them. If the top one busts, then you'll be starting your WR2/3/4, who may also bust. Yes, some might boom, and yes, you may be able to pick up receivers off the waiver wire. But you're still losing a lot of points when those receivers bust because you'll start the bust WR1 while he's doing poorly, and you'll switch him out for a weaker WR when you finally give up on him. So you'll get significantly less than the VBD value of the replacement WR out of your WR1 position, which is a big dropoff. Just like you say consistency is important, it's also important to have guys you can safely put and keep in your lineup (or guys for whom you can play matchups/pick up the hot player) especially at positions where you have to start multiple players. There is an intrinsic value to having a WR1 that doesn't show up in VBD, so your VBD based arguments aren't pursuasive to me. 4) Speaking of VBD, if Gates was worth a second rounder last year, what was Gonzo worth? It's got to be pretty close, since Gonzalez had more receptions compared with Gates who had more TDs and a couple more yards. Since we're comparing taking Gates in the third with taking Gonzo in the 5th/6th, this seems relevant, but you keep leaving that part out because you're trying to prove how valuable Gates is. That seems wrong to me.

1) Why not? It's simple, easily verified, and amazingly accurate. Other than Gates/Gonzo two years ago (where there were two pretty equally sized camps), there is a remarkable amount of agreement as to which TE is the clear-cut #1 prospect. Do you have a better method for determining who the preseason #1 TE was?2) I never acted like last year was just a down year and that Gates' numbers would rebound to his 2004/2005 levels. I've said several times that I would be ecstatic if I drafted Gates in the third and he produced exactly the same numbers that he produced last year. I do think that Gates' numbers, barring injury, are more likely to go up than down, though- unless Tomlinson breaks the TD record again, there should be more of those to go around. Still, even if his numbers remained constant, I would be happy with his pick in the third. Further, all numerical arguements I have made for taking Gates in the third have been based on his numbers last year.3) Are you so sure that 3rd round WRs are that much less likely to bust than 6th round WRs?4) Gonzo was also underrated and worth a mid-third. I'm not leaving that out, though- I'm comparing TE1/WR26 to TE5/WR11. Yes, TE5 is underrated and also represents great value, but that is inherently taken into account in the comparison. Despite the fact that TE5 represents great value on his own, TE1 presents so much value that TE1/WR26's value entirely equals that of TE5/WR11.If you'd rather compare TE1 to TE2 or TE3, I could easily do that, as well.

My question is: If you can get the best guy early, why not take the second best guy 2 rounds later.

While this may not fit with the TE class of 2007, here's my answer.There are 32 women in a room. One is Jessica Alba. The rest are Rosie O'Donnell clones. Would picking second be worth it?

Bad example. Better to be said, 32 women in a room. 1 is Jessica Alba, 1 is scarlett johansen, one is Jennifer Aniston, one is Angelina Jolie (she is tony gonzalez in this example), and one is tyra banks, after that you have a few Kate winslets, then a bunch of rosie o donnells.Even if you think that Alba is the hottest thing on the planet, if you can wait two rounds and draft Johansen how bad off are you?

It's not a bad example. At RB, that might be exactly how the progression looks (small dropoff from #1 to #2, small dropoff from #2 to #3, small dropoff from #3 to #4, etc)... but that's not how it looks at QB or TE.Actually, let's use your exact example (LT + the Great WR vs. S-Jax + "Marvin Moss CJ Owens"). Last year, LT was worth almost 100 points more than S-Jax. According to your definition, "Marvin Moss CJ Owens" is only worth 50 points more than the #2 WR. Therefore, grabbing LT + even a mediocre WR would be worth more than grabbing S-Jax and "Marvin Moss CJ Owens".Last year, LT + WR11 (Housh) scored more points than S-Jax + WR1 (Harrison). And *THAT* is why you grab the #1 right now rather than the #2 a couple of rounds later.

 

[bostonfred]

1) Why not? It's simple, easily verified, and amazingly accurate. Other than Gates/Gonzo two years ago (where there were two pretty equally sized camps), there is a remarkable amount of agreement as to which TE is the clear-cut #1 prospect. Do you have a better method for determining who the preseason #1 TE was?

That's not my problem with it. My problem is that the #1 ranked player at a position is not a statistically meaningful thing. It also lends itself to circular logic: Gates should be the #1 TE because he's the #1 ranked TE, and the #1 TE always does well. It's also wrongheaded from a VBD perspective to say that the #1 ranked TE will do well. There's no reason to think that he'll do better than the #2 TE, or that TEs 6-12 won't do better than in the past, just because the TE1 is traditionally predictable. There is an increased emphasis on the TE position in the NFL in general; it seems reasonable to think that a change in TE production would render your point moot. By the way, who was the #1 ranked running back last year? Was it Tomlinson, or Johnson, or Alexander? They were considered the big three going into the season, but by the end, people acted like Tomlinson had been the consensus #1 all along. Looking back and saying that the #1 preseason TE was Sharpe even after Wesley Walls' two big years, when a lot of people put Sharpe #2, or right before Coates fell off the face of the earth, or right after Elway retired, all seem to require some revisionist history.

2) I never acted like last year was just a down year and that Gates' numbers would rebound to his 2004/2005 levels. I've said several times that I would be ecstatic if I drafted Gates in the third and he produced exactly the same numbers that he produced last year. I do think that Gates' numbers, barring injury, are more likely to go up than down, though- unless Tomlinson breaks the TD record again, there should be more of those to go around. Still, even if his numbers remained constant, I would be happy with his pick in the third. Further, all numerical arguements I have made for taking Gates in the third have been based on his numbers last year.

The reason I asked, is that Gonzalez posted numbers close to Gates last year, and is available rounds later. Unless you predict a dropoff for Gonzalez or an increase for Gates, Gonzalez seems like a much better value.

3) Are you so sure that 3rd round WRs are that much less likely to bust than 6th round WRs?

No, I don't suppose I am. That's a fair question. I think I'm better than average at avoiding the third round bust WR, though. Maybe that's clouding my judgement. It's hard to say.

4) Gonzo was also underrated and worth a mid-third. I'm not leaving that out, though- I'm comparing TE1/WR26 to TE5/WR11. Yes, TE5 is underrated and also represents great value, but that is inherently taken into account in the comparison. Despite the fact that TE5 represents great value on his own, TE1 presents so much value that TE1/WR26's value entirely equals that of TE5/WR11.If you'd rather compare TE1 to TE2 or TE3, I could easily do that, as well.

I disagree with the premise that TE5 + WR11 is worth less than TE1 and WR26. In general (and I admit that I'm looking more at my history than ADP) the WR drafted 26th will bust more frequently than the WR drafted 11th. In general, WRs who bust will stay in your lineup longer than they should. So you'll end up putting up bad scores for the first couple weeks, that don't show up in your VBD analysis. You can't just look back at the actual WR26, or even the guy who was actually drafted 26th last year, and assume you start him every week, and get every point he scored. How many people had Lee Evans on their bench last year when he blew up? How many people had Marques Colston or Anquan Boldin in their starting lineups the first week of their rookie seasons? How many people kept Randy Moss in their starting lineup way too long last year? At the same time, guys like Gates, Heap and Gonzalez never come out of your starting lineup. In leagues where you have to set a lineup each week, I'd much rather draft guys I feel confident starting every week than guys I hope will do well, like WR26.

 

[dparker713]

In leagues where you have to set a lineup each week, I'd much rather draft guys I feel confident starting every week than guys I hope will do well, like WR26.

Of TE1, TE5, WR11 and WR 26, TE1 will provide you with the guy you should feel most confident starting most often. Also, you're more likely to marry yourself to an underperforming WR11 than a WR26, who you were probably already planning on playing matchups with.

 

[BassNBrew]

At the same time, guys like Gates, Heap and Gonzalez never come out of your starting lineup. In leagues where you have to set a lineup each week, I'd much rather draft guys I feel confident starting every week than guys I hope will do well, like WR26.

Speaking of Heap

9 BAL CIN 5 4 84 0 8.4 [play-by-play] 10 BAL TEN 5 4 49 0 4.9 [play-by-play] 11 BAL ATL 9 6 62 0 6.2 [play-by-play] 12 BAL PIT 8 7 58 1 11.8 [play-by-play] 13 BAL CIN 7 4 29 0 2.9 [play-by-play] 14 BAL KC 6 4 33 0 3.3 [play-by-play] 15 BAL CLE 10 5 58 0 5.8 [play-by-play] 16 BAL PIT 5 4 50 0 5.0 [play-by-play] 17 BAL BUF 8 5 60 0 6.0 [play-by-play] 19 BAL IND 7 3 28 0 2.8 [play-by-play]

Not to mention that Heap was on the injury report about every week. I benched him one week where he actually posted double digit fantasy numbers. As I recall his status was very questionable and it was a late game.

 

[bostonfred]

In leagues where you have to set a lineup each week, I'd much rather draft guys I feel confident starting every week than guys I hope will do well, like WR26.

Of TE1, TE5, WR11 and WR 26, TE1 will provide you with the guy you should feel most confident starting most often. Also, you're more likely to marry yourself to an underperforming WR11 than a WR26, who you were probably already planning on playing matchups with.

I'd feel confident starting TE5 and WR11. I'd prefer two players I can confidently start whose VBD value is similar to one player I can confidently start and another who I can't. I'm assuming that I'll still have to play matchups with at least one position; having as many sure starters as possible means I don't have to play as many suck players over the course of the season, which is generally a good thing. Of course, if you know you will hit the lottery with your scrubs, or if you play in a league with fewer or weaker owners, it's better to take the studs.

 

[BassNBrew]

The reason I asked, is that Gonzalez posted numbers close to Gates last year, and is available rounds later. Unless you predict a dropoff for Gonzalez or an increase for Gates, Gonzalez seems like a much better value.

Gonzo2004 KC 16 143 102 1258 12.3 7 168 2 99 2005 KC 16 116 78 905 11.6 2 103 7 26 2006 KC 15 103 73 900 12.3 5 120 3 39 Consecutive years with dropping targets and receptions. OL losing momentumNo clue as to who will be throwing him the ball.I'm not risking a 4th or 5th on him when solid WR value exists.

 

[bostonfred]

At the same time, guys like Gates, Heap and Gonzalez never come out of your starting lineup. In leagues where you have to set a lineup each week, I'd much rather draft guys I feel confident starting every week than guys I hope will do well, like WR26.

Speaking of Heap

9 BAL CIN 5 4 84 0 8.4 [play-by-play] 10 BAL TEN 5 4 49 0 4.9 [play-by-play] 11 BAL ATL 9 6 62 0 6.2 [play-by-play] 12 BAL PIT 8 7 58 1 11.8 [play-by-play] 13 BAL CIN 7 4 29 0 2.9 [play-by-play] 14 BAL KC 6 4 33 0 3.3 [play-by-play] 15 BAL CLE 10 5 58 0 5.8 [play-by-play] 16 BAL PIT 5 4 50 0 5.0 [play-by-play] 17 BAL BUF 8 5 60 0 6.0 [play-by-play] 19 BAL IND 7 3 28 0 2.8 [play-by-play]

Not to mention that Heap was on the injury report about every week. I benched him one week where he actually posted double digit fantasy numbers. As I recall his status was very questionable and it was a late game.

It sounds like you don't play in a PPR league. You're right, he was weaker in the second half than the first half. But his first half numbers were ridiculous:WK TM OPP TARG REC YD TD FPT 1 BAL TB 9 5 46 0 4.6 [play-by-play] 2 BAL OAK 8 5 17 1 7.7 [play-by-play] 3 BAL CLE 11 5 36 1 9.6 [play-by-play] 4 BAL SD 5 4 60 1 12.0 [play-by-play] 5 BAL DEN 8 3 21 0 2.1 [play-by-play] 6 BAL CAR 8 5 55 1 11.5 [play-by-play] 8 BAL NO 4 3 47 1 10.7 [play-by-play] I guess you left those out to show that he hurt you in the second half of the season? If so, I hope you enjoyed:15 SD KC 4 1 7 0 0.7 [play-by-play] 16 SD SEA 6 2 63 0 6.3 [play-by-play] from Gates in the fantasy playoffs last year. Putting all your eggs in the basket of a TE - even the so called TE1 - will give you bad days.

 

[bostonfred]

The reason I asked, is that Gonzalez posted numbers close to Gates last year, and is available rounds later. Unless you predict a dropoff for Gonzalez or an increase for Gates, Gonzalez seems like a much better value.

Gonzo2004 KC 16 143 102 1258 12.3 7 168 2 99 2005 KC 16 116 78 905 11.6 2 103 7 26 2006 KC 15 103 73 900 12.3 5 120 3 39 Consecutive years with dropping targets and receptions. OL losing momentumNo clue as to who will be throwing him the ball.I'm not risking a 4th or 5th on him when solid WR value exists.

Gonzo VBD rank the last eight years:21121273I'll take that in the fifth. In a year where they changed QBs, moved to a run oriented coach, and had bad things happen across the board, the 30 year old was the third best TE and only a few points behind Gates. I have similar concerns about Gates, by the way - his QB changed, and his points dropped off. His coach changed from a hall of famer to a guy who traditionally likes to run the ball and play action pass. All of these guys have blemishes. I like Gonzalez' chances to be a stud again this year, but I can understand your hesitance.

 

[BassNBrew]

In leagues where you have to set a lineup each week, I'd much rather draft guys I feel confident starting every week than guys I hope will do well, like WR26.

Of TE1, TE5, WR11 and WR 26, TE1 will provide you with the guy you should feel most confident starting most often. Also, you're more likely to marry yourself to an underperforming WR11 than a WR26, who you were probably already planning on playing matchups with.

I'd feel confident starting TE5 and WR11. I'd prefer two players I can confidently start whose VBD value is similar to one player I can confidently start and another who I can't. I'm assuming that I'll still have to play matchups with at least one position; having as many sure starters as possible means I don't have to play as many suck players over the course of the season, which is generally a good thing. Of course, if you know you will hit the lottery with your scrubs, or if you play in a league with fewer or weaker owners, it's better to take the studs.

You do remember the IBL? I drafted Gates at the 2/3 turn and some guy named Fred selected Chris Chambers? That Fred guy ran with Miller at TE. Interestingly enough, the same Fred guy had Reggie Brown on the bench along with his superior points the first three weeks of the season behind Boldin, Chambers, and Mason.Seems like Fred should have benched his "WR11" and started his "WR26" much sooner. I think your "WR26" became a starter in week 4 and a regular contributer for quite a while.

 

[BassNBrew]

I have similar concerns about Gates, by the way - his QB changed, and his points dropped off. His coach changed from a hall of famer to a guy who traditionally likes to run the ball and play action pass. All of these guys have blemishes. I like Gonzalez' chances to be a stud again this year, but I can understand your hesitance.

I'm a little confused...Rivers is coming back this year??? Anyway, I didn't think about the coaching change for this year. I guess MT has sold me on Rivers and I expect an improvement.Also, I want to emphasize that Gates isn't a lock for me in the 3rd. If I see 2nd round talent drop into the 3rd, I'll select that individual over Gates. I also expect that where I have Walker rated, he'll end up on my team over Gates in most leagues.

 

[Gatorman]

Bass,

First of all, Fred is in enough leagues that his methods may change in one league vs. another, so that point was a little out of bounds.

Throwing out the WR talk for a minute. If you can get a player who is within 20 points of another player and get him 2 -3 rounds later, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

I will say that having a proven TE >>> Someone you think will finally break out (because so few do). Still, it is a question of where.

Gates VBD # is huge, but so are 5 other TEs. After TE # 6 or so, you really start to see a dropoff.

I think Bass put it well when he said "if I see second round talent drop into the third, I am going to take that over gates" However, Gates has been proven to be second round talent (or better) by SSOG and Yudkin, so the "gut bias" is still there, even in someone defending the position.

 

[BassNBrew]

Bass,First of all, Fred is in enough leagues that his methods may change in one league vs. another, so that point was a little out of bounds.Throwing out the WR talk for a minute. If you can get a player who is within 20 points of another player and get him 2 -3 rounds later, is that a good thing or a bad thing?I will say that having a proven TE >>> Someone you think will finally break out (because so few do). Still, it is a question of where.Gates VBD # is huge, but so are 5 other TEs. After TE # 6 or so, you really start to see a dropoff. I think Bass put it well when he said "if I see second round talent drop into the third, I am going to take that over gates" However, Gates has been proven to be second round talent (or better) by SSOG and Yudkin, so the "gut bias" is still there, even in someone defending the position.

I wasn't taking a personal shot at Fred, we both know he's a top flight competitor. I was attacking his comment that he feels confident in starting his 3rd rd WR. His 4th WR drafted (best I can tell if there weren't trades) turned out to far superior. Brown = 138 pt v. Chambers at 101 pt. Heck, Brown was only 9 points shy of Boldin. In this instance he would have been better served by taking Gates early. I just don't see anything magic about a 3rd rd WR.Regarding you're last point, the reason the "gut bias" is there is precisely because all TEs remain undervalued. No reason to draft Gates in the 2nd when he may be there in the 3rd or one of the other TEs will drop. That said, you saw my TE rankings from last year so that's not necessarily a safe route for me.

 

[darmani]

In TE required leagues, I've always had my best overall results with a Heap/Gates/Gonzalez type taken in the 3rd or 4th rounds. Playing matchups with lesser tier TE's seems to be much more difficult than it is with RB's or WR's. If I don't score one of those guys, I tend to ignore that position til much later.

 

[bostonfred]

In leagues where you have to set a lineup each week, I'd much rather draft guys I feel confident starting every week than guys I hope will do well, like WR26.

Of TE1, TE5, WR11 and WR 26, TE1 will provide you with the guy you should feel most confident starting most often. Also, you're more likely to marry yourself to an underperforming WR11 than a WR26, who you were probably already planning on playing matchups with.

I'd feel confident starting TE5 and WR11. I'd prefer two players I can confidently start whose VBD value is similar to one player I can confidently start and another who I can't. I'm assuming that I'll still have to play matchups with at least one position; having as many sure starters as possible means I don't have to play as many suck players over the course of the season, which is generally a good thing. Of course, if you know you will hit the lottery with your scrubs, or if you play in a league with fewer or weaker owners, it's better to take the studs.

You do remember the IBL? I drafted Gates at the 2/3 turn and some guy named Fred selected Chris Chambers? That Fred guy ran with Miller at TE. Interestingly enough, the same Fred guy had Reggie Brown on the bench along with his superior points the first three weeks of the season behind Boldin, Chambers, and Mason.Seems like Fred should have benched his "WR11" and started his "WR26" much sooner. I think your "WR26" became a starter in week 4 and a regular contributer for quite a while.

I do remember that. And it's a fair point, as long as you're also willing to remind people that cracKer and I carried the FBG team to victory two years ago while you were a lead balloon. It's also a good illlustration of what really happens in leagues. Of course it's possible that my sixth or eighth round player will outperform my third rounder. And when they do, my third rounder will stay in my lineup too long. But it's more likely that the guy I take as my WR1 will do well than the guy I take as my WR4, right? And that the guy I take as my WR1 instead of Gates will do well than the guy I would take as my WR3 instead of Gonzo? Using one league and one season as an example isn't a good counter argument to the problem, which is that while you're trying to figure out which WR is the Reggie Brown and which one is the Chris Chambers, you're not getting the full VBD value of your later round WRs. Which is why I'd prefer a WR1 who should do well each week and a TE that should do well each week over a TE who should do a little better and a WR you don't know if you want in your lineup.

Your point about me starting Chambers ahead of Reggie Brown is valid, but the other third round receivers (and guys I liked a lot more than Chambers, who I didn't want at that pick but took because I was in a hurry while playing in the World Series of Poker that day) were guys like Owens (#2 overall last year), Wayne (#3), Plaxico(#12), and Roy Williams (#10). The receivers taken right around Gonzo last year were Joe Horn (#43), Lee Evans (#7), Terry Glenn (#20), Rod Smith(#61), and Matt Jones(#47). So unless you hit Lee Evans or possibly Terry Glenn, you were forced to look elsewhere for receivers. And the worst part is, if you followed FBG cheatsheets (and the conventional wisdom at the time), you wouldn't have started Reggie Brown over any of these guys except Branch.

Some links from last year to jog your memory:

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2006/06dodds_adp.php

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2006/06finalytdstats.php

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2006/06cheatsheets1.php

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2006/06cheatsheets2.php

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2006/06cheatsheets3.php

 

[Tau837]

Most leagues are 12 (or fewer) teams

Are they? I would be interested in FBG or someone compiling some data about this. For that matter, data about all kinds of metrics, like what percentage of leagues use PPR, use a flex, etc.As for league size, most of my leagues have been 14 teams for years now.The reason this is important is because, unfortunately, so much of the discussion on these boards is focused around comments like "player x should be taken in the third", which is not meaningful. As someone put it earlier in the thread, that could mean a spread of pick 25 to pick 48.Sorry for the mini-hijack.

 

[bostonfred]

Most leagues are 12 (or fewer) teams

Are they? I would be interested in FBG or someone compiling some data about this. For that matter, data about all kinds of metrics, like what percentage of leagues use PPR, use a flex, etc.As for league size, most of my leagues have been 14 teams for years now.The reason this is important is because, unfortunately, so much of the discussion on these boards is focused around comments like "player x should be taken in the third", which is not meaningful. As someone put it earlier in the thread, that could mean a spread of pick 25 to pick 48.Sorry for the mini-hijack.

I generally assume we're talking about 12 team redrafts unless I hear otherwise, and then adjust my thoughts based on league style. If someone says that a particular player is a third rounder, I'd assume they mean someone who will usually go between picks 22 and 40 in a redraft league.

 

[Tau837]

Gates' numbers also dropped last year. Why? Why do you expect them to go up?

Ok, I'll bite. I see 4 major reasons: 1) First year starter at QB, 2) he was often kept in to help a rookie LT with a broken hand early in the season, 3) LT had a record-shattering year, 4) losing Brees who obviously loves big receiving targets (see Colston). 4 is the only one that won't improve this year.I expect Rivers and this offense to continue to progress. McNeil obviously starting being a dominant force by the end of the year and will be healthy this year, freeing up Gates more. LT's production will slow, teams will gameplan more against the running game which opens things up more in the passing game. WRs are young and improving but still Gates is the top target (not including LT here). Offseason talk about using Gates more creatively, lining him up in the backfield and out in the slot to create matchup problems.

I tend to agree that Gates will improve. In support of points 1 and 2 above, look at his splits:Games 1-8: 60 targets, 34/406/4 receiving (11.9 ypr), 64.6 fantasy points (FBG scoring)Games 9-16: 59 targets, 37/518/5 receiving (14.0 ypr), 81.8 fantasy points (FBG scoring)I also think it is a given that LT will regress somewhat. But the real point there is does that translate into more targets for Gates? Well, in 2005 Gates averaged 9.3 targets per game; last year he averaged 7.4 per game. In 2005, the Chargers attempted 526 passes (13th in the NFL), compared to only 466 last season (25th in the NFL). I think it is reasonable to think that Gates' targets will go back up.

 

[Tau837]

So I just managed to read through the whole thread. One thing seems odd - everyone is talking about the past instead of this year.

In other words, why isn't anyone talking about projected performance this year, and then making comparisons? I think Gates will be closer to his 2004 & 2005 performance this year. Part of what should frame where Gates should be taken is the gap between him and the other TEs. I see that gap increasing this year, not decreasing.