Elite TE Strategy: viable? Or borrowing from Peter to pay Paul? (1 Viewer)

[bostonfred]

Earlier in the off-season, rb was deep because there were question marks around a lot of top backs and guys like James Conner and David Johnson were going in the 5th instead of the 2nd/3rd.  At that point, I would have gladly loaded up on the "off positions" like qb and tight end in the early rounds because I could still get depth. 

Things have changed, as they always do by late August, and I feel like this is the year to wait on wr and load up at rb and tight end. 

There's about 3 good rounds of running backs. There are some good ones with potential after that, and I know which ones I'm targeting, but I'm not walking out of the first 3 rounds without two backs and I would prefer 3. 

That brings us to kelce and kittle. Taking one of them means passing on a back.  Absolutely no way I do this if I have already taken Michael Thomas, Adams, Tyreek or Julio, and those are the only four I would consider in those first two rounds. I'm also not doing it if it means risking missing out on a second stud back, so I'm not looking at kelce until about 2.10 and only if I like 5 of the remaining backs. Kittle is a lot more palatable in the early third.  

If I don't get them, though, then I love getting a stud te in round 4 or 5. 3 volume backs in the first three rounds and a stud tight end is a very nice start. Late third or early fourth is about the beginning of where I consider Mahomes/Lamar or the next tier of receiver but only if I started rb/rb. 

Yes, that means punting at wr1, and probably waiting on wr2, too.  But I'm not confident enough in the receivers after the top 4 to call any of them a wr1 and i won't give up a volume back for any of them (this isn't hate - I own guys like Godwin, Cooper and Juju in various keeper/dynasty leagues).  If I don't get one of those 4 - and I don't think I will unless it's Julio in the later second - then I've already punted at wr1.  Now I'm going to keep accumulating backs. 

The fourth and fifth round receivers are nice talents but I'm not especially confident in any of them.  You can have aj brown, Calvin ridley, JJSS and OBJ in the earlier rounds and I'll take ty Hilton, aj green, tyler boyd and Brandin cooks in the later rounds. Brown and ridley could emerge as a wr1 this year. Those guys have already done it. Jjss and obj could return to form. So could Hilton and Cooks. They are all good.  I want as many of those guys in the 50 to 80 range as I can get. 

As much as I love some of the early round qbs this year, I'm totally comfortable waiting to get my qb1 this year.  

I would be thrilled with something like 

Matt Ryan

Zeke

Conner

TY Hilton

Aj green

Brandin Cooks

Kelce

With hopefully a good rb3 and wr4 on my bench. 

 

[MAC_32]

i used to take the cavalier attitude you have. I would take huge risks and end up thin at positions believing I could find players off waivers.  Sometimes that’s true.  I play in a league with 11 extremely competent FF managers. Finding waiver gems is difficult in this group. Everyone is always on the hunt.

I don’t lack confidence in my picks, I lack trust in my picks staying on the field. Depth matters too. My best seasons I come away from the draft with depth. I don’t mean you need to be 5-6 deep at every position. I mean having 3 viable RBs and 4 viable WRs. 

I think you're hitting on the answer to the subject - it depends. On what? A lot.

Not all of my leagues are happening this year but each one is different than the others and my approach changes accordingly. I can successfully work the wire or FAAB in some of them while others require more foresight and luck. Some are very active on the trade front; others go years without one. Some are predictable with the draft runs while others always keep me on my toes. Some draft backup quarterbacks/defenses (and hold them), others don't. Etc.

I will target Kelce/Kittle in some leagues, but not all of them. It really just depends on format, competition, and in-season waivers (among other things!) unique to that league. There are only two certainties in drafting them - you'll have an advantage at that position but also won't be able to extract value since it'll already be filled. That inflexibility is a deal breaker with me in some circumstances while it doesn't move the needle in others.

How's that for fence riding!

 

[ratbast]

My 10 team league hordes RBs but usually somewhere between 12 and 16 TEs are rostered. So for me, this promotes waiting because     more than 15 NFL starting TEs are always available, not to mention all the usable TE committees. 

 

[barackdhouse]

he may well be. But you only have 1 TE to start, unlike RB where you usually start 2, or WR where you often start 3, plus o-flex. 

so 1 TE vs 6 roster slots + BYEs.

So to expand on your point, I agree it’s a 1:1.  the TE/QB is a trade-off for the WR/RB (or WR/WR or RB/RB, depending how you draft from there)

But the downstream effect of that is RB2-3 and WR2-3 (or some combo) will also suffer.  Factoring that in, is the advantage from Kelce over Waller still worth it when you’re potentially also losing points at 4 other roster positions for taking Kelce? 

Maybe I’m missing something. It is past my bedtime. lol

If I thought this was true my take might be wildly different. The one's I'm talking about have two flex spots and you can start 3 TEs if so inclined. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

If I thought this was true my take might be wildly different. The one's I'm talking about have two flex spots and you can start 3 TEs if so inclined. 

My main has TE required & a flex. 2 owners end up starting 2 TE almost every year. They have a mixed record of success with this technique. 

Your overall point (and @MAC_32’s) is spot on: the strategy is heavily league dependent. 

seems like it’s more viable in shorter bench leagues with better chance of hitting on waivers, but possibly not as viable in deep bench leagues where finding help at RB/WR is more difficult. 

Another concern of going “elite TE” Is the potential impact on one’s ability to trade. Tough to trade from depth if ya don’t have depth.  

 

[barackdhouse]

My main has TE required & a flex. 2 owners end up starting 2 TE almost every year. They have a mixed record of success with this technique. 

Your overall point (and @MAC_32’s) is spot on: the strategy is heavily league dependent. 

seems like it’s more viable in shorter bench leagues with better chance of hitting on waivers, but possibly not as viable in deep bench leagues where finding help at RB/WR is more difficult. 

Another concern of going “elite TE” Is the potential impact on one’s ability to trade. Tough to trade from depth if ya don’t have depth.  

FPC has no trading. But yes league specific details matter quite a bit. 

I usually don't go TE early but I always love the teams when I do. And they tend to be high performing teams. There are of course trade offs, usually and most specifically regarding RBs. If you can't find value WRs later than there is probably no FF hope for you. And I think most owners should have a pretty solid idea of where/how to find those RBs. 

Waiver format is a big deal. In the FAAB format you can usually get a couple of *your guys*. If it is one of those inverse order setups, maybe not. 

If you're serious about examining the viability of a strategy like this I strongly recommend mocking it out or doing a couple cheap best balls, because no offense but you seem deadset against it from the beginning. And I think it has more to do with the guys I picked than the actual construction, but I'm beating a dead horse here. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

@Boston Fred- not sure why the quote cut you out.

There's about 3 good rounds of running backs. There are some good ones with potential after that, and I know which ones I'm targeting, but I'm not walking out of the first 3 rounds without two backs and I would prefer 3.

I feel the same, and since I’m going RB at 1.03, and I really like the WRs at 2.10, I need to give strong consideration to RB at 3.03 - the challenge I have is that I really like the WRs there too. I feel like several of them have too 10 potential. You named a few - if I can have Moore, Juju Golloday, at 3.03, I have a hard time taking a RB2 there. I don’t fully trust Conner, and I’m not sure I’d want Carson or David Johnson (who I do like a lot this year) at 3.03 in their place. 

so if I come out of 3 rounds with 1 RB, 2 WR, I almost have to go RB/RB at the 4-5 turn. I also like some of the upside WRs there a lot too. So ok, maybe I reach a little for RoJo at 4.10 and I’ve already missed the top 4 TE. 

now I’ve got 2 RB, 2 WR & a whole lot of picks between 5.03 and 6.10

I can take another upside WR there, or a guy who can be a realistic 3rd RB like Hunt (and this is kinda right before they fall off a cliff, so I lean this way or I can take one of the top 3-4 QBs. Or I can grab Waller (assuming some Raiders honk didn’t reach for him in the 3rd) 

so I guess it also depends on draft position. At 1-4 you’d be poised to take a Kelce or Kittle in the 2nd (if they make it to you) but unlikely to see an Ertz or Andrews unless you reach for them. 

i just hate taking a TE1 over a WR1, especially if I get to early 3rd and a borderline RB1 is sitting there. Now my 1st WR is 4.10, and that’s kinda rough. 

not impossible to compete that way, just not what I’m super comfortable doing. 

That brings us to kelce and kittle. Taking one of them means passing on a back.  Absolutely no way I do this if I have already taken Michael Thomas, Adams, Tyreek or Julio, and those are the only four I would consider in those first two rounds. I'm also not doing it if it means risking missing out on a second stud back, so I'm not looking at kelce until about 2.10 and only if I like 5 of the remaining backs. Kittle is a lot more palatable in the early third.  

Not a high probability Kelce makes it to the late second. That’s typically where I’m seeing Kittle go, with Kelce going late 1st to mid-second. Often in mocks I’m seeing a mini-run where Kittle goes within a couple picks of Kelce wherever Kelce goes. 

If I don't get them, though, then I love getting a stud te in round 4 or 5. 3 volume backs in the first three rounds and a stud tight end is a very nice start. Late third or early fourth is about the beginning of where I consider Mahomes/Lamar or the next tier of receiver but only if I started rb/rb. 

Yes, that means punting at wr1, and probably waiting on wr2, too.  But I'm not confident enough in the receivers after the top 4 to call any of them a wr1 and i won't give up a volume back for any of them (this isn't hate - I own guys like Godwin, Cooper and Juju in various keeper/dynasty leagues).  If I don't get one of those 4 - and I don't think I will unless it's Julio in the later second - then I've already punted at wr1.  Now I'm going to keep accumulating backs. 

The fourth and fifth round receivers are nice talents but I'm not especially confident in any of them.  You can have aj brown, Calvin ridley, JJSS and OBJ in the earlier rounds and I'll take ty Hilton, aj green, tyler boyd and Brandin cooks in the later rounds. Brown and ridley could emerge as a wr1 this year. Those guys have already done it. Jjss and obj could return to form. So could Hilton and Cooks. They are all good.  I want as many of those guys in the 50 to 80 range as I can get. 

I do too, regardless of what I take in the earlier rounds. Some are riskier than others. IMO, Fuller & Cooks have their injury risk built into their ADP. They’re there for you in those rounds for good reason. 

Ridley is creeping up & I’m warming up to his WR1 upside after hearing Ryan talking about him in an interview. OBJ gets a weird amount of love but I get the upside. Just seems like the DaJohnson of WRs, except people have confidence in one and not the other.

But overall I get what you’re saying. the challenge is that whenever I attempt something like this in real drafts I’m hit by the reality that everyone else is also targeting those players in those rounds. So if you do go RB/TE/RB/RB then try to stack up, there’s a possibility you’ll get there and the cupboard will be bare. You could be sitting at 6.08 watching a run of every player you just mentioned go between your 5th and 6th picks. Now someone like Will Fuller is your WR1 for the ~12 weeks he’s on the field. Or Crowder or other guys ideally suited to WR3 for their risk/upside combo. 

as much as I love some of the early round qbs this year, I'm totally comfortable waiting to get my qb1 this year.  

I would be thrilled with something like 

Matt Ryan

Zeke

Conner

TY Hilton

Aj green

Brandin Cooks

Kelce

With hopefully a good rb3 and wr4 on my bench.

I like this team, but I don’t think anyone will argue that it’s a significantly riskier team for the presence of older/injury risk guys like Cooks/Green & Hilton and Conner. I could comfortably roster one of those 4, maybe 2. But man, I’d be burning incense and sacrificing chickens to the FF gods to pray for good health every week with a roster like that. 

And I’m just not sure who the good RB3 & WR4 are going to be at that point. I guess you can stack up on the Brieda/Howard/Rookies and hope one busts out? Doesn’t always work out in my experience. 

Not being a naysayer - just trying to take a mile-high approach. You can certainly win with a team like that. Heck, given good health & return to form, you could go 16-0 and cash with the roster like that.  I’ve played this game for decades and know how unrealistic that is though. 

I never said you couldn’t roster an upside team if you take an elite TE in the 1-2-3 rounds.  But it sure seems to add a lot of challenge to your draft, & risk to a given season. 

So I have to ask - is it worth all that added challenge & risk just to roster a Kelce?  Or a Kittle? That really speaks to the heart of this topic. 

The alternative is to stack up on stud RB/WR & even QB rounds 1-7 and then grab a Hurst & a Jarwin or one of the other up and comers. maybe they give you 80% of Kelce’s production but 7-8 rounds later. Isn’t that a better trade-off for that risk/challenge?

I appreciate your input. It’s definitely in alignment with where I see the RBs & WRs going. It just seems like “tolerance for risk” is a heavy factor in whether one uses an elite TE strategy. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Waiver format is a big deal. In the FAAB format you can usually get a couple of *your guys*. If it is one of those inverse order setups, maybe not. 
 

worst to first and “use it or lose it” (weekly reset) is garbage. No one should ever run waivers like that. 

i’ve been trying to convince my IDP to go FAAB, but we do a true waivers. Reverse order of draft to start, and if you make a claim you drop to 12. It’s not perfect but it does allow for strategy. And it’s surprising how often you’ll get a guy you need from a low position since others are targeting other needs. The trouble is you’ll never get a breakout WR after they break out, or an injury replacement RB unless you have the 1 spot. 

If you're serious about examining the viability of a strategy like this I strongly recommend mocking it out or doing a couple cheap best balls, because no offense but you seem deadset against it from the beginning. And I think it has more to do with the guys I picked than the actual construction, but I'm beating a dead horse here. 

None taken - i wasn’t shy about saying in the OP that I’m on the “no” side of this. If we all agreed that it was great this would be a super boring topic.

”hey guys, what do you thinking about an elite TE strategy?”

” I love it. You?”

” I love it too!”

/topic

 

but I’m not dead set against it. Partly looking for upside of the strategy that maybe I’ve missed, partly looking for confirmation which some of the team examples posted have provided. 

as I mentioned, I’ll keep mocking with live mocks & pseudo ADP mocks to see what sorts of teams I can get and with what sort of consistency. If I mock 20 times and come up with 1 roster that I like, I probably won’t be inclined to shift, but if I can get to a place where 1/2 of the rosters look decent, it at least gives me an option for my real draft coming up on the 4th.

as @Boston Fred said, the later we go towards the season the more the early rounds seem to tighten up. A player like Montgomery going down shifts everyone up 1 spot & since I had none interest means one less player to buffer the span between my picks. Word gets out about players having a good camp. Mike Evans was looking like a sneaky WR1 in the 3rd and now I’ll be lucky to get him in the 2nd after Brady opened his dang mouf about their chemistry. RoJo too, speaking of Bucs. 

I don’t think it’s bad to debate these topics regardless of where one is on the conclusion.

Another conclusion you touched on, as well as BostonFred - the factors of positional rarity often seem to come down to “one man’s trash is another’s treasure”. Personally I don’t mind having a boom or bust, or injury prone WR3. But I wouldn’t want to carry 3 guys like that as my starting WR trio.  And it’s not theoretical - I’ve tried it in the past and been burned and I have no one to blame but me because I knew they were risky players. Ask me how many times I drafted Fred Taylor back in the day hoping THIS was gonna be the year he played 15 games.  

I would still draft him today if he were in the league and man, this toaster is really hot! I say as I apply the 9th bandaid to a finger. lol

and as mentioned above, some of us are confident in finding gems later at the TE position who may not be elite, but may have elite-adjacent upside.

So risk/reward, positional rarity, depth, sleepers - they all factor in. 

i don’t think anyone in here is necessarily right or wrong. It’s a draft philosophy. I’m always interested in hearing how others perceive the risk/reward. It also gives me invaluable insight as to how Elite TE guys are thinking & who they’re targeting. If I’m sitting 3 & team 2 goes elite TE, I have a better idea of who to pick on the even rounds by watching their roster & knowing their needs. It might make the difference between my grabbing a WR or RB at 3.10 if I know team 2 is more likely to go RB/RB 3-4. 

i especially appreciate your (And others) posting examples of real teams drafted with elite TEs. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

If I thought this was true my take might be wildly different. The one's I'm talking about have two flex spots and you can start 3 TEs if so inclined. 

But you only must start 1. You could start RB or WR at the flex spots. 

 

[candian fantasy guy]

I find that regular FF leagues tend to devalue the TE as is no different with QB's. I pretty much play only in TE premium leagues, the TE gets 1.5 PPR, this changes the entire TE landscape and how drafts go down. TE 12-15 are likely off the board by round 10. 

With that said, 25% of cash winners in last year's FBG championship owned Kelce. That's a pretty substantial ownership %, IMO. So, currently my strategy in these drafts is to try to grab one of the top 5, if this doesnt happen, I then tend to wait until that TE10+ waive to begin. 

 

[acarey50]

he may well be. But you only have 1 TE to start, unlike RB where you usually start 2, or WR where you often start 3, plus o-flex. 

so 1 TE vs 6 roster slots + BYEs.

So to expand on your point, I agree it’s a 1:1.  the TE/QB is a trade-off for the WR/RB (or WR/WR or RB/RB, depending how you draft from there)

But the downstream effect of that is RB2-3 and WR2-3 (or some combo) will also suffer.  Factoring that in, is the advantage from Kelce over Waller still worth it when you’re potentially also losing points at 4 other roster positions for taking Kelce? 

Maybe I’m missing something. It is past my bedtime. lol

I think you are looking at it a bit wrong. The goal is to maximize the points in your starting lineup.

For simplicity sake, let's just say you will take the following positions after 6 rounds - 3 RBs, 2 WRs and 1 TE

Rather than thinking that if you take a TE early (say Kelce in the 1st) all of your positions suffer, really the only thing that is different is the player you take where you otherwise would take a TE. 

A simplified example:

TE Early Picks:

TE1A-RB1A-WR1A-RB2A-WR2A-RB3A

RB early picks:

RB1B-RB2B-WR1B-RB3B-WR2B-TE1B

The only thing you need to worry about is the point differential between the TEs and the RBs taken in the 1st vs. 6th rounds. It doesn't matter that the first RB taken in the TE early round ir the 2nd RB in the RB early, for our purposes it's the same player, they score the same regardless.

What you need to look at is the difference in the TE you take in the 1st (TE1A) and the TE you can get in the 6th (TE1B) compared to the point differential of the RB you take in the 1st in the 2nd draft (RB1B) and the RB in the 6th from the first draft (RB3A)

If the difference between TEs is greater than the difference in RBs (as the others are all the same player), then going TE early has given you a greater advantage.

Obviously this is an oversimplified example, but is an important piece of looking at the value of each pick.

 

[barackdhouse]

But you only must start 1. You could start RB or WR at the flex spots. 

True. But if constrained to only one or two, my draft strategy would be different much of the time. I like to start two in these TE premium formats, but I don't want to be in a position to have to start three. Fundamentally even elite TEs have lower floors than other elite picks. All other things being equal I'd usually prefer to start just one and fill flexes with RBs and WRs.

 

[CalBear]

he may well be. But you only have 1 TE to start, unlike RB where you usually start 2, or WR where you often start 3, plus o-flex. 

so 1 TE vs 6 roster slots + BYEs.

So to expand on your point, I agree it’s a 1:1.  the TE/QB is a trade-off for the WR/RB (or WR/WR or RB/RB, depending how you draft from there)

But the downstream effect of that is RB2-3 and WR2-3 (or some combo) will also suffer.  Factoring that in, is the advantage from Kelce over Waller still worth it when you’re potentially also losing points at 4 other roster positions for taking Kelce? 

Maybe I’m missing something. It is past my bedtime. lol

No. There's no downstream effect. You're trading points at one roster position for one other roster position. That's all. To illustrate:

Draft 1: 

• 1.12 Kelce TE
  
• 2.01 Mixon RB
  
• 3.12 Kupp WR
  
• 4.01 Conner RB
  
• 5.12 DK Metcalf WR
  

Draft 2: 

• 1.12 Jacobs RB
  
• 2.01 Mixon RB
  
• 3.12 Kupp WR
  
• 4.01 Andrews TE
  
• 5.12 DK Metcalf WR
  

It is wrong to conceptualize this as "losing points at RB1 and RB2". Conner as "my second RB" is projected to score fewer points than Mixon as "my second RB" but you're not swapping Mixon for Conner, you're swapping Jacobs for Kelce and Conner for Andrews. That's the only difference between these two rosters, and the only evaluation criteria that matters is the relative scoring of those players.

 

[barackdhouse]

worst to first and “use it or lose it” (weekly reset) is garbage. No one should ever run waivers like that. i

as I mentioned, I’ll keep mocking with live mocks & pseudo ADP mocks to see what sorts of teams I can get and with what sort of consistency. If I mock 20 times and come up with 1 roster that I like, I probably won’t be inclined to shift, but if I can get to a place where 1/2 of the rosters look decent, it at least gives me an option for my real draft coming up on the 4th.

as @Boston Fred said, the later we go towards the season the more the early rounds seem to tighten up. - the factors of positional rarity often seem to come down to “one man’s trash is another’s treasure”. Personally I don’t mind having a boom or bust, or injury prone WR3. But I wouldn’t want to carry 3 guys like that as my s

I kind of jacked up my quoting of your post here, but major YES to the bolded. That's the idea!

I hate the waivers you mentioned. I've luckily only played in a couple of those. 

Yeah I mean I am in love with the WRs available throughout the 3rd to like 7th round or so. I do tend to avoid guys I think are injury prone but I think some of these guys are miscast as boom/bust. I think McLaurin, Metcalf, Juju, Marquise are all going to be low WR1, high WR2s with weekly overall #1 upside. This ties to the one man's trash is another's treasure thing because this area of the draft is littered with RBs and WRs I love. But that may simply not be the case for you or the next guy. If so, your draft build approach (even not adjusting for risk tolerance) may *need* to be different. 

 

[barackdhouse]

No. There's no downstream effect. You're trading points at one roster position for one other roster position. That's all. To illustrate:

Draft 1: 

• 1.12 Kelce TE
  
• 2.01 Mixon RB
  
• 3.12 Kupp WR
  
• 4.01 Conner RB
  
• 5.12 DK Metcalf WR
  

Draft 2: 

• 1.12 Jacobs RB
  
• 2.01 Mixon RB
  
• 3.12 Kupp WR
  
• 4.01 Andrews TE
  
• 5.12 DK Metcalf WR
  

It is wrong to conceptualize this as "losing points at RB1 and RB2". Conner as "my second RB" is projected to score fewer points than Mixon as "my second RB" but you're not swapping Mixon for Conner, you're swapping Jacobs for Kelce and Conner for Andrews. That's the only difference between these two rosters, and the only evaluation criteria that matters is the relative scoring of those players.

Exactly this.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

No. There's no downstream effect. You're trading points at one roster position for one other roster position. That's all. To illustrate:

Draft 1: 

• 1.12 Kelce TE
  
• 2.01 Mixon RB
  
• 3.12 Kupp WR
  
• 4.01 Conner RB
  
• 5.12 DK Metcalf WR
  

Draft 2: 

• 1.12 Jacobs RB
  
• 2.01 Mixon RB
  
• 3.12 Kupp WR
  
• 4.01 Andrews TE
  
• 5.12 DK Metcalf WR
  

It is wrong to conceptualize this as "losing points at RB1 and RB2". Conner as "my second RB" is projected to score fewer points than Mixon as "my second RB" but you're not swapping Mixon for Conner, you're swapping Jacobs for Kelce and Conner for Andrews. That's the only difference between these two rosters, and the only evaluation criteria that matters is the relative scoring of those players.

I’m not necessarily saying that’s it where you’re losing points. 

the downstream effect I refer to is at WR2-3 and RB3-4, 

those are also needed positions, especially in a flex league. The later you fill those positions, the uglier the options become. More RB than WR, as there are a lot of good WRs, but there’s an impact regardless. 

showing me 5 rounds doesn’t disprove what I’m saying. I don’t argue that those 5 rounds will be good.

go 10 rounds deep and let’s see what the full lineup looks like. Then go 10 rounds worth an 8th round TE like Jarwin or Hurst. it night flesh it out a little more. 

 

[CalBear]

I’m not necessarily saying that’s it where you’re losing points. 

the downstream effect I refer to is at WR2-3 and RB3-4, 

those are also needed positions, especially in a flex league. The later you fill those positions, the uglier the options become. More RB than WR, as there are a lot of good WRs, but there’s an impact regardless. 

showing me 5 rounds doesn’t disprove what I’m saying. I don’t argue that those 5 rounds will be good.

go 10 rounds deep and let’s see what the full lineup looks like. Then go 10 rounds worth an 8th round TE like Jarwin or Hurst. it night flesh it out a little more. 

The rest of the lineup looks exactly the same. 

 

[acarey50]

No. There's no downstream effect. You're trading points at one roster position for one other roster position. That's all. To illustrate:

Draft 1: 

• 1.12 Kelce TE
  
• 2.01 Mixon RB
  
• 3.12 Kupp WR
  
• 4.01 Conner RB
  
• 5.12 DK Metcalf WR
  

Draft 2: 

• 1.12 Jacobs RB
  
• 2.01 Mixon RB
  
• 3.12 Kupp WR
  
• 4.01 Andrews TE
  
• 5.12 DK Metcalf WR
  

It is wrong to conceptualize this as "losing points at RB1 and RB2". Conner as "my second RB" is projected to score fewer points than Mixon as "my second RB" but you're not swapping Mixon for Conner, you're swapping Jacobs for Kelce and Conner for Andrews. That's the only difference between these two rosters, and the only evaluation criteria that matters is the relative scoring of those players.

Said much more concisely and cleanly than I was able to do

 

[davearm]

I’m not necessarily saying that’s it where you’re losing points. 

the downstream effect I refer to is at WR2-3 and RB3-4, 

those are also needed positions, especially in a flex league. The later you fill those positions, the uglier the options become. More RB than WR, as there are a lot of good WRs, but there’s an impact regardless. 

showing me 5 rounds doesn’t disprove what I’m saying. I don’t argue that those 5 rounds will be good.

go 10 rounds deep and let’s see what the full lineup looks like. Then go 10 rounds worth an 8th round TE like Jarwin or Hurst. it night flesh it out a little more. 

When I selected Kittle in the second round, the next WR taken was Chris Godwin.

When I selected CeeDee Lamb in the 8th, the next TE taken was Hayden Hurst.

So is my team better with Kittle and Lamb, or with Godwin and Hurst?  FWIW, Dodds' projections say Kittle and Lamb will be good for 258.1 points (144.7+113.4); Godwin and Hurst 252.3 (165.2+87.1).  I gained more at TE than I gave back at WR.

That's the beginning and the end of the analysis of 2nd rd TE vs 8th rd TE.  There's no other "downstream effect".  The other 16 players on my roster are exactly the same either way.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

The rest of the lineup looks exactly the same. 

How is that possible?

hypothetically, Instead of a RB1 you took a TE in Kelce. So now your RB2 is your RB1 Your RB3 is your RB2, your RB3 is your RB4. The drop-off in talent from a legit RB3 to a RB4 you’re using as a 3 is substantial. 

It’s the same in that you have players in those lineup positions, but there has to be a downstream effect of taking that TE early as compared to the ~8 rounds where you take the TE in the 8th. 

So how much of a drop-off from Kelce to Jarwin is there compared to the 3 RB positions?  I’m not sure what I’m missing here. This isn’t a zero sum equation. Something’s gotta give. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

When I selected Kittle in the second round, the next WR taken was Chris Godwin.

When I selected CeeDee Lamb in the 8th, the next TE taken was Hayden Hurst.

So is my team better with Kittle and Lamb, or with Godwin and Hurst?  FWIW, Dodds' projections say Kittle and Lamb will be good for 258.1 points (144.7+113.4); Godwin and Hurst 252.3 (165.2+87.1).  I gained more at TE than I gave back at WR.

That's the beginning and the end of the analysis of 2nd rd TE vs 8th rd TE.  There's no other "downstream effect".  The other 16 players on my roster are exactly the same either way.

Based on projection you can justify just about anything though. 

no one has a crystal ball. What other WRs were there? Could one of them outscore Godwin? I mean using projection gets pretty deep into the weeds, but I get your point.

i don’t necessarily accept it as gospel that it’s gonna work out that way, but it’s a fair point.  

 

[davearm]

Based on projection you can justify just about anything though. 

no one has a crystal ball. What other WRs were there? Could one of them outscore Godwin? I mean using projection gets pretty deep into the weeds, but I get your point.

i don’t necessarily accept it as gospel that it’s gonna work out that way, but it’s a fair point.  

I was trying to illustrate that your "downstream effect" is a logical fallacy.  The notion that "now your RB2 is your RB1 Your RB3 is your RB2, your RB3 is your RB4" is misguided.

Two positions on your roster are different -- one TE slot, and one WR (or RB) slot.  All the rest are the same.  Evaluate whether or not A+B > C+D.  The end.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

The projections are irrelevant.  I was trying to illustrate that your "downstream effect" is a logical fallacy.  The notion that "now your RB2 is your RB1 Your RB3 is your RB2, your RB3 is your RB4" is misguided.

Two positions on your roster are different -- one TE slot, and one WR (or RB) slot.  All the rest are the same.  Evaluate whether or not A+B > C+D.  The end.

Wait what? How it is a fallacy?

Are there not tiers? Are all running backs equal? 

to me the fallacy is “is A+B > C+D”  -because that’s a false conclusion based on projections for those players. So the fact that your using projections to arrive at those equations seems pretty relevant. 

by taking Kelce at 1.11, for example, you’re now in a position to take either a WR1 or a RB1 at 2.02, no?

ok, so now either your WR1 or your RB1 (depending on who you took 2.02) will be the dude you take at 3.11 instead of 2.02

If the argument is “I can get a WR1 at 3.11 and a RB2 at 4.02 and a WR3 at 5.11” ok, sure - but they potentially won’t be as good as players taken a round earlier at each spot. 

again, maybe I’m just not very smart, but it seems like the real equation has to be

Is A+B+C+D+E+F+G+H better or worse than I+J+K+L+M+N+O+P

because you’re starting all those guys. So if you have a 2 point per week advantage at TE for Kelce, but you’re flex is far more marginal player as a result of taking Kelce, you may lose more than you gain.

how is that a logical fallacy? 

 

[davearm]

Wait what? How it is a fallacy?

Are there not tiers? Are all running backs equal? 

to me the fallacy is “is A+B > C+D”  -because that’s a false conclusion based on projections for those players. So the fact that your using projections to arrive at those equations seems pretty relevant. 

by taking Kelce at 1.11, for example, you’re now in a position to take either a WR1 or a RB1 at 2.02, no?

ok, so now either your WR1 or your RB1 (depending on who you took 2.02) will be the dude you take at 3.11 instead of 2.02

If the argument is “I can get a WR1 at 3.11 and a RB2 at 4.02 and a WR3 at 5.11” ok, sure - but they potentially won’t be as good as players taken a round earlier at each spot. 

again, maybe I’m just not very smart, but it seems like the real equation has to be

Is A+B+C+D+E+F+G+H better or worse than I+J+K+L+M+N+O+P

because you’re starting all those guys. So if you have a 2 point per week advantage at TE for Kelce, but you’re flex is far more marginal player as a result of taking Kelce, you may lose more than you gain.

how is that a logical fallacy? 

It's a logical fallacy because:

B and J are the same player

C and K are the same player

D and L are the same player

E and M are the same player

F and N are the same player

G and O are the same player

Only A, H, I and P are different.  So is A+H > I+P, or is it the other way?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

It's a logical fallacy because:

B and J are the same player

C and K are the same player

D and L are the same player

E and M are the same player

F and N are the same player

G and O are the same player

Only A, H, I and P are different.  So is A+H > I+P, or is it the other way?

I just had a tooth extracted - there’s no way I can read that & process it. I’ll check back when the swelling gies down.    

 

[CalBear]

How is that possible?

hypothetically, Instead of a RB1 you took a TE in Kelce. So now your RB2 is your RB1 Your RB3 is your RB2, your RB3 is your RB4. The drop-off in talent from a legit RB3 to a RB4 you’re using as a 3 is substantial. 

It’s the same in that you have players in those lineup positions, but there has to be a downstream effect of taking that TE early as compared to the ~8 rounds where you take the TE in the 8th. 

So how much of a drop-off from Kelce to Jarwin is there compared to the 3 RB positions?  I’m not sure what I’m missing here. This isn’t a zero sum equation. Something’s gotta give. 

Look at the example I posted. It's the first five rounds. You end up with two RBs, two WRs and a TE in both scenarios. Why would any of that effect your sixth round pick, or any of your others?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Look at the example I posted. It's the first five rounds. You end up with two RBs, two WRs and a TE in both scenarios. Why would any of that effect your sixth round pick, or any of your others?

You’ll pick the same players in those rounds. Correct. No argument. 

But those players will slot into different positions in your lineup, right? .

You don’t just get to keep your WR1 position empty Just because you took Kelce then a RB1, right? 

So you will be relying more on (theoretically) lesser players to fill those lineup positions. 

Now, maybe you say you have a list of super sleepers in every round to make up that gap - but you have to acknowledge there is a gap created by taking the TE in the 1st or second round. 

and depending how it goes, you could end up with an elite TE & a marginal RB 2, and a truly sub-par RB3. Or you end up with a group of WRs like BostonFred posted - high upside, all with significant risk. 

those are all fine ways to play, but you can’t say there’s no impact. Again, maybe it’s the extracted tooth talking here. In my mocks I’ve not yet found the secret sauce to mitigate the impact taking an early round TE has on the rest of my roster. If you see no impact, awesome - this is the strategy for you.  

 

[davearm]

I just had a tooth extracted - there’s no way I can read that & process it. I’ll check back when the swelling gies down.    

It's not complicated man.  You've got the 1.03 right?  Okay so

BPA in the first round is Ezekiel Elliott, so you take him.

In the second round, you're between Kelce and Golladay.  Say you take Kelce.  The next guy takes Golladay.

In the third round, BPA is a RB, so you take him

In the fourth round, BPA is a WR, so you take him

In the fifth round, BPA is a QB, so you take him

In the sixth round, BPA is a RB, so you take him

In the seventh round, BPA is a WR, so you take him

In the eighth round, BPA is a WR, so you take him

After 8 rounds, you've got a QB, 3 RBs, 3 WRs, and a TE.

Now let's rewind back to the second round.  Say instead you take Golladay, and the next guy takes Kelce.

Every round after that, the BPA is the exact same guy.  Nothing else about how the draft unfolds is any different.  You take the same RB in the third, the same WR in the fourth, etc.  Now you roll around to the 8th, and you're like "OK time to take a TE", so you take the best one available.

In the end, 6 of the 8 guys on your roster are the same in either scenario.  Only the 2nd round and 8th round picks are different. 

So evaluate which combination of those two guys is better.  That's it.  No "downstream effect" or whatever.

 

[CalBear]

You’ll pick the same players in those rounds. Correct. No argument. 

But those players will slot into different positions in your lineup, right? .

You don’t just get to keep your WR1 position empty Just because you took Kelce then a RB1, right? 

So you will be relying more on (theoretically) lesser players to fill those lineup positions. 

Now, maybe you say you have a list of super sleepers in every round to make up that gap - but you have to acknowledge there is a gap created by taking the TE in the 1st or second round. 

and depending how it goes l, you could end up with an elite TE & a marginal RB 2, and a truly sub-par RB3. Or you end up with a group of WRs like BostonFred posted - high upside, all with significant risk. 

those are all fine ways to play, but you can’t say there’s no impact. Again, maybe it’s the extracted tooth talking here. In my mocks I’ve not yet found the secret sauce to mitigate the impact taking an early round TE has on the rest of my roster. If you see no impact, awesome - this is the strategy for you.  

I really, really don't see why your sixth round pick would be affected. To the point that I think you're being obtuse.

It is true that if you take a TE in the first and RBs in the second and third, your RBs will be weaker than if you took RBs in the first and second and a TE in the third. And your TE would be stronger. There are no "gaps". The lineup spots are already filled. You can't fill your RB2 spot in the sixth round if you already took a second RB in fourth.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I really, really don't see why your sixth round pick would be affected. To the point that I think you're being obtuse.

if I’m being obtuse it’s because I’m not a smart person, not because I’m deliberately misunderstanding. 

I’m struggling to understand how you aren’t making the connection between the player you’re drafting in the 6th and where he goes in your lineup instead of in the 5th that goes in the same spot in your lineup. 

unless you’re saying it’s because there’s no difference in quality between the two? 

It is true that if you take a TE in the first and RBs in the second and third, your RBs will be weaker than if you took RBs in the first and second and a TE in the third. And your TE would be stronger. There are no "gaps". The lineup spots are already filled. You can't fill your RB2 spot in the sixth round if you already took a second RB in fourth.

So it sounds like you do understand. Except for the fact fact that there is a downstream effect. 

tiers keep on tumbling as you grab those players, no?

Most folks aren’t taking a RB2 in the 6th unless 1. They’re doing zero running back, or 2. they took a TE in the first 4 rounds.

lets say team A goes 

1. RB

2. WR

3. RB

4. WR

5. RB

6. WR

7. QB 

8. Hurst

Team B goes

1. Kelce

2. RB1

3. WR1

4. WR2

5. WR3

6. RB2

7. QB

8. RB3

team A is arguably going to have better quality RB and receivers at every lineup position Including flex after the 3rd round than team B, no?

if not; then I don’t see why players are ranked at all. Just take whoever wherever and hope for the best. But I don’t think anyone believes that. Players are projected where they are for a reason, and consensus ADP has them there for a reason.

sure, you could use post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning to say if you take JTaylor in the 5th and he takes over by week 3, you end up with a RB1 in the 5th round, it all works out.

But we don’t know if that’s how that scenario will unfold. All we know is that you have to hit on later picks to not lose as much ground at other lineup positions as you gained with Kelce. 

Doing my best to have an intellectually honest discussion here - don’t see where accusing me of being obtuse is beneficial. 

 

[acarey50]

@Hot Sauce Guy

Let's take your equation from earlier, but let's tweak it to the scenario we are actually discussing:

A (RB) + B + C + D + E + F + G (TE)   (this is your RB early, pass on a TE scenario)

H (TE) + B + C + D + E + F + I (RB)    (this is your TE early scenario, fill flex with an RB)

The only parts of the equation that change, and thus the only thing that needs to be compared are A + G from scenario 1 and H + I from scenario 2. The other pieces of the roster are all the same. Whichever scenario results in the greater total is the stronger team. And it is the total that matters.

In either scenario, regardless of who you take in the 1st (RB or TE), you are taking the same player in the 2nd, same player in the 3rd, etc. Basically we are saying that, regardless of what you took in the 1st, when your 2nd pick comes up, if you have decided to take a WR, you are taking your top rated WR and that does not change based on your 1st round selection. You having a RB or TE does not change that. Likewise, if instead of WR you have decided to take an RB in the second, regardless of who you took in the 1st, you're taking your highest rated RB.

I think you are somehow massively overcomplicating. I thin it is because you are fixated on comparing the RB1 from each scenario, the RB2 from each scenario and so on when the individual pieces don't matter (and are mostly the same in both scenarios), you need to look at the sum.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I think you are somehow massively overcomplicating. I thin it is because you are fixated on comparing the RB1 from each scenario, the RB2 from each scenario and so on when the individual pieces don't matter (and are mostly the same in both scenarios), you need to look at the sum.

I was told there would be no math. :(  

lol 

I'm probably doing that yes. But I think y'all are also oversimplifying by disregarding the factors that put those lower tiered players to be in the lower tiers to begin with. I think BostonFred highlighted that with his high risk/high reward group of WRs.  In that scenario, you could conceivably take that TE1 in the 1st and end up with the AJ Green/Cooks/Hilton group of WRs and on paper, before any game has been played, your team may well project to a mathematical advantage. 

But that advantage only holds up so long  as the players do. Thus comes the risk. 

When I draft I have several factors in mind, and durability / depth are among them. Fantasy football isn't pure science, I'm afraid. I know mathematicians hate the idea that luck ever comes into play - one I know denies luck even exists. Says it's just predictable factors that resulted in an much less predictable outcome, or something to that effect. Any way you slice it, I don't think anyone would argue that the team you draft today likely isn't going to be the team you have in your starting lineup in week 16, or at various points of the season  (especially when BYEs hit). 

So maybe I am obtuse, but I can't help but look at a team with a lower quality RB2 & a dart-throw RB3, and wonder what happens when that team sustains a RB injury for a month at one of the top 2 spots. I ask myself which of the 2 examples I gave above could better sustain those type of injuries with a winning record. Drafting for contingency doesn't necessarily mean drafting scared - some would say it's drafting smart. Hope for the  best, prepare for the worst. 

Now get back to the hits you take at your lineup positions. And never mind injury, because that's an X-factor & unpredictable. Any player can get hurt any time (though I'm reasonably sure that injury risk is calculated into player projections, which result in higher or lower tier/ADP).  How do those lineups project when you factor in BYE weeks?  Who's your BYE week RB2 in your lineup, and what does that do for your chances to win that week? Depth matters in FF.

My winning-est teams made the playoffs or won the  LCG because they had quality players at RB3, WR3, Flex. I had depth to deal from, or to carry my team over until a star player healed up. Many point to waivers for solutions to those problems - again, in short bench leagues or leagues with less attentive owners, you can get away with that. My leagues you can't. 

I guess I'm not smart enough for an elite TE strategy - I see paper thin rosters and cringe, knowing if I had Cooks, Green & Hilton I'd be lucky to get 16 games combined from them because if I draft injury-risk players, bank on them getting hurt.  But like most FF managers, when I win it's skill, when I lose it's luck. 

 

[Cobbler1]

Just don’t take a TE at all and you can be better all the way through than those silly people taking TEs! Downstream effect!

 

[CalBear]

if I’m being obtuse it’s because I’m not a smart person, not because I’m deliberately misunderstanding. 

I’m struggling to understand how you aren’t making the connection between the player you’re drafting in the 6th and where he goes in your lineup instead of in the 5th that goes in the same spot in your lineup. 

You took five players. They take five spots in your lineup. There are two RBs, two WRs, and one TE. The guy you draft in the 6th goes in the same spot in the lineup no matter which order you drafted the five players ahead of him. 

 

[MAC_32]

I guess I'm not smart enough for an elite TE strategy - I see paper thin rosters and cringe, knowing if I had Cooks, Green & Hilton I'd be lucky to get 16 games combined from them because if I draft injury-risk players, bank on them getting hurt.  But like most FF managers, when I win it's skill, when I lose it's luck. 

I skimmed over a lot of the last few posts because I get the sense you're all kinda talking around each other, but if you don't trust any of the WR's after about 25 or so then an elite TE probably isn't a good idea. And I don't think it's any more complicated than that. Cause unless others convince you're they're not bad ideas then I don't think anything anyone says will lead you to believe otherwise. Sure there's risk in a lot of those WR's going 25-40; that's why they're going after the ones with less risk. But I think a full season out of many of them will yield a similar season to those being drafted in front of them.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Just don’t take a TE at all and you can be better all the way through than those silly people taking TEs! Downstream effect!

Yes, this is good logic and a helpful addition to this discussion since no one at all suggested anything like this. 

 

[acarey50]

How do you approach it if you took a WR in the first? Do you have these same concerns about who you take in the 6th round?

It is really irrelevant what position you are talking about, whether you go RB, WR , TE or QB in the first. There is always a trade off. Same goes for whatever position you take in the 2nd. And so on down.

This is just the basic concept of value based drafting. When it is your turn to pick, take the player with the highest value on your board. Move on to the next round. Rinse and repeat.

 

[barackdhouse]

Based on projection you can justify just about anything though. 

no one has a crystal ball. What other WRs were there? Could one of them outscore Godwin? I mean using projection gets pretty deep into the weeds, but I get your point.

i don’t necessarily accept it as gospel that it’s gonna work out that way, but it’s a fair point.  

Well yeah exactly. You know which side of this I'm on but in this weedy example I think Godwin Hurst destroys Kittle Lamb. But *my guy* would be Slayton not Lamb. So I agree you can use projections to justify a lot of things, but may as well go with your own I say. 

 

[barackdhouse]

Look at the example I posted. It's the first five rounds. You end up with two RBs, two WRs and a TE in both scenarios. Why would any of that effect your sixth round pick, or any of your others?

Once more....exactly this.

 

[barackdhouse]

Hey @Hot Sauce Guy good stuff. It's hard to be at the center of a pile-on and you're doing good!

You mentioned Cooks, Hilton and AJ Green. Yeah #### that kind of makes me want to puke. I'd be running for the hills if I thought those were my only options.

In all seriousness, there have got to be some WRs in that range we've been talking about that you would feel comfortable starting, no? Would you be willing to PM a couple names? 4th to 9th rounders. 

I'd like to reiterate simply that I absolutely agree with you on the very basic premise that there are trade offs involved. And I'd like to also emphasize that I don't employ this method super often. 

 

[barackdhouse]

In an FPC draft I did a couple days ago where I DIDN'T EVEN INTEND TO TAKE AN EARLY TE OR QB!!! Because despite my last post I *have* done a few of those builds. So I actually really set out not to do that this time. But Kittle fell and so did Jackson. From the 8.

Lamar, Minshew

Henry, Mostert, Love, Gibson, Boston, Vaughn, Evans, Darrel Williams

Juju, Slayton, Unicorn, Pittman, Edwards, MVS

Kittle, Hurst

Bucs D and Butker

ETA point of reference this is TE premium. Really really really wanted Dobbins after the 5/6 turn but took Mostert at 5. Also had Marquise at the top of my board but he went too. There were some good WR2s (in my lineup) available there but I had Hurst ranked higher so took him in the 6th. He will be a weekly flex starter. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Hey @Hot Sauce Guy good stuff. It's hard to be at the center of a pile-on and you're doing good!

it is what it is. Sometimes I align with the crowd, sometimes I don’t. I’m still not convinced one way or another here, but I refuse to accept the premise that there’s no trade-off to depth or quality by taking a TE in the 1-2 rounds. 

that seems preposterous. It’s the same logic employed by FF managers for years advocating the QB freefall (which I happened to be on the cutting edge of way back in the day) - while others reach for QBs, you can take one in the 8-9-10 rounds without much drop off if you identify ones that will be almost as valuable as the early guys. 

And if you’re stacking up on quality options at WR & RB, you gain an advantage over your opponents in quality & depth at those position.

now sub in “TE” for “QB” and it’s not a whole lot different in terms of philosophy.

You mentioned Cooks, Hilton and AJ Green. Yeah #### that kind of makes me want to puke. I'd be running for the hills if I thought those were my only options.

lol - same. But again, one man’s trash. I get it. And some might take those guys in particular because of the upside & faith they’ve done it before. It won’t be me - I’d be happy to have Cooks or Hilton as a WR3, but as a WR1? Or having more than 1 of them? So much nope. 

In all seriousness, there have got to be some WRs in that range we've been talking about that you would feel comfortable starting, no? Would you be willing to PM a couple names? 4th to 9th rounders. 

no need to PM. Were I to try this my targets would be guys I think are undervalued like Sutton, Paris Campbell, Manny Sanders, Pittman, Scary Terry, Chark, Boyd, Dionte Johnson (if healthy), Ayuk, Lazard. 

I’m far more concerned with depth and quality of RB for this topic though. 

I'd like to reiterate simply that I absolutely agree with you on the very basic premise that there are trade offs

Glad to hear it - I felt like I was taking crazy pills. 
/Zoolander

lol

One other aspect of Elite TE that bothers me is the same as taking a QB early. I hate the feeling of being behind the 8-ball all draft. I want to be as flexible as possible while drafting. (Figuratively - I’m not doing hot yoga). When I let the draft come to me I can grab whatever values fall.  If I take a TE in the 1st round, my choices become more driven by what I need than BPA. I might take a Hunt over a WR I see as as having higher upside, because I’m desperate for a RB2, and he’s the last before what I see as a sizable drop-off. 

that’s just an example, but the one year I took Peyton Manning in the early 2nd (we had crazy QB bonuses) I felt so much stress all draft because if this. I never got into a flow & I felt like I was chasing runs rather than cherry-picking value.  I ended up ok - decent team, made the playoffs, lost in the 1st round. Definitely not one of my better teams. The next year it dawned on me that it wasn’t the “Peyton Manning” bonus, all QBs got them. So what I really needed to do was target QBs who were capable of hitting those metrics from a lower draft position. Once that clicked I drafted much better teams in that league. 

similarly, if I can get 85% of Kelce by taking Jarwin & Hooper (or whatever later combo) then why should I kill myself to take one of those top 5 guys. Let other managers make those choices. 

so big-picture, any strategy that makes a draft feel like more work is one I’ll usually avoid.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

This is just the basic concept of value based drafting. When it is your turn to pick, take the player with the highest value on your board. Move on to the next round. Rinse and repeat.

As a decades long FBB guy, believe me I’m familiar with VBD concepts.

I’ve tried to draft purely on VBD, and it’s kind of a mess. In my opinion, you have to approach a draft with a strategy in mind. You can adapt to the flow of the draft, but VBD doesn’t really address positional scarcity. Some years (like 2020) WR Is deep. Some years (not as often) RB is deep. 

So yeah - the trade-offs are there taking a WR/WB or RB/RB or WR/RB or RB/WR approach too - but they aren’t as impactful unless you completely misread the availability of players at those positions. 

no strategy exists in a vacuum. 

if I were to try an elite TE / Kelce in the 1st strategy I’d probably have to take RBs with my next 3 picks. Then I would hope I can hit some targets to give me 3x WR2-3 caliber players after that.

and then I’d spend the season finding out if the advantage a Kelce gives me is worth the points I lose by having mediocre WRs, compared to taking elite RB/WR early and waiting on a TE. 

Honestly most of this is probably just me arguing against snake drafting & for auction-based where the question is re-framed as “how much of your $500 budget would you spend on Kelce?” - but the difference is in that format the values are generated by league consensus each round, not by a list that experts agreed is the correct ADP based on projections which may or may not be accurate. In snake format there are players that will simply never be available to you at a fair “price” where in auction, every player is a fair price because they sell for what the market demands. 

but I digest; as Oswald Bates says on In Living Color. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Lamar, Minshew

Henry, Mostert, Love, Gibson, Boston, Vaughn, Evans, Darrel Williams

Juju, Slayton, Unicorn, Pittman, Edwards, MVS

Kittle, Hurst

Bucs D and Butker

this is a good team. Best I’ve seen with TE premium format.

You’re obviously thin at RB, which could bite you during BYEs or injury. As a Niner fan I’m not sure what to make of Mostert. They did just pay McKinnon, and Coleman will have a role. Mostert will contribute - just not sure how consistently. It’s a committee for sure. I’d like him more as a RB3 than an RB2. 

You’ll need to hit on one of the backup RBs and at least 1 WR behind Juju to make it really work, but it is a competitive team. 

i’m not saying I’d never draft a team like that. I’m saying I’ve had better luck not taking as many chances with maybe type players. i don’t want to seem unreasonable.

what would seem unreasonable is anyone pointing to your team and pretending there aren’t depth/quality weaknesses resulting from the QB/TE picks. They seem obvious to me, but then, I didn’t bust out my slide rule to calculate based on projections.

 

[barackdhouse]

@Hot Sauce Guy one glaring point about regular PPR as opposed to TE premium, is that the upside is just huge with these guys with 1.5 PPR. And even their floor is much more respectable. But in straight PPR just not so much. 

What RBs do you like between 3rd and 8th? 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

What RBs do you like between 3rd and 8th? 

Not many. lol

Conner - kinda. Also kinda terrified of him, especially with coaches talking up “New look” Snell.

Carson - kinda. Hard to trust Carroll, and unsure when Penny will come back & whether that will derail a good season. I’m not worried about Hyde. 

100% out on Bell. Make that 10000%

David Johnson - slowly warning to him.

Ronald Jones - been driving this train for a while now around here, ain’t about to stop now. 

Kareem Hunt - I drove his bandwagon in KC & that wasn’t a bad season. He’s more a 1B to Chubb than a backup & could have 50-60 receptions. He’s one of my favorite targets.

Mostert - see above. 

Ingram - as long as he’s healthy, he should have about the same production as last year. ~200 carries, some GL work. Good not great RB3.

with Monty news I like Cohen more than I did, but not man-crush-level.

Still in on Singletary but news hasn’t been awesome. Fumbles, Moss coming on strong.

Moss - can get him way later than Singletary for possibly similar production. 

Duke Johnson, but later than most. There’s talk of 2 RB backfields to keep defenses honest. More time on the field could mean more opportunity or more frustration for FF owners if he’s not actually used. 

Chase Edmonds because I don’t trust Drake to stay vertical. 

couple other dudes, but they’re all plug & pray types. No one I would want to depend on. More 4th-5th RB types that I’d hope could give me BYE value. Backups & rookies who could blow up given opportunity. I like taking those guys, but not usually before I fill my starting lineup. 

 

[Cobbler1]

Yes, this is good logic and a helpful addition to this discussion since no one at all suggested anything like this. 

I was being a bit hyperbolic/facetious/a d*ck to highlight the point. I apologize for the latter. People are making great and accurate arguments but it’s not resonating with you. It happens. I will attempt to make it in a slightly different way (I think it’s different I haven’t read every single post). Observe these 2 drafts:

Rb.      Rb

Te       Rb

Rb       Rb

Rb.      Wr

Wr       Wr

Wr      Te

When you slot them in your lineup you can see that the right team took their Rb2, Rb3, Wr1, Wr2 a round before the left team. And the left team’s only lineup slot drafted earlier was at TE. I think you are calling that 4 advantages compared to 1 in your trickle down argument and saying 4>1. But this doesn’t properly address the fact that the 4 advantages the right team has are only a round earlier while the left team took a TE 4 rounds before the right team. It’s a much more sizable advantage. 4 1 round advantages versus 1 4 round advantage. It’s all how you value the players. Same as it ever has been. If you can find a Te in the 6th who performs like a 4th you can make up some of that gap if you’re the team on the right. Same if your 4th round Rb performs like a 2nd rounder that will make up some of the gap at that position if you’re the team at the left.

I think you make a good point that if you do take a QB or TE early in a start 1 league, you are losing some positional flexibility in your draft and are less able to take advantage of someone you like a lot falling. You could take Kelce early round 2 and then if Andrews drops to late round 5 you’d want to grab that value but if you can only play 1 you’d be at the mercy of your league’s willingness to trade. 

 

[acarey50]

I’ve tried to draft purely on VBD, and it’s kind of a mess. In my opinion, you have to approach a draft with a strategy in mind. You can adapt to the flow of the draft, but VBD doesn’t really address positional scarcity. Some years (like 2020) WR Is deep. Some years (not as often) RB is deep. 

Actually, that's exactly what VBD does do. If your projections have WR being especially deep with a lot of players with similar projections, then the WRs as a whole will be less valuable because there are more replacement level players available. If your projections have RB being especially deep, then it will show that there is less of a value drop in waiting on RB, and you should load up on another position earlier.

It is exactly because it factors in positional scarcity that in most league setups, it is especially valuable to wait on QB. The drop off is just not that great - Mahomes in the 2nd vs. Ryan in the 7th is much less of a drop off than taking say Hopkins in the 2nd compared to taking Boyd in the 7th (in a simplified vacuum where we assume all your other picks are the same regardless of who you take in the 2nd). As you said in an earlier post, you generally wait on QB, so I know this is not a new concept.

It is also the exact same concept others are saying regarding the TE spot - You only need to look at the comparison of say a Kelce in the 2nd compared to a Hunter Henry in the 7th (compared to the difference of Hopkins and Boyd) If your projections have Kelce outscoring the TE you would get in the 7th (Henry for our example)  by more than Hopkins would outscore Boyd, then taking Hopkins in this example is a mistake based on value (again, based on the premise that the rest of our roster was built the exact same).  Now, if your projections told you that Hopkins would outscore Boyd by a greater margin that Kelce will outscore Henry, then of course you take Hopkins.

 

[BassNBrew]

Here you good @Hot Sauce Guy

1/1/2/1/2 flex 12 team

QB Wentz

RB Gurley and Gordon

WR Thomas and J. Jones and Cooks

TE  Andrews

Bench - R Jones and Gronk

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Here you good @Hot Sauce Guy

1/1/2/1/2 flex 12 team

QB Wentz

RB Gurley and Gordon

WR Thomas and J. Jones and Cooks

TE  Andrews

Bench - R Jones and Gronk

Is it a mock? A real draft? What’s the scoring?  Are you comfortable with Gurley/Gordon?

Love the WRs at least.