Logic of Gronk #1? Luck#1? (1 Viewer)

[pizzatyme]

IMO, this really boils down to whether you prescribe to Value-Based Drafting or not. If you do, Gronk provides a gigantic VBD. No one else is close.

Luck in redraft in the 1st round is about risk tolerance. I wouldn't personally do it, but he's safe to play the full year and produce at the top of his position.

Luck in Dyno in the 1st is a no-brainer to me. 10-12 more years of plug and play performance as your QB. No one else provides that.

 

[Hawkeye21]

What everyone should do is hop on FFC and do a few mocks where you take shrink first and see how you like the rest of your team.

I've done around 6 mocks where I took Gronk and I was never all that happy with my overall team. I was much happier taking Olson or Kelce in the 4th if they were available.

Why do you like your team better? Probably because you're undervaluing Gronk's points relative to Olson or Kelce. Gronk scored 3 points per game more than Olsen, almost 5 points per game more than Kelce in 2014.

I just like my strength at all positions more. When I picked Gronk I had very obvious flaws at either RB or WR. I'm not the only person who feels this way.

I'm not arguing that Gronk isn't way above the other TEs either. I'm just not sure he makes my team better as a whole.

Fantasy football isn't won by feeling good about your lineup. It's won by scoring points, and it's highly unlikely you can replace the 3-5 points per game advantage Gronk gives you over Olsen and Kelce with the RBs and WRs available beyond the first four picks.

Of course if you take a TE first your other positions won't be as good. And if you take a RB or WR first your TE position won't be as good. That's why you examine relative positional value rather than winging it.

So no matter what position you are drafting from in the first round, you are going to pick Gronk in the first round?

 

[CalBear]

What everyone should do is hop on FFC and do a few mocks where you take shrink first and see how you like the rest of your team.

I've done around 6 mocks where I took Gronk and I was never all that happy with my overall team. I was much happier taking Olson or Kelce in the 4th if they were available.

Why do you like your team better? Probably because you're undervaluing Gronk's points relative to Olson or Kelce. Gronk scored 3 points per game more than Olsen, almost 5 points per game more than Kelce in 2014.

I just like my strength at all positions more. When I picked Gronk I had very obvious flaws at either RB or WR. I'm not the only person who feels this way.

I'm not arguing that Gronk isn't way above the other TEs either. I'm just not sure he makes my team better as a whole.

Fantasy football isn't won by feeling good about your lineup. It's won by scoring points, and it's highly unlikely you can replace the 3-5 points per game advantage Gronk gives you over Olsen and Kelce with the RBs and WRs available beyond the first four picks.

Of course if you take a TE first your other positions won't be as good. And if you take a RB or WR first your TE position won't be as good. That's why you examine relative positional value rather than winging it.

So no matter what position you are drafting from in the first round, you are going to pick Gronk in the first round?

No matter what position I'm drafting from in the first round, I'm going to consider the relative value of the players available there, regardless of position. 16 games of Gronk would be pretty clearly worth the #1 pick this year. You have to discount that by injury risk, but then, there aren't a lot of sure-fire players at the top of the draft this year at any position.

 

[Warrior]

IMO, this really boils down to whether you prescribe to Value-Based Drafting or not. If you do, Gronk provides a gigantic VBD. No one else is close.

I disagree and would love for you to show your work.

I think the difference between Gronk and TE12 is very close to the difference between Lacy and RB #30, or the top WR and WR#42. This is assuming you're running a 1TE, 2 RB, 3 WR, Flex (assuming about half the managers use Rb in their flex and half use WR).

"No one else is close" is simply false. It's very similar.

 

[Warrior]

What everyone should do is hop on FFC and do a few mocks where you take shrink first and see how you like the rest of your team.

I've done around 6 mocks where I took Gronk and I was never all that happy with my overall team. I was much happier taking Olson or Kelce in the 4th if they were available.

Why do you like your team better? Probably because you're undervaluing Gronk's points relative to Olson or Kelce. Gronk scored 3 points per game more than Olsen, almost 5 points per game more than Kelce in 2014.

I just like my strength at all positions more. When I picked Gronk I had very obvious flaws at either RB or WR. I'm not the only person who feels this way.

I'm not arguing that Gronk isn't way above the other TEs either. I'm just not sure he makes my team better as a whole.

Fantasy football isn't won by feeling good about your lineup. It's won by scoring points, and it's highly unlikely you can replace the 3-5 points per game advantage Gronk gives you over Olsen and Kelce with the RBs and WRs available beyond the first four picks.

Of course if you take a TE first your other positions won't be as good. And if you take a RB or WR first your TE position won't be as good. That's why you examine relative positional value rather than winging it.

So no matter what position you are drafting from in the first round, you are going to pick Gronk in the first round?

16 games of Gronk would be pretty clearly worth the #1 pick this year.

16 games of Charles, Lacy, Peterson, Bell, Beckham, Calvin, AJ Green, Julio, or many other players would CLEARLY be worth the #1 pick this year, so I'm not sure what your point is or how it leads you to believe Gronk should be taken #1. You can't guarantee that only one certain player gets to 16 games in your hypothetical scenario, that's just silly.

 

[jurb26]

IMO, this really boils down to whether you prescribe to Value-Based Drafting or not. If you do, Gronk provides a gigantic VBD. No one else is close.

I disagree and would love for you to show your work.

I think the difference between Gronk and TE12 is very close to the difference between Lacy and RB #30, or the top WR and WR#42. This is assuming you're running a 1TE, 2 RB, 3 WR, Flex (assuming about half the managers use Rb in their flex and half use WR).

"No one else is close" is simply false. It's very similar.

Looking pretty quickly at a few of my leagues from last year, Gonk vs. TE12 wasn't as big a drop as RB1 vs RB24.

 

[pizzatyme]

IMO, this really boils down to whether you prescribe to Value-Based Drafting or not. If you do, Gronk provides a gigantic VBD. No one else is close.

I disagree and would love for you to show your work.

I think the difference between Gronk and TE12 is very close to the difference between Lacy and RB #30, or the top WR and WR#42. This is assuming you're running a 1TE, 2 RB, 3 WR, Flex (assuming about half the managers use Rb in their flex and half use WR).

"No one else is close" is simply false. It's very similar.

I should have stated that I play almost exclusively in TE premium leagues.

 

[toxic]

Unless we start by stipulating a specific league set-up and scoring system, this is one of those debates where folks talk by each other given how much VBD is influenced by set-up. I generally start by getting a rough approximation of opportunity cost based on ADP to assess how comfortable I am deviating from consensus. One example: Say you were picking in the middle of the first in a PPR league and you were debating whether to take Gronk or a stud WR. If you take a stud WR, your plan is to target Kelce/Olsen in the 4th. On the flip side, if you take Gronk in the first, you might then take the best available WR in the 4th. Your picks in the 2nd and 3rd stay constant in this hypothetical. Now, I realize that the draft is more dynamic than the above hypothetical and that perhaps one's personal preferences are different. But this helps me make an initial assessment. Based on current projections, here is what those two options provide in expected value:

Round 1 Stud WR + Round 4 TE (Kelce/Olsen): ~300 + ~205 = ~505

Round 1 Gronk + Round 4 WR (Matthews/Allen/Tate/AJ): ~280 + ~220 = ~500

Given the level of uncertainty in these estimates, these expected values are a statistical wash (this may not be the case if your personal projections differ substantially from the above). IMO, it ends up coming down to a bunch of subjective assessments: How much weight do you give to injury risk? How optimistic are you that your choice of 4th round WR will outperform expected value? What do you "like" better--Julio and Kelce or Matthews and Gronk?

Post hoc, one choice will clearly be better. A-priori, it seems likes a wash to me.

 

[Football Menace]

Unless we start by stipulating a specific league set-up and scoring system, this is one of those debates where folks talk by each other given how much VBD is influenced by set-up. I generally start by getting a rough approximation of opportunity cost based on ADP to assess how comfortable I am deviating from consensus. One example: Say you were picking in the middle of the first in a PPR league and you were debating whether to take Gronk or a stud WR. If you take a stud WR, your plan is to target Kelce/Olsen in the 4th. On the flip side, if you take Gronk in the first, you might then take the best available WR in the 4th. Your picks in the 2nd and 3rd stay constant in this hypothetical. Now, I realize that the draft is more dynamic than the above hypothetical and that perhaps one's personal preferences are different. But this helps me make an initial assessment. Based on current projections, here is what those two options provide in expected value:

Round 1 Stud WR + Round 4 TE (Kelce/Olsen): ~300 + ~205 = ~505

Round 1 Gronk + Round 4 WR (Matthews/Allen/Tate/AJ): ~280 + ~220 = ~500

Given the level of uncertainty in these estimates, these expected values are a statistical wash (this may not be the case if your personal projections differ substantially from the above). IMO, it ends up coming down to a bunch of subjective assessments: How much weight do you give to injury risk? How optimistic are you that your choice of 4th round WR will outperform expected value? What do you "like" better--Julio and Kelce or Matthews and Gronk?

Post hoc, one choice will clearly be better. A-priori, it seems likes a wash to me.

For discussion purposes: Standard PPR, 100yd bonus, mandatory start 1 TE league.

 

[CalBear]

16 games of Charles, Lacy, Peterson, Bell, Beckham, Calvin, AJ Green, Julio, or many other players would CLEARLY be worth the #1 pick this year, so I'm not sure what your point is or how it leads you to believe Gronk should be taken #1. You can't guarantee that only one certain player gets to 16 games in your hypothetical scenario, that's just silly.

No, 16 games of those players would not necessarily be worth the #1 pick. The only downside on Gronkowski is his injury risk; his ability to outscore his peers and his consistency when he's healthy is well above anyone else in fantasy football.

Case in point, Eddy Lacy. He played in 16 games, basically uninjured last year, and finished sixth at his position. That's not worth the #1 pick.

In the past four years, Gronkowski has averaged just over 13 fantasy points per game. That's not only seven points per game more than the #12 TE, it's more points per game than any WR except Calvin Johnson (14.6). He's scoring more raw points than almost any receiver, at a position that scores a lot less than WR.

 

[stlrams]

No way I draft Gronk that high based on injury history alone..... For me your 1st round pick has to produce and should not be a gamble pick.

you mean like Adrian Peterson, McCoy, Calvin, Jimmy Graham last year? Half of the 1st rounders flame out for one reason or another every year. You can't predict injuries and when healthy Gronk scores at a never before seen pace.

I'm not predicting an injury but using Gronk past injury problems as an indicator. Personally I'd rather take my first round player with a relatively clean injury history. Peterson and Mccoy didn't have injuries.

 

[Freelove]

Gronk has had a multitude of frightening and often recurring injuries, some in spots that always bode ill for long term football participation. He's had both lower back and neck issues and surgeries, ACL reconstruction, and of course numerous surgeries to try to repair the nine-car pileup that used to be his forearm. Those things alone ought to disqualify him from the #1 for any sane drafter, but there's more to consider. He's carrying all this injury baggage into games where he plays a high-impact style at a high-impact position while carrying a massive bodyweight. He's aging, which isn't so much about his age as his mileage. And he's potentially without the guy who buoyed him to the top of his profession to start the year; possibly for as much as a quarter of the season. And all that would be awful enough if there weren't a history of those things knocking a younger, fitter, more resilient Gronk out of the lineup so often -- but this isn't a guy that's steered clear of the DL. Do we really trust older, wobblier Gronk to do so?

I won't dwell on this any further, since there is clearly a case to be made for the guy from a pure value standpoint. But to buy into it, you'd have to believe hook, line, and sinker into the (to me) laughable idea that "you don't predict injuries." You predict EVERYTHING in this hobby, from health, to scheme, to chemistry, to strength of schedule, to production. I urge people not to go into a season of this info-based game voluntarily playing from an info-deficit.

But if you want to roll the dice on 16 healthy games and no Brady suspension issues...

I think there are about 6-8 guys you can make a good case for taking #1 overall. I just don't happen to see Gronk's case as all that good.

 

[ghostguy123]

IMO, this really boils down to whether you prescribe to Value-Based Drafting or not. If you do, Gronk provides a gigantic VBD. No one else is close.

I disagree and would love for you to show your work.

I think the difference between Gronk and TE12 is very close to the difference between Lacy and RB #30, or the top WR and WR#42. This is assuming you're running a 1TE, 2 RB, 3 WR, Flex (assuming about half the managers use Rb in their flex and half use WR).

"No one else is close" is simply false. It's very similar.

Even if it is similar, RB scoring is so volatile that I will take the much more sure thing of Gronk balling out. The top end RBs falter and no name RBs come out of nowhere far more often than the other positions from year to year.

Gronk is not only a great advantage at TE, but also a very safe play even given his injury history. He was a huge advantage at TE this year for teams and was coming off a major injury with obvious limitations for much of the year.

 

[stlrams]

Gronk has had a multitude of frightening and often recurring injuries, some in spots that always bode ill for long term football participation. He's had both lower back and neck issues and surgeries, ACL reconstruction, and of course numerous surgeries to try to repair the nine-car pileup that used to be his forearm. Those things alone ought to disqualify him from the #1 for any sane drafter, but there's more to consider. He's carrying all this injury baggage into games where he plays a high-impact style at a high-impact position while carrying a massive bodyweight. He's aging, which isn't so much about his age as his mileage. And he's potentially without the guy who buoyed him to the top of his profession to start the year; possibly for as much as a quarter of the season. And all that would be awful enough if there weren't a history of those things knocking a younger, fitter, more resilient Gronk out of the lineup so often -- but this isn't a guy that's steered clear of the DL. Do we really trust older, wobblier Gronk to do so?

I won't dwell on this any further, since there is clearly a case to be made for the guy from a pure value standpoint. But to buy into it, you'd have to believe hook, line, and sinker into the (to me) laughable idea that "you don't predict injuries." You predict EVERYTHING in this hobby, from health, to scheme, to chemistry, to strength of schedule, to production. I urge people not to go into a season of this info-based game voluntarily playing from an info-deficit.

But if you want to roll the dice on 16 healthy games and no Brady suspension issues...

I think there are about 6-8 guys you can make a good case for taking #1 overall. I just don't happen to see Gronk's case as all that good.

Well said. VBD is just a statical tool and there's a multitude of variables that you must take into account i.e. past injuries, injury potential etc

 

[(HULK)]

IMO, this really boils down to whether you prescribe to Value-Based Drafting or not. If you do, Gronk provides a gigantic VBD. No one else is close.

I disagree and would love for you to show your work.

I think the difference between Gronk and TE12 is very close to the difference between Lacy and RB #30, or the top WR and WR#42. This is assuming you're running a 1TE, 2 RB, 3 WR, Flex (assuming about half the managers use Rb in their flex and half use WR).

"No one else is close" is simply false. It's very similar.

Looking pretty quickly at a few of my leagues from last year, Gonk vs. TE12 wasn't as big a drop as RB1 vs RB24.

This year isn't last year.

Gronk fully healthy to start the season this time. I expect him to have the highest VBD of all players this year.

 

[CalBear]

Well said. VBD is just a statical tool and there's a multitude of variables that you must take into account i.e. past injuries, injury potential etc

Yes, that's true. The original question is what the logic of taking Gronk #1 overall is, and the answer is that he may provide the most projected VBD. Yes he seems like a greater injury risk than average, but that's a different discussion than "I took him in a mock and I didn't like my RBs and WRs" or "I'd rather take Kelce in the fourth" as if Kelce is at all comparable to Gronk.

 

[BearMace]

Bump.

I have first pick in my 12-team, non-ppr league. Passing TDs are worth 6pts.

Given the extra value of passing touchdowns, I'm seriously considering taking Luck 1st overall. I also haven't ruled out going with Gronk.

Below is a link to a screenshot of my DraftDominator VBD window with our scoring input and the latest projections. What's everyone's latest thinking on this? Thanks.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/sarUXoni9tU5rQK90C-QKK4-2hPnMgr1LpfbWuy8mQtr6e7s3RRn2_dRrS90MUVGDizOaICuWA6vucI=w2560-h1162-rw


edit: sorry if this is on the wrong board. I just saw that there was already a lot of discussion about this here.

 

[rickyg]

i just can't see how people are taking gronk in the first round let alone #1 overall. Has everyone forgotten that he won't have Brady for the first 4 games of the season? Who knows what his production will be like with garappalo or whatever his name is. Lol

Once Brady comes back I agree he'll be the bet TE but I don't know if it will be "by far" the way some of the experts are saying. Guys like graham and Travis kelce, Olsen will possibly close the gap this year.

Luck is awesome but when you can get guys like Eli and Bradford in the 10th round who have oodles of upside this year....why waste a 1st rd pick on a Qb? Or even a 2nd or 3rd? Qb is so deep this year.

Elite Wrs are not deep. Esp after jordy and Benjamin went down. And elite RBS too.

You've got brown, dez, demaryous, odb, Calvin, Julio...if you can secure one of those Wrs that's pretty good.

Then you've got Peterson, Charles, bell, lacy, hill, Cj Anderson. After those guys RB gets dicey with lots of question marks. You want to secure one or 2 of these guys if possible in first 2 rounds

You'll be happy you did.

 

[Gottabesweet]

I know this is for pick 1.1 but I'm leaning Gronk at 1.7 in a QRWTFFKD 4 BENCH (12 TEAM ppr league 6 per TD)

If Luck is there at 7 - it's going to be a hard choice between the two.

 

[LittlePhatty]

i just can't see how people are taking gronk in the first round let alone #1 overall. Has everyone forgotten that he won't have Brady for the first 4 games of the season? Who knows what his production will be like with garappalo or whatever his name is. Lol

"lol" indeed.

I don't need him to be studly in the first 4 games, just the last 3.

And for what it's worth, I think just about any backup in the league would be able to hit Gronk in the red zone, Garoppolo included.

 

[Deranged Hermit]

I posted this in another Gronk thread, but I see Gronk as a pretty polarizing player. I one draft I did this past Saturday I snagged him at 2.8. After I took him, every person ahead of me agreed he was a steal, but said they just couldn't pull the trigger on a TE.

In my auction we had two people who had no problem bidding him up and he ended up going a nice chunk of change.

In my last draft this past Tuesday, he went in the mid-first round.

To answer the OP's question though, I wouldn't consider either player at 1.1. I would start to look at them around the swing pick.

 

[rdog5]

I have 1.3 in my upcoming draft and thinking of going Gronk. We are 1 rb/wr and the rest flexed with TE getting ppr. Changing my mind daily on whether to go there or not but outside AP I think he is next best in that format.

 

[mquinnjr]

I posted this in another Gronk thread, but I see Gronk as a pretty polarizing player. I one draft I did this past Saturday I snagged him at 2.8. After I took him, every person ahead of me agreed he was a steal, but said they just couldn't pull the trigger on a TE.

In my auction we had two people who had no problem bidding him up and he ended up going a nice chunk of change.

In my last draft this past Tuesday, he went in the mid-first round.

To answer the OP's question though, I wouldn't consider either player at 1.1. I would start to look at them around the swing pick.

How about now with Brady missing 0 games? Feel like I stole him in the middle first round of drafts