My league is eliminating the TE position from the starting lineup (1 Viewer)

[Rounders]

My league is moving very close to eliminating the TE position from the starting lineup requirement. The prevailing argument is that there are only a handful of good ones to draft and the rest is a crap shoot. Counter arguement is to draft a good one as a strategy to get a leg up.

I'm in favor of keeping the TE, so I'm asking the FBG community to help me out with some good points on why a TE should be part of the starting lineup.

PS- We already have a modified scoring for the TE to give them bonuses for catches and less yards

WR - 1 point per 10 yards + 1 point per catch starting with 5th in a game

TE - 1 point per 10 yards + 1 point starting with 3rd in a game

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

Just eliminate the mandatory TE spot and add a flex WR/TE spot.

 

[scrumptrulescent]

Just eliminate the mandatory TE spot and add a flex WR/TE spot.

This is what we do. Forcing a TE when there are only 3 that're worth a crap doesn't make sense to me.

 

[vikingdave]

No, it makes things a little tougher...take a TE early or wait and get depth elsewhere and hope to get a solid TE later...

Just cause there are 3 stud TEs doesnt mean thats all their are...

 

[rock753]

Just eliminate the mandatory TE spot and add a flex WR/TE spot.

This is what we do. Forcing a TE when there are only 3 that're worth a crap doesn't make sense to me.

Everything is relative. There are 3 studs, and handful of good ones and a bunch of mediocore ones. Value is based towards what the average at the position scores. Taking away the TE takes away stradegy. Making it a flex spot takes all value away from the elite TE's.

 

[Da Guru]

Play the TE and a flex, the more guys to watch and cheer on the better.

 

[King of the Wolfies]

reg'd TE adds alot of strategy to the draft. I wouldnt be in a league w/o the TE.

 

[gorf]

is it a dynasty league? or keeper league with enough keepers that TEs would be kept? if so, there's a strong argument that it isn't fair to owners with good TEs who have presumably traded away other players to get them.

 

[DropKick]

I've heard the argument before about there only being a few top TEs, a few good ones, etc.

But isn't the same thing true of other positions? There were years when teams with Priest Holmes or Marshall Faulk had an advantage... so what?

A mistake to eliminate a position and a potential strategy angle.

Hey, you COULD have the first kicker only league!

 

[Lowen1]

My league has no mandatory TE, but if you want, you can start 3 of em.

In addition to QB/DEF/K, we start 1RB, 2WR, 0TE and 3FLEX - where flex can be RB, WR or TE.

For much of this season, I started Witten and Dallas Clark. My receivers didn't pan out, so I went with the TE strategy.

I like the idea of not having to start a TE, but also having the option to grab more than 1 of the stud TE.

Oh - scoring is 1.25ppr for TE and .5ppr for WR & RB. So there is definite value at TE.

 

[facook]

Like others, our league combines TEs into the WR category - start 3 WR/TE and add value to the TE. We do it by upping the value of TE tds.

Our TD values are based on length of score: 6 points, 9 points, or 12 points. TEs, however, have those values bumped to 9, 12, and 15. So even a decent TE can be a solid starter compared to many #3 WRs, and the great TE is a #1 receiver. Gonzo this year was huge, Dallas Clark and Witten last year, Gates for a few years. One guy this year drafted Witten, Clark, and Gates as his top 3 receivers. It didn't work out for him, but it could have.

 

[Islander]

If you have not eliminated the kicker yet, why eliminate the TE?

 

[stevegamer]

My league is moving very close to eliminating the TE position from the starting lineup requirement. The prevailing argument is that there are only a handful of good ones to draft and the rest is a crap shoot. Counter arguement is to draft a good one as a strategy to get a leg up.I'm in favor of keeping the TE, so I'm asking the FBG community to help me out with some good points on why a TE should be part of the starting lineup.PS- We already have a modified scoring for the TE to give them bonuses for catches and less yardsWR - 1 point per 10 yards + 1 point per catch starting with 5th in a gameTE - 1 point per 10 yards + 1 point starting with 3rd in a game

I can make the argument that a starting lineup should be QB/RB/WR/1 FLEX - there are only handful of really good QB/RB/WR as well. You don't know what a bunch of RBBC RB's and WR2's are going to do in a given week, so to minimize their effect on rosters, let's eliminate them.Honestly, having a TE strategy that makes sense is important. It's debated how to handle the position every year in multiple threads before the season. QB gets similar attention, due to the ir only being so many studs - ask them if the want to go to team QB or - better yet for them - eliminate the spot.Poeple who want to play games and don't want to think should play Candyland.

 

[gonzobill5]

i don't see how its all that different than any other position in terms of quality or quanity. i play in a 16 team league and at the beginning of the year there are around 20 TE's that I think could be pretty good. That's plenty to pick from. Of course it is a huge advantage having a top one, but drafting one really high comes at the expense of another position. the thing is, in this league gonzo wasn't one of the top five TE's off the board this year and witten wasn't even one of the top ten last year! someone like cooley/miller who had down years this year will get ignored next year.

 

[videoguy505]

If you have not eliminated the kicker yet, why eliminate the TE?

Really? There are more kickers worth starting than TEs.Anyway, it's just a rules set. Eliminating the TE is like playing Monopoly without the "money on Free Parking" rule. Or playing with Wild Cards in poker. Some people choose to play that way, some don't. League should decide what they want to do. If you don't like it, feel free not to play. Some people choose not to play poker with wild cards. They feel it just evens out the playing field too much. Yeah, they're right, but they don't get invited to play as many games with fish.Some people play IDP. Some leagues have "Team Coach" slots. Some have fractional scoring, others, 4 point passing TDs, others, PPR. FF is like that. There's no "better" or "worse" way to play, and there's no argument that eliminating TEs is "wrong" somehow. Just set up the rules beforehand, and select your team.You could play in a league with only scoring stats for QBs and punters if you wanted. If that's how the league wants to play, let 'em play that way. It's not like you're any less likely to win if you can predict the good players to pick better than the other owners. If it's less "fun", that's one thing to argue for or against, but, there's nothing that makes it "wrong" to play like that.

 

[DropKick]

If you have not eliminated the kicker yet, why eliminate the TE?

Really? There are more kickers worth starting than TEs.Anyway, it's just a rules set. Eliminating the TE is like playing Monopoly without the "money on Free Parking" rule. Or playing with Wild Cards in poker. Some people choose to play that way, some don't. League should decide what they want to do. If you don't like it, feel free not to play. Some people choose not to play poker with wild cards. They feel it just evens out the playing field too much. Yeah, they're right, but they don't get invited to play as many games with fish.Some people play IDP. Some leagues have "Team Coach" slots. Some have fractional scoring, others, 4 point passing TDs, others, PPR. FF is like that. There's no "better" or "worse" way to play, and there's no argument that eliminating TEs is "wrong" somehow. Just set up the rules beforehand, and select your team.You could play in a league with only scoring stats for QBs and punters if you wanted. If that's how the league wants to play, let 'em play that way. It's not like you're any less likely to win if you can predict the good players to pick better than the other owners. If it's less "fun", that's one thing to argue for or against, but, there's nothing that makes it "wrong" to play like that.

No, you're wrong. It's a crime against humanity.It we let people play in stupid leagues we would only have stupid leagues and stupid people. Everything would be dumbed down. People would talk about leagues with only scoring stats for QBs and punters. Anarchy would follow. People would take up golf and other "non-violent" games.Keep the TE or suffer the social consequences!

 

[Pictus Cat]

I personally prefer a TE...will that do it?

One of my favorite leagues had WR, WR, WR/TE, TE.

I nabbed 3 TEs as they fell to what I felt the WRs would produce and weakened other owners at the position by depleting the pool.

2006 Witten over Walter in the 13th. 1TD 05 blah blah blah 3rd TE blah blah blah You don't need him can I have him for my 5th RB.

TE adds a complexity and drama to the draft.

When is he a reach?

When is he a steal?

When do you take the TE relative to the WR & RB tier drop-offs?

He took the 1st TE 13th overall? He got a top TE near the 6 7 turn!

No TE required pretty much eliminates the mid tier TEs. I miss them.

 

[stevegamer]

If you have not eliminated the kicker yet, why eliminate the TE?

Really? There are more kickers worth starting than TEs.Anyway, it's just a rules set. Eliminating the TE is like playing Monopoly without the "money on Free Parking" rule.

Actually it's more like "playing Monopoly with money on Free Parking" - since that's not an actual rule in Monopoly, but a vairant - but I get what you're saying. If you don't like the variant rule that makes the game less strategic & easier - don't play.

 

[Penguin]

The RB position has become insignificant, gotta drop those spots too.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I play in leagues with a TE and without. I don't care enough about the position for it to matter either way. I'm sure the league will get along fine without a TE slot. If you love the TE position and enjoy the strategy involved...make sure you play in a league with one.

I can't imagine quitting a league because they ditched the TE, but that's just me. Play the way you enjoy the most.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Taking the TE out eliminates important strategy in the drafts and that is a negative in my opinion.

 

[-OZ-]

Why not just require a QB and go with 5 flex spots? Should make everyone happy.

IMO, the TE is part of the game but if you wanted to go with WR/TE instead of requiring a TE, just make the TE receptions worth 2x what the WR gets and 4x what the RB gets. i.e. .5 for RB, 1 for WR, 2 for TE. Makes it so you don't have to start a TE if that's what the league wants, while still encouraging use of a TE.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

I like the TE requirement. Having one go off gives your team a huge advantage in the game they play that week. It's almost like a wildcard. Sure, you can have Andre Johnson have a big game, but if your opponent has Steve Smith and he has a big game - they pretty much cancel each other out.

But very rarely are big games by your TE's matched. Do they happen often...no, but then why not just eliminate kickers too?

 

[habsfan]

Why not just require a QB and go with 5 flex spots? Should make everyone happy.IMO, the TE is part of the game but if you wanted to go with WR/TE instead of requiring a TE, just make the TE receptions worth 2x what the WR gets and 4x what the RB gets. i.e. .5 for RB, 1 for WR, 2 for TE. Makes it so you don't have to start a TE if that's what the league wants, while still encouraging use of a TE.

I'm not sure that changing the TE position to a flex one and then turning around and boosting their value really helps to address this league's underlying frustration with the position. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that frustration, I'm just saying that if they're trying address the "problem" of 3 or 4 studs versus the rest of the field, doesn't making the position optional put those studs in with a larger group of WRs? Wouldn't turning around and boosting the TE value just restore those 3 or 4 TEs back to their own tier again(?) Maybe I'm missing something...

 

[puckalicious]

As mentioned, let any league play the way they want. That's whats great about FF, you can do it whatever way you like best.

My main money league switched from 2WR/1TE to 2WR/1WR-TE flex a few years back. It certainly makes draft strategy much easier but it didn't necessarily make the "guppies" in the league more competitive.

We are switching back to 2WR/1TE this year and it is a welcome challenge. I am not too concerned either way really.

 

[Black]

You'll see your WRs thin out very quickly if you go to a flex. I don't mind the TE...just another variable you have to think about when game planning.

 

[DoubleG]

I think if your leaguemates are insisntent on having a "required" TE (which I also think is a bad idea as has been covered ad nauseum above), a good comprosmise is a TE/WR flex, where TE's have scoring/productivity bonuses. (i.e. higher PPR rates than WRs, bonuses at certain yardage levels, or even 8 point TD's or some such, etc).

That would keep TE's viable and not completely deflate the value of the elite TE's.

 

[puckalicious]

You'll see your WRs thin out very quickly if you go to a flex. I don't mind the TE...just another variable you have to think about when game planning.

That's a good point. I've noticed that most teams will simply ignore the TE and go with 3 WR, which makes planning around bye weeks pretty difficult and you'll end up with around 6 WRs on your roster. My general strategy has been to get 3RB and 3WR by round 6 unless a good QB drops unexpectedly.

 

[Godsbrother]

You'll see your WRs thin out very quickly if you go to a flex. I don't mind the TE...just another variable you have to think about when game planning.

That's a good point. I've noticed that most teams will simply ignore the TE and go with 3 WR, which makes planning around bye weeks pretty difficult and you'll end up with around 6 WRs on your roster. My general strategy has been to get 3RB and 3WR by round 6 unless a good QB drops unexpectedly.

This is precisely why I like the TE to remain its own position.

 

[-OZ-]

Why not just require a QB and go with 5 flex spots? Should make everyone happy.IMO, the TE is part of the game but if you wanted to go with WR/TE instead of requiring a TE, just make the TE receptions worth 2x what the WR gets and 4x what the RB gets. i.e. .5 for RB, 1 for WR, 2 for TE. Makes it so you don't have to start a TE if that's what the league wants, while still encouraging use of a TE.

I'm not sure that changing the TE position to a flex one and then turning around and boosting their value really helps to address this league's underlying frustration with the position. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that frustration, I'm just saying that if they're trying address the "problem" of 3 or 4 studs versus the rest of the field, doesn't making the position optional put those studs in with a larger group of WRs? Wouldn't turning around and boosting the TE value just restore those 3 or 4 TEs back to their own tier again(?) Maybe I'm missing something...

I'd need to see the rest of the scoring, but in my leagues, Gonzo performs at around the WR6-10 level, other TEs are about equal to the WR12-20 level, and then there are many that wouldn't start at all. This is with enhanced TE scoring. So, instead of seeing Gonzo's value as (Gonzo - #12 TE) it's more akin to (Gonzo - #36 WR/TE), which is a pretty significant difference. If you don't enhance the TE scoring, extremely few TEs will even be rostered, which IMO loses part of the game.

 

[gianmarco]

Anything to make a league easier and eliminate skill sounds like a winner to me

 

[GregR_2]

I guess I completely disagree with the direction the OP's league is going. I believe the TE can add plenty to FF, but that you need to have the gumption to set up your league to let them matter.

Both of my leagues have gone to a format that include 4 WR, 2 TE, and 1 flex WR/TE. WR get .5 ppr, and TE get 1 ppr.

With such a setup, TEs beyond the top 3 or 4 start to have value. There is a bit of a glut from TEs 4 to 10 or so, but when you're looking at starting 24 TEs, there are significant differences between having TE 6 or TE 13.

For example, here are the fantasy starting TEs with total points in this scoring along with their VBD value based on the 24th TE as the baseline:

Gonzalez, Tony KCC TE 263 172

Witten, Jason DAL TE 203 112

Clark, Dallas IND TE 198 107

Gates, Antonio SDC TE 177 86

Cooley, Chris WAS TE 171 80

Daniels, Owen HOU TE 167 76

Carlson, John SEA TE 157 65

Shiancoe, Visanthe MIN TE 148 56

Miller, Zach OAK TE 143 52

Olsen, Greg CHI TE 141 50

Scaife, Bo TEN TE 126 35

Keller, Dustin NYJ TE 122 30

Scheffler, Tony DEN TE 122 30

Fasano, Anthony MIA TE 121 30

Miller, Heath PIT TE 120 29

Miller, Billy NOS TE 111 20

Boss, Kevin NYG TE 108 17

Lewis, Marcedes JAC TE 105 14

Winslow, Kellen CLE TE 103 12

Lee, Donald GBP TE 100 9

Martin, David MIA TE 98 6

Graham, Daniel DEN TE 96 5

Shockey, Jeremy NOS TE 95 4

Heap, Todd BAL TE 91 0

With this kind of a setup, TEs are no longer an after thought. We also start 1 QB, 2 RB and 1 QB/RB flex. The 5th TE is about equivalent to the 9th RB in value (before accounting for scarcity of RBs, so RBs should be a little more valuable than that in actuality). The 12th TE is about equal in value to the 20th RB.

In a 33 round draft (11 starting offensive starters, 6 IDP, kicker and head coach), we had 6 TEs go in the first 6 rounds. 13 were gone by the end of the 9th round. 21 were gone by the end of the 11th round. They definitely are not something you can overlook or that don't play a role in the outcome of a game anymore. A pair of stud TEs can be nearly as valuable to you as a pair of stud WRs or RBs. It brings TE closer on par with the value of RBs and WRs, especially at the very top of the positions. Though as you go down the positional chart, RB and WR are probably still a little more important, but not by much.

 

[Islander]

If you have not eliminated the kicker yet, why eliminate the TE?

Really? There are more kickers worth starting than TEs.Anyway, it's just a rules set. Eliminating the TE is like playing Monopoly without the "money on Free Parking" rule. Or playing with Wild Cards in poker. Some people choose to play that way, some don't. League should decide what they want to do. If you don't like it, feel free not to play. Some people choose not to play poker with wild cards. They feel it just evens out the playing field too much. Yeah, they're right, but they don't get invited to play as many games with fish.Some people play IDP. Some leagues have "Team Coach" slots. Some have fractional scoring, others, 4 point passing TDs, others, PPR. FF is like that. There's no "better" or "worse" way to play, and there's no argument that eliminating TEs is "wrong" somehow. Just set up the rules beforehand, and select your team.You could play in a league with only scoring stats for QBs and punters if you wanted. If that's how the league wants to play, let 'em play that way. It's not like you're any less likely to win if you can predict the good players to pick better than the other owners. If it's less "fun", that's one thing to argue for or against, but, there's nothing that makes it "wrong" to play like that.

wow, not sure where that all came from... all those assumptions about what i think of leagues with or without certain positions and assumptions about which leagues i think i should play in or not. unless you were talking in general, not talking directly to me?anyway, my point was that there is far more strategy involved with TE than with kickers, so if you eliminate TEs, might as well eliminate kickers too.what matters is not how many are startable, what matters is what it adds to the league. if there was a hypothetical position where all players score between 9.9 pts and 10.1 pts per game (so they are all startable), such a position would be useless since there is no strategy. you draft and start whoever, it does not matter.with TEs there is strategy involved.

 

[puckalicious]

Anything to make a league easier and eliminate skill sounds like a winner to me

I'll play devil's advocate - does your league have a FB roster spot? Don't they touch the ball as much as an average TE? My experience playing in both a 2WR/1TE and 3WR/0TE format in the same 12-team league was that no "skill" was eliminated or whatever. It's just a different draft strategy. In the first format you have to plan to get a startable TE, and in the second format you have to plan to get a startable 3rd WR. Neither are easily done without affecting the other positions. Is there really a difference between taking 3WR through round 5 versus 2WR and 1TE? I found that it isn't all that different first hand.

 

[videoguy505]

If you have not eliminated the kicker yet, why eliminate the TE?

Really? There are more kickers worth starting than TEs.Anyway, it's just a rules set. Eliminating the TE is like playing Monopoly without the "money on Free Parking" rule. Or playing with Wild Cards in poker. Some people choose to play that way, some don't. League should decide what they want to do. If you don't like it, feel free not to play. Some people choose not to play poker with wild cards. They feel it just evens out the playing field too much. Yeah, they're right, but they don't get invited to play as many games with fish.Some people play IDP. Some leagues have "Team Coach" slots. Some have fractional scoring, others, 4 point passing TDs, others, PPR. FF is like that. There's no "better" or "worse" way to play, and there's no argument that eliminating TEs is "wrong" somehow. Just set up the rules beforehand, and select your team.You could play in a league with only scoring stats for QBs and punters if you wanted. If that's how the league wants to play, let 'em play that way. It's not like you're any less likely to win if you can predict the good players to pick better than the other owners. If it's less "fun", that's one thing to argue for or against, but, there's nothing that makes it "wrong" to play like that.

wow, not sure where that all came from... all those assumptions about what i think of leagues with or without certain positions and assumptions about which leagues i think i should play in or not. unless you were talking in general, not talking directly to me?anyway, my point was that there is far more strategy involved with TE than with kickers, so if you eliminate TEs, might as well eliminate kickers too.what matters is not how many are startable, what matters is what it adds to the league. if there was a hypothetical position where all players score between 9.9 pts and 10.1 pts per game (so they are all startable), such a position would be useless since there is no strategy. you draft and start whoever, it does not matter.with TEs there is strategy involved.

Nothing directed at you, just didn't want to post twice in a row. Everything after the "Anyway," is meant to be about the OP in general, not about your post.And for the thread in general:I think my point about it being like playing with wild cards in poker is pretty close to what I'm going for. If you play without wild cards, you increase the strategy demands on your game in order to win, but, you also appeal to fewer fish & casual players... who end up being easier to beat. Requiring a TE may increase the strategy, but, also makes the league less appealing to the guppy player. A lot don't like the fact that TEs are often a crapshoot in weekly scoring.