This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I don't really think this is very accurate info.Knobs --- They've been playing Baker because Watson's been out.
Accordng to Patscap . . .
It doesn't look like Watson is owed anything else, so overall he would still be considered a cheap option at $910K in salary for this season.
I believe the escalotors were based on the prior season for the following season. So his 2009 number is based off of what he did in 2008 and his 2008 number was based on his 2007 season.
Baker is the quiet play, didn't realize he was on the wire. I like his upside now that Welker is questionable/injured? I don't believe in Galloway, Moss will be his usual monster self on Monday. I think Baker is a lock for a TD in the red zone since they really don't have a hammer RB at the goal line. I'm not going to start him over Gates, but it's just nice to add him to the bench and see the show. The Pats TE situation was murky all preseason, and now it seems clear.
what % of plays do you expect them to go 4 wide?
4 wide receiver sets? So you have Moss, Galloway, Edelman, and questionable Welker on the field? I doubt that very much that will be the case.Galloway is going to get maybe two or three targets a game. Moss will get 15 targets minimum. Welker would also get 15 targets (assuming he's healthy). But if Welker is not ready to produce, someone else is going to step up and take some of the yardage that accounts for Brady's 350 yard opening game, 3 TD game against Buffalo.
, that guy is not valuable. But Watson is hurting, and Alex Smith was cut. Baker is the clear cut starter on an offense that will be prolific. I think he's worth more of a flyer than some bad teams 3 WR. I have better starting options for week #1, but it will nice to see him blow up on my bench. 
I'm expecting to see 4 WR sets being used between 60-75% of the time. The short yardage/red zone and kill the clock running game are the only places I would expect to see less than 4 WR on the field. I'm not a scout or an insider or anything, it's just what I expect. That's why I suggest Baker could be a decent play in TD heavy league and less valuable in other formats.Week 1 could be a different story if Welker can't go but I think it's more likely he plays than does not.4 wide receiver sets? So you have Moss, Galloway, Edelman, and questionable Welker on the field? I doubt that very much that will be the case.Galloway is going to get maybe two or three targets a game. Moss will get 15 targets minimum. Welker would also get 15 targets (assuming he's healthy). But if Welker is not ready to produce, someone else is going to step up and take some of the yardage that accounts for Brady's 350 yard opening game, 3 TD game against Buffalo.
Baker could well be the vulture of any missing week #1 Welker production. In a 2 TE or flex spot, he could be very valuable imo.
Now if there were 2 or 3 TE's on the NE roster (that was the case during preseason)
really......??what's this based on?I mean, obviously it's your guess, but how did you arrive at that guess?
I don't think the production as a whole was all that bad, in fact I'd say it was pretty good.it just got split a little, so the question is really how much of the pie do you think baker gets?does watson get a slice, etc?how many of the 50 td's came from that position, and who played how many games?
Yes, I agree with this line of thinking. Back in the 50 TD season, he had a mix of TE's, I think it was Watson/Graham. I don't think that Watson is as talented as Baker is and I doubt he gets back in form to compete fot time with Baker. Baker has played in the AFC East and knows the opponents well, knows the LBs, and is very very underrated. All he needed was a decent QB. He never has had one.Brady is the best, and opportunity is knocking. I thought the same of Welker prior to moving from Miami to NE. I see the same parallels of the a quality receiver on a AFC East rival, suddenly finding what its like to be hit with a pass on the hands in stride and in space. Don't sleep on Baker.
watson/bradyit wasn't so much a mix of te's --- it was actually less of a mix, but the production still got split.
Yes, it was that split of Watson/Brady...I hadn't honestly followed the NE TE's that year. Never was too impressed with them.If Watson is slow to recover, this could be much less of a split and Baker might have some short term value. He at least is rosterable. That's more than I can say for some people hanging on to M. Crabtree or the entire collection of Giants backup receivers.
Pats TEs 2007Watson 36/389/6TDsBrady 9/70/2TDS
ahhhh....excellent, I'm getting a nibble.now, to follow up, can you tell me how many games watson managed to play a significant portion of relatively healthy?also, I will take the liberty of tossing vrabel in there, who's no longer w/the team.
As I said in my previous post, I could be very wrong, and if you believe otherwise, then feel free to ignore me. Either I'll be right, reasonably close, or very wrong. If I'm wrong about the percentage, I still believe that as far as this thread is concerned, the only way Chris Baker is an asset to a fantasy team, other than very large/deep leagues or in an unusual scoring system, will be by virtue of number of TDs scored, and that's really the most relevant point I can make. I'll also tell you that to the extent that I can, I've put my money where my mouth is in terms of drafting Patriots expecting the four-wide set to be the most common offensive formation.The Patriots have shown a willingness to go to 4 and even 5 receivers for the majority of the game as far back as the 2002 regular season opener against the Steelers. It may be that my familiarity with how the Patriots choose to spread out the Steelers is affecting my objectivity. The 2007 season is the only evidence we have on how the Patriots might deploy with Moss and Welker at WR. Adding Galloway and the since-cut Greg Lewis seems to indicate they plan to continue with a WR-heavy offensive plan. I don't see the Patriots concerning themselves with protecting Brady given his injury. Instead, I see the Patriots working to their strength, and I think they believe their greatest advantage is with Moss and Welker vs. nearly every secondary. What I respect the most out of the Patriots (as a Steeler fan) is their willingness to discount conventional football wisdom and go with what works best for them. They don't handcuff themselves to history, including their own.-baller said:
waaaaiiiiiitaminute.............I smell some shenanigans.........just an fyi --- 3 comes before 4.
I will guard my expectations of Baker. But as a TE2 or flex in the right matchup (expected blowout) I'd take my chances. Certainly if there is a lingering issue with Welker's health. I already have A. Gates so I feel I am set. But if I stockpile some good TE's and play the matchups, maybe I can afford to trade Gates for a weakness on my team (in my case I need WR's).
If you know, why don't you come out and say it? And there's really no need to be a smart--- about it. You're strong at standing back and showing attitude in posts, but you're woefully short on information, and not just in this thread, but others.I didn't know the percentage of 3-4 WR sets was 67-75% when I first made my post. Knowing that now, I find it hard to believe the number of 4 WR sets is greater than 25% and probably not even that. Now that was 2007, and it remains to be seen what will happen in 2009. I doubt the amount would increase by more than 50% in 2009, so if I was making my post now, I would list both that I expect the Patriots to be in 3 wide at least 75% and in 4 wide up to 40% at the absolute most. Yay! You win!Would that make you happy? I got better information, so I refined my earlier post. From the very first post in this thread, I've stated that it was just an expectation of mine -- a guess -- and that if you think I'm wrong, then disregard. As I said, I'm likely overestimating 4 wide because of how often the Patriots run that against the Steelers.But again back to the point of THIS THREAD, I still see Baker as needing high TDs to be anything other than a very low TE1 and while he's still a value pick, he's not likely to do anything more than hold serve against your FF opponents if you have him. Great backup at the price, in other words.
hahaha.....because when people make very strong opinionated statements, I like to see how familiar they are w/the subject, and whether I'm reading simply another opinion, or an informed opinion --- I already know how familiar I am w/the pats.there are really a LOT of opinions on this board, and often they can be full of misinformation that misleads readers who don't have the time to vet them, or simply don't want to bother.
These comments really add so much to the subject matter.It would have been much more productive to the people reading this thread if you had just come out and said the percentage right away.What I find interesting is that while you are apparently a Patriot expert, you seem to have greater difficulty accurately characterizing what is posted here.Perhaps it's just your effort to appear uber-cool, but in your reference to my "onion" you stated that I believed Baker to be worthless as a te pick up. Yet what I said in the initial post of this thread was
and
In your desire to appear superior, you've actually shown yourself to be more interested in style than in substance.Why not just give the facts and be respectful to other posters instead of withholding the facts and then misquoting the posters?The Jerk said:
OK. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if that's how you feel. Some posters -- like your fellow Patriot fan Kool-Aid Larry -- are extremely frustrating because they pick at others points and/or projections yet never offer any of their own.I'll move on as this is not helping anyone decide if Chris Baker is a good player to roster, but keep in mind that I appreciate the information and try to provide it when it is relevant. That's why I was so careful to immediately characterize my comment as nothing more than an expectation or a hunch. When I have the facts, I'll provide them and plenty of them.I suppose I don't mind that more often than not, people ignore my information/statistics. I prefer to focus on the smaller percentage that actually do read it and use it intelligently.Thanks for finally getting the information out there. I appreciate it.
Like I said, I understand where you're coming from, but surely you recognize everyone doesn't read every NE thread from start to finish. I try to have patience and treat posters as worthy of the information until they prove to me otherwise. As you stated, that still ends up happening all too often. Sorry if I got a little fiesty on you.
55-600-10 would place a TE in the top 5 in standard (FBG) scoring for each of the past five seasons except 2007 (7th).Obviously, the question isn't would you take a 55-600-10 TE? I'd draft him in the 4th round probably if that was guaranteed. That has to be considered best-case scenario. The issues are how likely is it to happen and what's the floor for Baker.You mentioned Baker's health. But there are other questions. How much will Watson cut in to the TDs like Kyle Brady and Vrabel (2 each) in 2007? How many TDs will Brady throw? It's unlikely to be 50 again, so 2007 isn't completely reliable as a reference point. But 40 is possible. Take 20% off of your 55-600-10 and you get 500 yards and 8 TDs. That's 7, 8, 9, 8, 7 from 2004-2008.Perhaps the guide needs to be how many TDs you expect Brady to throw. If it's 40 or more, then Baker is a good candidate for starting TE in standard scoring. If it's 35 or lower, then he's another TE1/TE2 tweener in most formats. For his draft slot, he's a pretty good option to have on your roster.By the way, my initial entry into this thread was to attempt to temper enthusiasm on Baker. I have him in one league and am considering replacing Carlson with him in another, so don't think that I'm not very, very interested.
But most people thought that would be Baker's line
dude, there is an entire thread above you, and it's, like, 1 of 3.
I've got to make a choice between Watson, Royal, and Scheffler
