Pros and Cons of stud TE in the 3rd (1 Viewer)

[Gravity]

I'm a big believer in grabbing Gonzo/Gates in the 3rd. Its one of the few real ways to be PROACTIVE and distance yourself from others - esp in a knowledgeable league. My feeling is there is so much saturation at the number 8-20 position at QB, WR, and even RB that I'd rather take a top TE where I can really seperate myself. I love knowing that my TE will get me 8+ points per week and my opponent may get 2-5. usually that is often the margin of victory.[One caveat. If you did not Go RB/RB then the decision is a bit harder - depending upon the size of the league.]

 

[-OZ-]

Something most people are missing is that Gonzo is probably the safest pick in the game. Everyone refers to the #1 vs. #12 TE and a top 10 WR vs. top 30, but there's a lot more movement in WR and risk in that pick than Gonzo brings.

 

[Bloom]

im starting to think gonzo is the most underrated player in FF. Now that more and more leagues are going PPR, and some even weighting stats for TEs, he's even more underrated. if your league requires a TE and gives a point per reception i think gonzo should go in the same range as players like manning, culpepper, moss and owens.

 

[coolnerd]

The thing with VBD, is was, and always will be, is what one's projections are. Will Gonzo and Gates light it up the way they did last year? If your projections say they will, then it's a solid VBD choice. Gonzo put up a career year last year. If one thinks he can duplicate that, it makes sense.

I am in one league that gives TE's double yardage points over recievers. (Last year, they even got 2 points per reception, which was ridiculous, and changed to 1 PPR for this year) Gonzo went in the first round, and was a solid pick there. So, VBD is also very scoring system dependent, as it affects, in some cases, projections very dramatically.

In my more conventional  scoring leagues, I don't see the VBD for a TE in the second round this year, expecting both Gonzo and Gates to fall off some, while looking for some other TE's to close the gap. Depending on league size, I usually expect my third RB to start in at least 5 games due to bye and injuries.   That is a minimum. Case in point, I had Brown and DD last year as my #2 and 3 RB's in one league. Between them, they split starts. I got by fine with Crumpler in the sixth. VBD is a great tool, but it has to be wieghed in any given league to be useful.

Here is Gonzo's VBD value by year:
Year        Value        Pos. Rank    Overall Rank--------------------------------------------------1999          91             2             112000         114             1              82001          55             1             232002          56             2             272003          87             1             132004          99             2             11--------------------------------------------------For the past 6 years in a row, he has been #1 or #2 at his position. The worst he's done in overall ranking is #27. I don't have a quick way to calculate rankings by VBD, but it seems obvious looking at the above numbers that, on average, he has been in the top 10 by VBD, and even in his worst season he was in the top 20. He's the surest bet in fantasy football.So if the question is, should Gonzo be taken before pick #36, the answer is, why is he going that low?

I started a great thread last year on who should be drafted first, Culpepper or Gonzalez. Part of the issue with determining "value" at TE is that there could be a corps of solid TE but one rotten apple that ranks as the TE 12 that messes up everything. So yes, Gonzalez could have a huge advantage over the #12 TE but maybe not so much over others.As I mentioned earlier, I think a lot depends how "valuable" Gonzalez is based on how your team looks before you take him.

For example, if you went QB/WR and then took Gonzalez, I think you will be hard pressed to come up with 2 RB that will be NFL starters. So IMO, you are almost forced to have at least one viable RB by the time you look at Gonzalez--and if that RB gets hurt, depth could be an issue.

If you did have at least one RB, it could be possible to feed off of RBBC guys later on (taking say Dunn/Duckett or Suggs/Droughns) and maybe taking a couple backups that could get more work (Gore, Moore, Shelton, Buckhalter, etc.).

As you suggest, a case could be made for Gonzalez in the second (I've made that argument before as well) and depending on the scoing system he might be worth it in the first (say in leagues that double TE points).

Gates scares me way more than Gonzo, as how likely is it that Gates sets another TE scoring record this year?

Real example to back this up:Last year, I took Manning and Gonzo in the top 4 rounds in a 14 team league last year. Despite career years from these guys, I am made wrong choices at RB and WR and had one the worse teams in the league, because I was getting only a handful of points from everywhere on my team.

Not above taking them early again, but I am forcing my hand to go conservative with my RB and WR choices behind them. In others words, the Dunns and Rod smiths of the world versus Foster and Calicos.

 

[Family Matters]

Great thread with some very good ideas. I was thinking back 2 years ago and before and realized why I was willing to take Gonzo in the 3rd. He was by far the best there was. The drop off of sure fire players was significant.

Today, Gonzo is still the man when it comes to TE's. What has changed is that the bottom group of TE's has moved closer to Gonzo. Last year it took Gonzo's career best to hold off Gates for the #1 TE ranking. But there were still several good TE's below Gonzo/Gates that can be had much later. Guys like Witten, Crumpler and Shockey and Heap will go later but will give you some very good weeks. They may not beat out Gonzo but what you can draft in the 3rd & 4th rounds can provide your team with some excellent starting WR's and QB's or depth at RB.

I expect Gonzo will be gone in the 3rd in 10/12 team leagues and possibly in the 2nd in larger leagues. Gates may go in the same round as Gonzo. I also expect some great value after round 5. See the article "Value Plays" http://www.footballguys.com/05valueintro.htm for some ideas.

So I feel you can go either way on this. My decision will come down to who I think I can get later at TE by waiting and who I can get in his place to determine which provides my tean the best chance of overall success.

BTW-I've won championships both ways.

Edit: Speaking of sleeper TE's, I just read this and thought it's an example of finding some value later in the draft.

Broncos | Tight Ends to go Downfield More Often?

Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:32:45 -0700

Patrick Saunders, writing for the Sporting News, reports the Denver Broncos are expected to use TEs Jeb Putzier, Stephen Alexander and Nate Jackson as downfield targets more often this year, rather than as dump-off targets or safety valves. All three can beat linebackers in coverage. Putzier, in particular, is ready to become the kind of downfield threat TE Shannon Sharpe used to be.

Here is new on another value TE (LJ Smith)that can be had later with nice upside:http://news.footballguys.com/new/blogger.php

 

[Mungo Burrows]

GregR and I had a discussion about this a couple years ago, and it revolved around trying to calculate DVDB value for the stud TEs. You can't use the standard, simple process of taking the difference in value from this round to next round because if you don't take a TE in the 3rd, you probably can get away without taking one until the 7th. The ADPs on the TEs look like this with their current FBG Projected points in parens:

Gonzo 3.7 (156)

Gates 3.8 (154)

Whitten 5.6 (116)

Heap 5.10 (81)

Shockey 6.3 (112)

Crumpler 6.6 (109)

McMichael 7.9 (100)

Dal.Clark 8.04 (106)

If you use the simple view of DVDB you would say the drop-off at TE from round 3 to 4 (~40) is greater than the round-to-round drop off at any other position. However, if you don't take a TE in rd 3, you wouldn't take one in round 4. ADP indicates you are likely to get at least one of the next tier of TEs (Whitten, Shockey, Crumpler, McMichael, Clark) possibly as late as the 7th round. Once you get to that tier, it makes sense to wait a bit since they all seem to be in a close tier. Therefore you need to look at the cumulative round-to-round drops of your next 4 picks. Assuming you picked RB-RB, instead of getting your WR 1 in round 3 you can't get him until round 4. But that means your WR 2 is pushed off another round. And your RB3. And your QB. All four of these positions could be affected.

Another way to look at it is to compare the 4 round drop at the other positions, if you feel confident about the value at other positons. I.e. if you are targeting a 6th round QB, 4-5th round RB3 and 4-5th round WR, and instead of picking a WR in rd 3, you will pick one in the 7th (when you would have picked a TE) then you are basically downgrading your WR1 by 4 rounds. Again, looking at the FBG projections just as a common point of reference, the similar drops in WRs would be

Javon Walker 3.6 (192)

Joe Horn 3.7 (194)

Andre Johnson 3.9 (174)

vs.

Mason 7.4 (123)

Boldin 7.4 (144)

Driver 7.6 (151)

Muhammad 7.7 (127)

Branch 7.11 (129)

Burress 7.12 (128)

In this case, the 4 round drop between the Walker/Horn types and the Branch/muhammad/Burress group is over 60, while the 4 round drop at TE was in the 40-50 range.

However, as was said above (depending on what you know of your league), if you think your league is likely to let value drop and you think good value like Driver and Boldin will fall to you at 7 then the 4 round drop is ony ~40 and taking a Gonzo might make sense.

Obviously this depends on your own projections and your scoring rules, but you should be able to apply the theory in a similar fashion. Either way, you either need to look at a multi-round drop at a single position, or try to project multiple individual one-round value drops in several positons across your team. It's a much higher price to pay than it seems at first glance.

 

[jcjets]

There is no way you can determine that now. You have to be ready to do it though in case Gonzo is there. Lets assume you are #1 in a 12 team league. Is Gonzo better than WR#7, RB#17 Or QB #3? If he is then you pick him. Gonzo is just like a WR, if he's there I say go for it. Look at the drop off from TE #1 to say TE #4. Which you would at in round 4. Compare that to the WR drop off or the RB drop off. I'd rather have the best TE, then a hopeful sleeper WR.Now if your league is RB crazy, I would not take Gonzo over C.Johnson if he's still there. However a third round pick at the #1 spot is a whole new can of worms than a third round pick at the #12 spot.Go crazy, draft P.Holmes in round 1, Gonzo in round 3, and T.Green in round 5. Get ready to lose on your bye week, but otherwise your a Chief fan this season

 

[Snotbubbles]

Another way to look at it is to compare the 4 round drop at the other positions, if you feel confident about the value at other positons. I.e. if you are targeting a 6th round QB, 4-5th round RB3 and 4-5th round WR, and instead of picking a WR in rd 3, you will pick one in the 7th (when you would have picked a TE) then you are basically downgrading your WR1 by 4 rounds. Again, looking at the FBG projections just as a common point of reference, the similar drops in WRs would beJavon Walker 3.6 (192)Joe Horn 3.7 (194)Andre Johnson 3.9 (174)vs. Mason 7.4 (123)Boldin 7.4 (144)Driver 7.6 (151)Muhammad 7.7 (127)Branch 7.11 (129)Burress 7.12 (128)In this case, the 4 round drop between the Walker/Horn types and the Branch/muhammad/Burress group is over 60, while the 4 round drop at TE was in the 40-50 range.

Sorry, I'm not really following you here. Correct me where I may be going wrong.Why are you dropping your WR1 from round 4 to round 7, really you'd be dropping it to round 4 or 5? You wouldn't go QB in round 4 or 5. Brett Favre, Matt Hasselbeck, Kerry Collins and Jake Plummer all have ADPs in the 6th round or later, chances are that Culpepper, Manning and McNabb are already gone in rd. 3 so the next logical choice would be Trent Green who is not much different than the Favre group. So in rd 4 and 5 you can either go RB/WR, WR/WR or WR/RB.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

Another way to look at it is to compare the 4 round drop at the other positions, if you feel confident about the value at other positons. I.e. if you are targeting a 6th round QB, 4-5th round RB3 and 4-5th round WR, and instead of picking a WR in rd 3, you will pick one in the 7th (when you would have picked a TE) then you are basically downgrading your WR1 by 4 rounds. Again, looking at the FBG projections just as a common point of reference, the similar drops in WRs would be

Javon Walker 3.6 (192)

Joe Horn 3.7 (194)

Andre Johnson 3.9 (174)

vs.

Mason 7.4 (123)

Boldin 7.4 (144)

Driver 7.6 (151)

Muhammad 7.7 (127)

Branch 7.11 (129)

Burress 7.12 (128)

In this case, the 4 round drop between the Walker/Horn types and the Branch/muhammad/Burress group is over 60, while the 4 round drop at TE was in the 40-50 range.

Sorry, I'm not really following you here. Correct me where I may be going wrong.Why are you dropping your WR1 from round 4 to round 7, really you'd be dropping it to round 4 or 5? You wouldn't go QB in round 4 or 5. Brett Favre, Matt Hasselbeck, Kerry Collins and Jake Plummer all have ADPs in the 6th round or later, chances are that Culpepper, Manning and McNabb are already gone in rd. 3 so the next logical choice would be Trent Green who is not much different than the Favre group. So in rd 4 and 5 you can either go RB/WR, WR/WR or WR/RB.

I described two ways of looking at it. the one you quoted involves looking at the drop in value at one positon (likely wr) from round 3 to round 7 - if you think the picks you'd make in 4-5-6 won't likely change whether or not you take the TE or WR. Yes you would pick your first WR before round 7. but using this method of value calculation, you make the assumption would pick that WR in the same spot whether you picked WR or TE in round 3. If you take the TE, yes he becomes your WR 1 now instead of your WR2. But the real lost value is in the total value of your lineup. Since you took the TE in round 3, you get your WR1 in round 4 don't get your WR 2 until round 7, so that the value lost be taking the TE is the difference between the WR in round 3 and the WR in round 7.

Option 1: Rd 3 - TE, Rd4 - WR, Rd 5 - RB3, Rd 6 - QB1, Rd 7 WR

Option 1: Rd 3 - WR, Rd4 - WR, Rd 5 - RB3, Rd 6 - QB1, Rd 7 TE

Round 4-5-6 are a wash so the difference in your roster is Rd3TE and Rd7 WR vs Rd 3WR and rd 7 TE.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Cool thanks. I got ya now.

 

[BassNBrew]

Mungo...I'm not sure if I agree with you or not, but I just wanted to say thanks for laying out an interesting argument and giving me something new to chew on.

 

[Snotbubbles]

So under Mungro's theory (using Antsports ADP, and FBG pt. projections) your WR1 would go from this group:Joe Horn WR NOS 3.04 (194)Javon Walker WR GBP 3.05 (191) Andre Johnson WR HOU 3.06 (174) Reggie Wayne WR IND 3.10 (187)To this group: Darrell Jackson WR SEA 4.01 (179) Hines Ward WR PIT 4.02 (160) Michael Clayton WR TBB 4.05 (174) Roy Williams WR DET 4.07 (158) Steve Smith WR CAR 4.08 (144) Nate Burleson WR MIN 4.08 (157) Drew Bennett WR TEN 4.11 (167)and your WR2 would go from the DJax group to this grouperrick Mason WR BAL 7.01 (124) Deion Branch WR NEP 7.02 (129) Plaxico Burress WR NYG 7.09 (128) Ashley Lelie WR DEN 7.10 (142)So if you go rd3 WR1, rd4 WR2 and rd7 TE1 your points should be approximately: 450If you go rd3 TE1, rd4 WR1, rd7 WR2 your points should be approximately: 450

 

[Mungo Burrows]

So under Mungro's theory (using Antsports ADP, and FBG pt. projections) your WR1 would go from this group:

Joe Horn WR NOS 3.04 (194)

Javon Walker WR GBP 3.05 (191)

Andre Johnson WR HOU 3.06 (174)

Reggie Wayne WR IND 3.10 (187)

To this group:

Darrell Jackson WR SEA 4.01 (179)

Hines Ward WR PIT 4.02 (160)

Michael Clayton WR TBB 4.05 (174)

Roy Williams WR DET 4.07 (158)

Steve Smith WR CAR 4.08 (144)

Nate Burleson WR MIN 4.08 (157)

Drew Bennett WR TEN 4.11 (167)

and your WR2 would go from the DJax group to this group:

Derrick Mason WR BAL 7.01 (124)

Deion Branch WR NEP 7.02 (129)

Plaxico Burress WR NYG 7.09 (128)

Ashley Lelie WR DEN 7.10 (142)

So if you go rd3 WR1, rd4 WR2 and rd7 TE1 your points should be approximately: 450

If you go rd3 TE1, rd4 WR1, rd7 WR2 your points should be approximately: 450

Yes, but as someone above mentioned (was it LHUCKS? I'm too lazy to go back and look) a lot depends on how your league is likely to draft. If you have a bunch of gups who will let quality guys slip down to round 7, you are probably better off grabbing Gonzo in round three and cleaning up the quality guys left in the later rounds. In a group of guys who really know what they're doing, you're less likely to see some of those quality guys slipping through, so you might be better served taking the safer route at WR1 and getting a tier 2 or 3 guy at TE.The one thing I didn't get into is what happens if you go for the tier 3 guys. Then you can usually wait until round 9-12 to get one of the whole slew of guys that will score about 30 pts less than the Crumpler/McMike/Clark group. If you are willing to wait this long, you give up about 80-90 points at TE, but you buy yourself 6-9 rounds of advantage at your other positions. However in those cases you're starting to bring in backups to the equation so having more value in your starting TE might be worth more than getting better value on your backup RB, WR and QB. It's all about trying to project the total value of your roster based on different approaches.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Yes, but as someone above mentioned (was it LHUCKS? I'm too lazy to go back and look) a lot depends on how your league is likely to draft. If you have a bunch of gups who will let quality guys slip down to round 7, you are probably better off grabbing Gonzo in round three and cleaning up the quality guys left in the later rounds. In a group of guys who really know what they're doing, you're less likely to see some of those quality guys slipping through, so you might be better served taking the safer route at WR1 and getting a tier 2 or 3 guy at TE.

You're ignoring the fact that players will always slip down irregardless of who you're drafting with because as good as any group of drafters can be, they can only take X amount of players per round (X=amount of teams in your league). The overall ADP for Mason is 76, Deion Branch is 77, Burress is 79, Lelie is 81. In a 12 team league 6.12 is the 72nd pick. If any of those guys go before that then another player who's ADP is higher will still be available.

 

[David Yudkin]

I'm less concerned about WR depth than RB depth. You can always find some value in retread WR or less glamorous guys that fall in to the mid rounds that can put up WR 2 or WR 3 numbers. I practically LIVE in that neighborhood, so that part doesn't bother me.However, tere are only so many starting NFL RB to go around. Basically, 32 less the RBBC guys (which I would classify as Min, Atl, Cle, TB, Car, Ari) means there are about 27 guys that will be full time starters (the exact number of RBBC teams and who they are are not vital here). There are at least 64 NFL starting WR and some teams even have viable WR 3s (maybe 4 or so). Therefore . . .12 fantasy teams x 2 starting RB = 24 (+3 starters left over)12 fantasy teams x 3 starting WR = 36 (+32 starters left over)Add in the somewhat unpredictable nature of second and third tier WR and the fact that WR scoring plateuas pretty quickly, I don't think that losing out on WR production is the biggest piece of the TE in the 3rd analysis. Once you get by the first wave of Top WR, after that a guy could finish from 8th to 22nd with only a slight variation in his scoring.So we really need to compare the scoring differential of:Gonzalez + a RB2 from a later round vsA RB2 in the third and a TE from a later roundI suspect that depending upon the hit or miss factor of the RB2, the results will vary dramatically. For example, if the RB in question was either Martin or Barber from last year, then the Gonzalez pick would lose out. If the third round RB were Charlie Garner or Quentin Griffin, then that would be a different story.That probably plays in Gonzalez' favor, as he is very predictable while the RB20 range is not. Again, if you feel that you can pick up the slack in other areas, then Gonzalez is a fine pick even in the late SECOND round. IMO, Gonzalez has always been a valuable pick in the 3rd round, the question is to whether Gates is.This is what makes mocks worthwhile, as you can get a sense for who might be available in later picks to better project how your team would stack up with or without and early TE pick.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

I'm less concerned about WR depth than RB depth. You can always find some value in retread WR or less glamorous guys that fall in to the mid rounds that can put up WR 2 or WR 3 numbers. I practically LIVE in that neighborhood, so that part doesn't bother me.

However, tere are only so many starting NFL RB to go around. Basically, 32 less the RBBC guys (which I would classify as Min, Atl, Cle, TB, Car, Ari) means there are about 27 guys that will be full time starters (the exact number of RBBC teams and who they are are not vital here). There are at least 64 NFL starting WR and some teams even have viable WR 3s (maybe 4 or so). Therefore . . .

12 fantasy teams x 2 starting RB = 24 (+3 starters left over)

12 fantasy teams x 3 starting WR = 36 (+32 starters left over)

Add in the somewhat unpredictable nature of second and third tier WR and the fact that WR scoring plateuas pretty quickly, I don't think that losing out on WR production is the biggest piece of the TE in the 3rd analysis. Once you get by the first wave of Top WR, after that a guy could finish from 8th to 22nd with only a slight variation in his scoring.

So we really need to compare the scoring differential of:

Gonzalez + a RB2 from a later round vs

A RB2 in the third and a TE from a later round

I suspect that depending upon the hit or miss factor of the RB2, the results will vary dramatically. For example, if the RB in question was either Martin or Barber from last year, then the Gonzalez pick would lose out. If the third round RB were Charlie Garner or Quentin Griffin, then that would be a different story.

That probably plays in Gonzalez' favor, as he is very predictable while the RB20 range is not. Again, if you feel that you can pick up the slack in other areas, then Gonzalez is a fine pick even in the late SECOND round. IMO, Gonzalez has always been a valuable pick in the 3rd round, the question is to whether Gates is.

This is what makes mocks worthwhile, as you can get a sense for who might be available in later picks to better project how your team would stack up with or without and early TE pick.

The bulk of the discussion I've been involved in has been on the "4 round drop at WR" scenario, but I think the more complete look is the scenario I described where multiple positions are going to get a one or two round drop. Depending on what you took in Rds 1-2, your RB2 and/or RB3 will come later, your QB may have to come a round later as you scramble to get your RBs. you lose a round or two at one or more wr slots, etc. A lot of the determination of the value lost at other positions by taking the stud TE comes from where you think the value will be available. If your draft looks like you will have a couple RBs you think you can trust in the RB20+ range, and you guess they will be available for another round, and you have projected a fairly flat tier of QBs that will last a round or two, then taking a TE early will pay dividends. because you have the flexibility to get similar value even though you are pushing those picks back a round. If you project that pushing RB, QB and WR back a round will drop you into a significantly lower tier or into a higher risk category as you described, then you are probably better off taking the safer route and waiting on a later tier at TE.

I think the decision should revolve around a "DVDB" approach comparing the value gained at TE to the potential value lost at other positions, but those value projections change given what you expect to happen during YOUR draft including some of the factors you described. My point was just that when looking from DVDB perspective, you have to be aware of the "multi-round" impact (on either one or multiple positions) of taking a TE since you will probably hold off on a TE for several more rounds if you don't jump on one in the third.

 

[Snotbubbles]

So we really need to compare the scoring differential of:Gonzalez + a RB2 from a later round vsA RB2 in the third and a TE from a later roundI suspect that depending upon the hit or miss factor of the RB2, the results will vary dramatically. For example, if the RB in question was either Martin or Barber from last year, then the Gonzalez pick would lose out. If the third round RB were Charlie Garner or Quentin Griffin, then that would be a different story.

If you go RB/RB in rounds 1 and 2 you're talking about RB3 in the third round, not RB 2. Then in leagues where you don't even start 3 RBs your third round RB might get you 0 points out of that 3rd round selection.

 

[David Yudkin]

So we really need to compare the scoring differential of:

Gonzalez + a RB2 from a later round vs

A RB2 in the third and a TE from a later round

I suspect that depending upon the hit or miss factor of the RB2, the results will vary dramatically. For example, if the RB in question was either Martin or Barber from last year, then the Gonzalez pick would lose out. If the third round RB were Charlie Garner or Quentin Griffin, then that would be a different story.

If you go RB/RB in rounds 1 and 2 you're talking about RB3 in the third round, not RB 2. Then in leagues where you don't even start 3 RBs your third round RB might get you 0 points out of that 3rd round selection.

I essentially covered this already earlier in the thread. IMO, the best way to take a TE in Round 3 is to already have gone RB/RB.The part you just quoted had to deal with teams that went RB/WR or QB/RB or some combination that left them with only 1 RB. So my comments were based on teams in those situations.

As for how much or little a RB3 will actually play, The NFL average for time missed by starting RBs is two games and change (2.2 or 2.3 games IIRC). Add in the two bye weeks, and on average a RB3 will be pressed into service in 6 games.

How many RB actually play in 16 games? LT . . . SA . . . Martin . . . and . . . ? Yes, I know there are some more, but the fact of the matter is that injuries happen and there are a finite amount of RB to work with.

Each year, yes, there will be a couple of waiver wire darlings (a la Droughns or Goings from last year), but there still will not be a ton of them.

As for whether investing in RB depth early is a worthwhile investment, all it takes is an early season ending injury with only two full-time RB on your time to be left with your RB2 as your RB1 and ??? as your RB2. Good luck trying to get a team to trade you a proven RB during the season, as teams that have a surplus will want an arm and two legs.

Let's say you DO take a RB3 early and you decide you DON'T want him . . . how much trade value does a starting NFL RB have during the season? One year I had 3 Top 10 RB and didn't need the extra one and parlayed that into Owens AND Gonzalez in a trade (I believe it was the year Edge got hurt and the guy was in dire straits for a RB).

Suppose you drafted DDavis, AGreen, and LJordan this year and suddenly Jordan panned out . . . yuo don't think at that point his trade value would be through the roof?

Unless you are in a league that freezes rosters, I would always rather be in a position of having too many RBs than not enough.

As for going TE in the 3rd, I still think it is worth considering, but it takes more preplanning to make sure you can still get some RB depth if you don't start with RB-RB.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I essentially covered this already earlier in the thread. IMO, the best way to take a TE in Round 3 is to already have gone RB/RB.The part you just quoted had to deal with teams that went RB/WR or QB/RB or some combination that left them with only 1 RB. So my comments were based on teams in those situations.

Then you agree that if you go RB/RB then drafting a TE in round three has little or no effect on your team with regard to a drop in talent at the WR or QB position.

As for how much or little a RB3 will actually play, The NFL average for time missed by starting RBs is two games and change (2.2 or 2.3 games IIRC). Add in the two bye weeks, and on average a RB3 will be pressed into service in 6 games.How many RB actually play in 16 games? LT . . . SA . . . Martin . . . and . . . ? Yes, I know there are some more, but the fact of the matter is that injuries happen and there are a finite amount of RB to work with.Each year, yes, there will be a couple of waiver wire darlings (a la Droughns or Goings from last year), but there still will not be a ton of them.As for whether investing in RB depth early is a worthwhile investment, all it takes is an early season ending injury with only two full-time RB on your time to be left with your RB2 as your RB1 and ??? as your RB2. Good luck trying to get a team to trade you a proven RB during the season, as teams that have a surplus will want an arm and two legs.Let's say you DO take a RB3 early and you decide you DON'T want him . . . how much trade value does a starting NFL RB have during the season? One year I had 3 Top 10 RB and didn't need the extra one and parlayed that into Owens AND Gonzalez in a trade (I believe it was the year Edge got hurt and the guy was in dire straits for a RB).Suppose you drafted DDavis, AGreen, and LJordan this year and suddenly Jordan panned out . . . yuo don't think at that point his trade value would be through the roof?Unless you are in a league that freezes rosters, I would always rather be in a position of having too many RBs than not enough.As for going TE in the 3rd, I still think it is worth considering, but it takes more preplanning to make sure you can still get some RB depth if you don't start with RB-RB.

Here goes the ADPs of RBs in the 3d, 4th, and 5th round: 18. Curtis Martin RB NYJ 3.01 19. LaMont Jordan RB OAK 3.03 20. Tatum Bell RB DEN 3.05 21. Chris Brown RB TEN 3.11 22. Ronnie Brown RB MIA 4.02 23. Carnell Williams RB TBB 4.06 24. J.J. Arrington RB ARI 4.08 25. Cedric Benson RB CHI 4.10 26. Fred Taylor RB JAC 4.11 27. Warrick Dunn RB ATL 4.11 28. Michael Bennett RB MIN 5.02 29. DeShaun Foster RB CAR 5.04 30. Duce Staley RB PIT 5.05 31. Larry Johnson RB KCC 5.10Tell my why is it more important to have one of the first 4 as opposed to one of the last 10?

 

[bagger.]

Taking a TE in the third round is typically the correct move in terms of VBD. However, VBD does not take into account drafting your best team, only isolated situations from round to round that focuses on drafting the best player.Taking a TE that early is a mistake, especially if you know who to target in later rounds who can produce at a level similar to the TE you take in the 3rd.Maybe the TE you take in the 3rd outproduces my TE I take in the 9th by 5 points per game. But the WR or RB I take in the 3rd instead of the TE (and the subsequent trickle down effect of other players I take in the 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. rounds) will more than make up for that difference.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Taking a TE that early is a mistake, especially if you know who to target in later rounds who can produce at a level similar to the TE you take in the 3rd.Maybe the TE you take in the 3rd outproduces my TE I take in the 9th by 5 points per game. But the WR or RB I take in the 3rd instead of the TE (and the subsequent trickle down effect of other players I take in the 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. rounds) will more than make up for that difference.

Please see my post earlier where I showed that taking a TE in the 3rd and a WR in the 4th and 7th will net you the same amount of points as taking a WR in the 3d and 4th and a TE in the 7th.

 

[David Yudkin]

I essentially covered this already earlier in the thread. IMO, the best way to take a TE in Round 3 is to already have gone RB/RB.

The part you just quoted had to deal with teams that went RB/WR or QB/RB or some combination that left them with only 1 RB. So my comments were based on teams in those situations.

Then you agree that if you go RB/RB then drafting a TE in round three has little or no effect on your team with regard to a drop in talent at the WR or QB position.

As for how much or little a RB3 will actually play, The NFL average for time missed by starting RBs is two games and change (2.2 or 2.3 games IIRC). Add in the two bye weeks, and on average a RB3 will be pressed into service in 6 games.

How many RB actually play in 16 games? LT . . . SA . . . Martin . . . and . . . ? Yes, I know there are some more, but the fact of the matter is that injuries happen and there are a finite amount of RB to work with.

Each year, yes, there will be a couple of waiver wire darlings (a la Droughns or Goings from last year), but there still will not be a ton of them.

As for whether investing in RB depth early is a worthwhile investment, all it takes is an early season ending injury with only two full-time RB on your time to be left with your RB2 as your RB1 and ??? as your RB2. Good luck trying to get a team to trade you a proven RB during the season, as teams that have a surplus will want an arm and two legs.

Let's say you DO take a RB3 early and you decide you DON'T want him . . . how much trade value does a starting NFL RB have during the season? One year I had 3 Top 10 RB and didn't need the extra one and parlayed that into Owens AND Gonzalez in a trade (I believe it was the year Edge got hurt and the guy was in dire straits for a RB).

Suppose you drafted DDavis, AGreen, and LJordan this year and suddenly Jordan panned out . . . yuo don't think at that point his trade value would be through the roof?

Unless you are in a league that freezes rosters, I would always rather be in a position of having too many RBs than not enough.

As for going TE in the 3rd, I still think it is worth considering, but it takes more preplanning to make sure you can still get some RB depth if you don't start with RB-RB.

Here goes the ADPs of RBs in the 3d, 4th, and 5th round:18. Curtis Martin RB NYJ 3.01

19. LaMont Jordan RB OAK 3.03

20. Tatum Bell RB DEN 3.05

21. Chris Brown RB TEN 3.11

22. Ronnie Brown RB MIA 4.02

23. Carnell Williams RB TBB 4.06

24. J.J. Arrington RB ARI 4.08

25. Cedric Benson RB CHI 4.10

26. Fred Taylor RB JAC 4.11

27. Warrick Dunn RB ATL 4.11

28. Michael Bennett RB MIN 5.02

29. DeShaun Foster RB CAR 5.04

30. Duce Staley RB PIT 5.05

31. Larry Johnson RB KCC 5.10

Tell my why is it more important to have one of the first 4 as opposed to one of the last 10?

Important? I'm not so sure that is imperative. Some people love convertibles. others don't. Some people like homes with swimming pools, others do not.As to which group has a better chance to perform better, I would easily say the 3rd round group than the 4th round group. I don't think any of the second group have a great chance of being in the Top 10 RB, but as you said if you already have two decent RB that may not matter any.

If you fell that your RB3 will not play much, than investing a high pick won't make sense. If you feel like your RB3 might be called into action more often than not, than it is worth taking a RB3 early (or if you hope to have some trade bait).

As we already covered, past hte third round the elite QB and WR will be gone either way, so as I see it, the 3rd round options are . . .

- Selection of a handful of the last group of starting RB with a lot of upside

- Last of the remaining top shelf WR

- Last of the remaining Big 3 QB (meaning McNabb)

- A Top TE

What you personally value is what you big here, I suppose. If you already have the security that your RB1 and RB2 will produce and stay healthy, then option one won't be an option. I've already given my opinion that unless you can get TO/Moss/Holt/CJ the other WR are good but may not be life changing (Harrison, Walker, Horn, etc.). Again, that's a personal call.

So I am inclined now to wonder if the choice is Gonzalez or McNabb, which is a better value pick. The problem with McNabb is that he could easily be sitting come fantasy playoff time, which is a hige risk. McNabb averaged 24.6 ppg last year. Vick (#12) averaged 16.8--a difference of 7.8 ppg. Gonzalez averaged 10.5 ppg. The #12 TE averaged 4.3--a difference of 6.2 ppg.

If you thing McNabb can repeat his performance and are hopeful that he will play at the end of the year, he may be a better pick (although that certainly is debatable).

 

[Snotbubbles]

As for how much or little a RB3 will actually play, The NFL average for time missed by starting RBs is two games and change (2.2 or 2.3 games IIRC). Add in the two bye weeks, and on average a RB3 will be pressed into service in 6 games.

This assumes that the players are injured on different weeks and also have different byes. Therefore on average your RB3 should play at best 6 games. Also is this the NFL average of games missed due to injury? Or does that factor in a guy like Jamal Lewis last year. Missed 4 games b/c of suspension.

Let's say you DO take a RB3 early and you decide you DON'T want him . . . how much trade value does a starting NFL RB have during the season? One year I had 3 Top 10 RB and didn't need the extra one and parlayed that into Owens AND Gonzalez in a trade (I believe it was the year Edge got hurt and the guy was in dire straits for a RB).Suppose you drafted DDavis, AGreen, and LJordan this year and suddenly Jordan panned out . . . yuo don't think at that point his trade value would be through the roof?

Let's say Jordan doesn't pan out? Then what? Do you think Gonzo has the same bust risk? You have alot of IFs that need to happen for your 3rd round pick to pan out if you take your RB3 there. You need either time missed by one of your 1st two picks (probably not something your hoping for), you need your RB3 to pan out (to make him a viable starter in those injury weeks and/or to trade him). Here goes last years 3rd round ADP RBs: Barlow, Rudi, Stephen Davis, DomD, Westbrook, HenryHere goes last year 4th round ADP RBs: C.Brown, Duce, Bennett, Martin, Barber, K.Jones, Q.Griffin, T.JonesNot much difference between the 3rd and the 4th and 5th, all are crapshoots.

 

[CalBear]

Taking a TE in the third round is typically the correct move in terms of VBD. However, VBD does not take into account drafting your best team, only isolated situations from round to round that focuses on drafting the best player.

Taking a TE that early is a mistake, especially if you know who to target in later rounds who can produce at a level similar to the TE you take in the 3rd.

Maybe the TE you take in the 3rd outproduces my TE I take in the 9th by 5 points per game. But the WR or RB I take in the 3rd instead of the TE (and the subsequent trickle down effect of other players I take in the 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. rounds) will more than make up for that difference.

Your premise is incorrect. The idea that a TE taken in the third round will downgrade your WR, QB, and RB is no more correct than the idea that a WR taken in the third round will downgrade your QB, RB, and TE. The idea is true as far as it goes, but it's not really meaningful. Taking a TE with a VBD of 100 is better than taking a WR with a VBD of 70; you will not make up those 30 points later, because the VBD available in the fourth round will be the same whether or not you took a TE.In the common case, you'll optimize the VBD in your starting lineup if you take the higher-VBD player regardless of position. There are edge cases where this is not true, but Gonzo-in-the-third is not one of those edge cases. Gonzo outproduces your seventh-round TE by more than Reggie Wayne will outproduce a seventh-round WR.

Real-world example: By Antsports ADP, Gonzo is being taken just ahead of Reggie Wayne in the third round, and Ashley Lelie is being taken just ahead of Dallas Clark in the seventh. FBG projects Reggie Wayne for 1200/11 (187 fantasy points) and Ashley Lelie for 990/7 (142 fantasy points, 45 point difference). Gonzo is projected at 1080/8 (156 fantasy points) and Dallas Clark for 644/7 (106 fantasy points, 50 point difference). So in terms of absolute points, Gonzo is ahead. But in terms of fantasy value, Gonzo is even further ahead, because Gonzo's reliability is much higher than Wayne's or Clark's, and Lelie's upside is higher than Wayne's.

It is more likely that Gonzo meets his projections than that Reggie Wayne or Dallas Clark does. And it is more likely that Ashley Lelie produces as much as Reggie Wayne than that Dallas Clark produces as much as Gonzo.

Edit to add: FBG has Dallas Clark projected at 55 receptions. He had 25 last season, and Marcus Pollard had 29, so they are projecting Clark to get 100% of Pollard's receptions. It might happen, but it is fairly unlikely. The Colts under Manning have never had a 50-reception TE. This just points out that your seventh-round TE is a fairly marginal fantasy prospect.

Any way you look at it, Gonzo is a stronger pick than Reggie Wayne, who isn't even the #1 WR on his own team. And I would continue along the same lines and say it would be foolish to take Andre Johnson, Javon Walker, or Joe Horn ahead of Gonzo.

 

[David Yudkin]

Here goes last years 3rd round ADP RBs: Barlow, Rudi, Stephen Davis, DomD, Westbrook, HenryHere goes last year 4th round ADP RBs: C.Brown, Duce, Bennett, Martin, Barber, K.Jones, Q.Griffin, T.Jones

I'm not sure where you are getting your ADP from, but in shark leagues most of those guys were going WAY earlier, which again skews the strategy as well. Barlow, Rudi, Davis were all Top 15 picks in the leagues I was in.Sure, if I knew Barber or Martin would still be around, then it's a no brainer. But what happens when the only guys left are Suggs, Barlow, the rookies, and maybe Dunn. As I said, a lot depends on your draft slot, as if you draft early in the thirs, there are a lot of picks until your 4th round pick.

 

[fightingillini]

There has been some great discussions here.It really comes down to drafting the optimal team given your draft slot. That could mean taking Gonzo in the 3rd, it may mean passing on Gonzo and taking McMichael 4-5 rounds later. The owner needs to mock out every plausible scenario (ex, taking RB-RB-Gonzo, RB-RB-C Johnson, Manning, RB-RB, etc.), given their draft position, and bring what you think is the optimal strategy to the draft.......and be prepared to change on the fly when the draft doesn't go as expected. In summary the owner needs to know how much is he losing at positions like QB1, WR1, WR2, and RB3 when taking Gonzo in the 3rd. Once the top WRs and top QBs are gone, taking Gonzo in the 3rd after you locked up your RBs makes perfect sense to me. My current cheatsheet has a fairly large tier of WRs after the first 4 are off the board. That makes taking Gonzo, and another WR in the same tier in the next round a correct play in terms of optimal team performance.As others have said, lineup requirements are critical. If your league starts 3WRs, they're more valuable and taking Gonzo in the 3rd is a bigger risk than a league where you only start 2WRs.

 

[bakes]

To me, drafting Gonzo/Gates is just like drafting an extra, starting every week, WR.

. . . at the cost of lower production some place else.If you take a TE in the 3rd, you will 99% of the time be looking at lower WR production, lower RB production, or lower QB production.

As others have already mentioned, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

If you go RB/RB/TE, you are behind the ball at WR and won't have an elite QB . . .

If you go RB/WR/TE, you will be behind at RB2 and won't have an elite QB . . .

If you go RB/QB/TE, you are behind at RB2 AND WR . . .

If you go QB/WR/TE, you have little left at RB to pick from . . .

I'm not saying taking a TE in the 3rd = certain fantasy death, but you really have to make some shrewd decisions further down the line or you could be teetering on the edge . . .

Agreed. Thing is, by going TE early, you're relying on the nine or eleven other teams in your league to let a stud slip a round or two. Doesn't happen very often in my league. Will the difference between, say, Gates or Gonzo and say Crumpler be greater than the difference between the best back (or QB or WR) on the board and what will be available the next time you pick? I'd think not.My bud and I were discussing our draft the other day (he's picking first, I'm 7th) and he's seriously considering Gates with his 3.1 pick (10 teams, 2QB/2RB/3WR/1TE/1K/1D, PPR league). He figures that his WR3 (most likely the #30 WR on the board) will be relatively more productive than any tight end he could take later on. Of course, he *could* be wrong...

 

[CalBear]

To me, drafting Gonzo/Gates is just like drafting an extra, starting every week, WR.

. . . at the cost of lower production some place else.If you take a TE in the 3rd, you will 99% of the time be looking at lower WR production, lower RB production, or lower QB production.

As others have already mentioned, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

If you go RB/RB/TE, you are behind the ball at WR and won't have an elite QB . . .

If you go RB/WR/TE, you will be behind at RB2 and won't have an elite QB . . .

If you go RB/QB/TE, you are behind at RB2 AND WR . . .

If you go QB/WR/TE, you have little left at RB to pick from . . .

I'm not saying taking a TE in the 3rd = certain fantasy death, but you really have to make some shrewd decisions further down the line or you could be teetering on the edge . . .

Agreed. Thing is, by going TE early, you're relying on the nine or eleven other teams in your league to let a stud slip a round or two. Doesn't happen very often in my league. Will the difference between, say, Gates or Gonzo and say Crumpler be greater than the difference between the best back (or QB or WR) on the board and what will be available the next time you pick? I'd think not.My bud and I were discussing our draft the other day (he's picking first, I'm 7th) and he's seriously considering Gates with his 3.1 pick (10 teams, 2QB/2RB/3WR/1TE/1K/1D, PPR league). He figures that his WR3 (most likely the #30 WR on the board) will be relatively more productive than any tight end he could take later on. Of course, he *could* be wrong...

The difference between Gonzo and Crumpler will almost certainly be greater than the difference between the best back, QB, or WR and what will be available the next time you pick. By FBG projections, Gonzo will score 47 points more than Crumpler: Reggie Wayne (3.10) minus 47 is Lee Evans (8.02), McNabb (3.05) minus 47 is Brett Favre (6.11), and Lamont Jordan (3.04) minus 47 is Derrick Blaylock (11.10). Since Crumpler is going at 6.05, you are doing better taking Gonzo and one of the other players.And again, that's discarding the fact that Gonzo's production is among the most reliable in the entire league.

I don't think Gates belongs in the same tier with Gonzo, and I would not feel comfortable taking him in the third round. Gates is still a question mark, much in the same way as Wayne and Jordan, and if I'm going to have a question mark at TE I'm not going to take him ahead of potentially good WRs and RBs. If Gates puts up another season like 2004, then he belongs with Gonzo. Right now, Gonzo is money in the bank.

 

[bagger.]

Taking a TE that early is a mistake, especially if you know who to target in later rounds who can produce at a level similar to the TE you take in the 3rd.

Maybe the TE you take in the 3rd outproduces my TE I take in the 9th by 5 points per game. But the WR or RB I take in the 3rd instead of the TE (and the subsequent trickle down effect of other players I take in the 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. rounds) will more than make up for that difference.

Please see my post earlier where I showed that taking a TE in the 3rd and a WR in the 4th and 7th will net you the same amount of points as taking a WR in the 3d and 4th and a TE in the 7th.

Bah...my post was apparently lost...Anyway, I can gain more than 5 PPG on a team basis drafting a TE in the 8th or 9th than a TE in the 3rd...even assuming I pick the correct #1 TE...which is a big assumption.

You only comparing 3rd, 4th, and 7th round picks does not consider the points lost in the 5th or 6th rounds either, so you aren't looking at the entire picture.

 

[CalBear]

You only comparing 3rd, 4th, and 7th round picks does not consider the points lost in the 5th or 6th rounds either, so you aren't looking at the entire picture.

Points aren't lost in the 5th or 6th rounds; you only take a player in one round. The same players are available in the fourth, fifth, and sixth rounds, whether you take Gonzo in the third or Clark in the seventh.

 

[HULLOBUDMAN]

To me, drafting Gonzo/Gates is just like drafting an extra, starting every week, WR.

. . . at the cost of lower production some place else.If you take a TE in the 3rd, you will 99% of the time be looking at lower WR production, lower RB production, or lower QB production.

As others have already mentioned, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

If you go RB/RB/TE, you are behind the ball at WR and won't have an elite QB . . .

If you go RB/WR/TE, you will be behind at RB2 and won't have an elite QB . . .

If you go RB/QB/TE, you are behind at RB2 AND WR . . .

If you go QB/WR/TE, you have little left at RB to pick from . . .

I'm not saying taking a TE in the 3rd = certain fantasy death, but you really have to make some shrewd decisions further down the line or you could be teetering on the edge . . .

Agreed. Thing is, by going TE early, you're relying on the nine or eleven other teams in your league to let a stud slip a round or two. Doesn't happen very often in my league. Will the difference between, say, Gates or Gonzo and say Crumpler be greater than the difference between the best back (or QB or WR) on the board and what will be available the next time you pick? I'd think not.My bud and I were discussing our draft the other day (he's picking first, I'm 7th) and he's seriously considering Gates with his 3.1 pick (10 teams, 2QB/2RB/3WR/1TE/1K/1D, PPR league). He figures that his WR3 (most likely the #30 WR on the board) will be relatively more productive than any tight end he could take later on. Of course, he *could* be wrong...

I would think a 10 team league would allow you to do this easier than a 16 team league although having to start 2 QBs would definitely make that decision tougher.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Bah...my post was apparently lost...Anyway, I can gain more than 5 PPG on a team basis drafting a TE in the 8th or 9th than a TE in the 3rd...even assuming I pick the correct #1 TE...which is a big assumption.You only comparing 3rd, 4th, and 7th round picks does not consider the points lost in the 5th or 6th rounds either, so you aren't looking at the entire picture.

Here's the assumption we were using (from Mungro's post):I assume the drafter went RB/RB in the first two roundsOption 1: Rd 3 - TE, Rd4 - WR, Rd 5 - RB3, Rd 6 - QB1, Rd 7 WROption 1: Rd 3 - WR, Rd4 - WR, Rd 5 - RB3, Rd 6 - QB1, Rd 7 TERound 4-5-6 are a wash so the difference in your roster is Rd3TE and Rd7 WR vs Rd 3WR and rd 7 TE.The numbers are identical in that situation.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Plus your RB3 is a backup and will net you 0 points until you have to start him due to injury or trade him. So what the RB3 scores is almost irrelevant to your starting lineup.

 

[bagger.]

Taking a TE in the third round is typically the correct move in terms of VBD.  However, VBD does not take into account drafting your best team, only isolated situations from round to round that focuses on drafting the best player.

Taking a TE that early is a mistake, especially if you know who to target in later rounds who can produce at a level similar to the TE you take in the 3rd.

Maybe the TE you take in the 3rd outproduces my TE I take in the 9th by 5 points per game.  But the WR or RB I take in the 3rd instead of the TE (and the subsequent trickle down effect of other players I take in the 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. rounds) will more than make up for that difference.

Your premise is incorrect. The idea that a TE taken in the third round will downgrade your WR, QB, and RB is no more correct than the idea that a WR taken in the third round will downgrade your QB, RB, and TE. The idea is true as far as it goes, but it's not really meaningful. Taking a TE with a VBD of 100 is better than taking a WR with a VBD of 70; you will not make up those 30 points later, because the VBD available in the fourth round will be the same whether or not you took a TE.In the common case, you'll optimize the VBD in your starting lineup if you take the higher-VBD player regardless of position. There are edge cases where this is not true, but Gonzo-in-the-third is not one of those edge cases. Gonzo outproduces your seventh-round TE by more than Reggie Wayne will outproduce a seventh-round WR.

Real-world example: By Antsports ADP, Gonzo is being taken just ahead of Reggie Wayne in the third round, and Ashley Lelie is being taken just ahead of Dallas Clark in the seventh. FBG projects Reggie Wayne for 1200/11 (187 fantasy points) and Ashley Lelie for 990/7 (142 fantasy points, 45 point difference). Gonzo is projected at 1080/8 (156 fantasy points) and Dallas Clark for 644/7 (106 fantasy points, 50 point difference). So in terms of absolute points, Gonzo is ahead. But in terms of fantasy value, Gonzo is even further ahead, because Gonzo's reliability is much higher than Wayne's or Clark's, and Lelie's upside is higher than Wayne's.

It is more likely that Gonzo meets his projections than that Reggie Wayne or Dallas Clark does. And it is more likely that Ashley Lelie produces as much as Reggie Wayne than that Dallas Clark produces as much as Gonzo.

Edit to add: FBG has Dallas Clark projected at 55 receptions. He had 25 last season, and Marcus Pollard had 29, so they are projecting Clark to get 100% of Pollard's receptions. It might happen, but it is fairly unlikely. The Colts under Manning have never had a 50-reception TE. This just points out that your seventh-round TE is a fairly marginal fantasy prospect.

Any way you look at it, Gonzo is a stronger pick than Reggie Wayne, who isn't even the #1 WR on his own team. And I would continue along the same lines and say it would be foolish to take Andre Johnson, Javon Walker, or Joe Horn ahead of Gonzo.

Your argument is the typical looking at VBD in a vacuum and not drafting from a team PPG perspective. If you want to get your team PPG as high as possible you can't just say Player X's VBD is 30 points higher than Player Y's in round 3, so that is the best choice. That only takes into consideration the decision tree for that individual round (round n), not rounds n+1....6.My premise is not incorrect regarding the trickle down effect of point production. You are comparing the dropoff between a WR in round 3 and round 7 with a TE in those same rounds. Your comparison is overly simplistic and does not take into consideration the fluid nature of your choices. You do not have only these two choices...you have choices of every round in between. Until you look at drafting in a team sense, you will not understand how to build the best team. You will take the best individuals according to some arbitrary baseline.

Your "real world" example has a lot of your own biases in it regarding Gonzo's reliability and Lelie's upside, so that doesn't do me too much good.

By taking a TE over a WR1 in round 3, what would have been your WR2 is now your WR1, your WR3 is now WR2, the QB you could have drafted in the 6th round you may now take in the 7th round and there is a dropoff in points there.

This is the fundamental flaw with DVBD, and especially VBD that doesn't take into consideration who is taken in between picks at all.

I am not going to sit here and try to convince you the best way to draft. I don't really care what you do. However, your method of looking at drafting in terms of VBD only looks at drafting the individual with the largest dropoff in each round and does not look at drafting the best team. These two can be the same, but often are not.

Drafting is a zero sum game. Every choice you make effects other positions and you are trading off points from one position to another with every pick. The end result is to have the team with the highest PPG. VBD does not accomplish this.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Anyway, I can gain more than 5 PPG on a team basis drafting a TE in the 8th or 9th than a TE in the 3rd...even assuming I pick the correct #1 TE...which is a big assumption.

Tony Gonzalez position ranks since 1999:1999: 22000: 12001: 12002: 22003: 12004: 2You're taking a greater risk trying to figure out who should be your WR1 or RB3 than who should be the TE1.

 

[bagger.]

Bah...my post was apparently lost...

Anyway, I can gain more than 5 PPG on a team basis drafting a TE in the 8th or 9th than a TE in the 3rd...even assuming I pick the correct #1 TE...which is a big assumption.

You only comparing 3rd, 4th, and 7th round picks does not consider the points lost in the 5th or 6th rounds either, so you aren't looking at the entire picture.

Here's the assumption we were using (from Mungro's post):I assume the drafter went RB/RB in the first two rounds

Option 1: Rd 3 - TE, Rd4 - WR, Rd 5 - RB3, Rd 6 - QB1, Rd 7 WR

Option 1: Rd 3 - WR, Rd4 - WR, Rd 5 - RB3, Rd 6 - QB1, Rd 7 TE

Round 4-5-6 are a wash so the difference in your roster is Rd3TE and Rd7 WR vs Rd 3WR and rd 7 TE.

The numbers are identical in that situation.

Your assumption that rounds 4-6 are a wash is the flaw in your logic.

 

[BassNBrew]

Taking a TE that early is a mistake, especially if you know who to target in later rounds who can produce at a level similar to the TE you take in the 3rd.

Maybe the TE you take in the 3rd outproduces my TE I take in the 9th by 5 points per game. But the WR or RB I take in the 3rd instead of the TE (and the subsequent trickle down effect of other players I take in the 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. rounds) will more than make up for that difference.

Please see my post earlier where I showed that taking a TE in the 3rd and a WR in the 4th and 7th will net you the same amount of points as taking a WR in the 3d and 4th and a TE in the 7th.

Bah...my post was apparently lost...Anyway, I can gain more than 5 PPG on a team basis drafting a TE in the 8th or 9th than a TE in the 3rd...even assuming I pick the correct #1 TE...which is a big assumption.

You only comparing 3rd, 4th, and 7th round picks does not consider the points lost in the 5th or 6th rounds either, so you aren't looking at the entire picture.

Still waiting for you to apply this in practice.

 

[bagger.]

Plus your RB3 is a backup and will net you 0 points until you have to start him due to injury or trade him. So what the RB3 scores is almost irrelevant to your starting lineup.

This is also a flaw in your logic looking at #s as absolutes.Your RB3 may be your every week starter if RB1 or 2 does not perform even if he is not injured. Your WRs who are your 2 and 3 (instead of your 1 and 2) may outperform your 1.

By forgoing the TE in round 3, you are giving yourself more players that will produce at a certain threshold that will give you a team PPG higher than by taking a TE in the 3rd round.

Looking at players as RB1 or WR3 is a much too simplistic view of your players. You are trying to get as many productive players as possible for the best team score

You can argue that Gonzo's VBD is higher and I won't dispute that. VBD does not take into consideration drafting the best team.

 

[bagger.]

Taking a TE that early is a mistake, especially if you know who to target in later rounds who can produce at a level similar to the TE you take in the 3rd.

Maybe the TE you take in the 3rd outproduces my TE I take in the 9th by 5 points per game. But the WR or RB I take in the 3rd instead of the TE (and the subsequent trickle down effect of other players I take in the 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. rounds) will more than make up for that difference.

Please see my post earlier where I showed that taking a TE in the 3rd and a WR in the 4th and 7th will net you the same amount of points as taking a WR in the 3d and 4th and a TE in the 7th.

Bah...my post was apparently lost...Anyway, I can gain more than 5 PPG on a team basis drafting a TE in the 8th or 9th than a TE in the 3rd...even assuming I pick the correct #1 TE...which is a big assumption.

You only comparing 3rd, 4th, and 7th round picks does not consider the points lost in the 5th or 6th rounds either, so you aren't looking at the entire picture.

Still waiting for you to apply this in practice.

The only way to do it in practice is by drafting. Anyone can pick and choose the ideal examples of what would have to happen to make either scenario work out. I don't see the value in that.The real world entails surprises, WR2s who perform as WR1s, etc. By shifting the round you take a backup RB, another WR, and/or a QB does have implications on your team. It is not as easy as saying well I am taking a WR in the 3rd and my TE in the 7th or vice versa and comparing the result keeping all other rounds the same.

The implications of each pick you make in every round in the draft are much more complex than that.

It is in essence the Chaos Theory of the smallest change in one pick can drastically alter a draft, and will alter it differently each time it is done depending on when it is done in the draft and who is drafting.

 

[BassNBrew]

Plus your RB3 is a backup and will net you 0 points until you have to start him due to injury or trade him.  So what the RB3 scores is almost irrelevant to your starting lineup.

This is also a flaw in your logic looking at #s as absolutes.Your RB3 may be your every week starter if RB1 or 2 does not perform even if he is not injured. Your WRs who are your 2 and 3 (instead of your 1 and 2) may outperform your 1.

By forgoing the TE in round 3, you are giving yourself more players that will produce at a certain threshold that will give you a team PPG higher than by taking a TE in the 3rd round.

Looking at players as RB1 or WR3 is a much too simplistic view of your players. You are trying to get as many productive players as possible for the best team score

You can argue that Gonzo's VBD is higher and I won't dispute that. VBD does not take into consideration drafting the best team.

And I can argue the best course of action is to selcet Gonzo first assuring a #1 or #2 TE and then draft the 2005 version of Muhammad. Walker, and Driver who will still be available after round 3.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Your RB3 may be your every week starter if RB1 or 2 does not perform even if he is not injured.

But then you've wasted a pick in round 1 and 2. You also need to effectively predict which RB3 is correct. You could get a Travis Henry.

By forgoing the TE in round 3, you are giving yourself more players that will produce at a certain threshold that will give you a team PPG higher than by taking a TE in the 3rd round

My league doesn't award points for the highest scoring bench. Only guys I start count.

Your assumption that rounds 4-6 are a wash is the flaw in your logic.

Logic not flawed because the same players are available. If you plan to go RB/RB/WR/WR/RB/QB/TE and instead go RB/RB/TE/WR/RB/QB/WR you'll have the exact same team except your TE1 and your WR2 will be different.The way you're looking at it is if you go WR in rd3 you can get a team of 10 guys to score 1000 total points. If you draft a TE in rd3 you can only get a team of 10 guys to score 900 total points. The problem is you can only start 6 guys, not 10. It's not getting the highest scoring team, its getting the highest scoring STARTING team.

 

[BassNBrew]

The only way to do it in practice is by drafting.

Speaking of which...why did you it? ???

 

[bagger.]

Anyway, I can gain more than 5 PPG on a team basis drafting a TE in the 8th or 9th than a TE in the 3rd...even assuming I pick the correct #1 TE...which is a big assumption.

Tony Gonzalez position ranks since 1999:1999: 2

2000: 1

2001: 1

2002: 2

2003: 1

2004: 2

You're taking a greater risk trying to figure out who should be your WR1 or RB3 than who should be the TE1.

I have actually done some research on stud TEs and have a good idea of candidates for 2005.Even if Gonzo is the #2 TE, the lack of production he did not give you erodes your VBD even further to the point where it is not a feasible choice.

There is no room for error taking a TE that early.

 

[bagger.]

The only way to do it in practice is by drafting.

Speaking of which...why did you it? ???

What? SOSII?I thought I copied everyone on the e-mail but I am significantly cutting back on leagues this year and am doing a Survivor league for another site so that was the one I was going to do.

That is by far the toughest drafts I have ever been a part of, and I really enjoyed my time, but having too many teams was making FF unenjoyable for me.

 

[bagger.]

Plus your RB3 is a backup and will net you 0 points until you have to start him due to injury or trade him.  So what the RB3 scores is almost irrelevant to your starting lineup.

This is also a flaw in your logic looking at #s as absolutes.Your RB3 may be your every week starter if RB1 or 2 does not perform even if he is not injured. Your WRs who are your 2 and 3 (instead of your 1 and 2) may outperform your 1.

By forgoing the TE in round 3, you are giving yourself more players that will produce at a certain threshold that will give you a team PPG higher than by taking a TE in the 3rd round.

Looking at players as RB1 or WR3 is a much too simplistic view of your players. You are trying to get as many productive players as possible for the best team score

You can argue that Gonzo's VBD is higher and I won't dispute that. VBD does not take into consideration drafting the best team.

And I can argue the best course of action is to selcet Gonzo first assuring a #1 or #2 TE and then draft the 2005 version of Muhammad. Walker, and Driver who will still be available after round 3.

But if I forgo Gonzo, I get Horn and Driver/Muhammad/etc. and still get a TE who can at worst produce within 5 PPG of Gonzo.

 

[-OZ-]

The real world entails surprises, WR2s who perform as WR1s, etc. By shifting the round you take a backup RB, another WR, and/or a QB does have implications on your team. It is not as easy as saying well I am taking a WR in the 3rd and my TE in the 7th or vice versa and comparing the result keeping all other rounds the same.

But through it all, there is one constant Gonzo is the elite TE in the NFL, period, end of story, you do not get a safer pick except for Manning, and Manning will cost a 1st in most leagues.

Going all the way back to 2000, Gonzo has never finished lower than #3, usually #1.

 

[Snotbubbles]

But if I forgo Gonzo, I get Horn and Driver/Muhammad/etc. and still get a TE who can at worst produce within 5 PPG of Gonzo.

Horn FBG projections: 194(ADP 7th) Lelie FBG projections: 142Difference 3.25 PPGGonzo FBG projections: 156(ADP 7th) McMichael FBG projections: 100Difference 3.5 PPG

 

[bagger.]

Your RB3 may be your every week starter if RB1 or 2 does not perform even if he is not injured.

But then you've wasted a pick in round 1 and 2. You also need to effectively predict which RB3 is correct. You could get a Travis Henry.

By forgoing the TE in round 3, you are giving yourself more players that will produce at a certain threshold that will give you a team PPG higher than by taking a TE in the 3rd round

My league doesn't award points for the highest scoring bench. Only guys I start count.

Your assumption that rounds 4-6 are a wash is the flaw in your logic.

Logic not flawed because the same players are available. If you plan to go RB/RB/WR/WR/RB/QB/TE and instead go RB/RB/TE/WR/RB/QB/WR you'll have the exact same team except your TE1 and your WR2 will be different.The way you're looking at it is if you go WR in rd3 you can get a team of 10 guys to score 1000 total points. If you draft a TE in rd3 you can only get a team of 10 guys to score 900 total points. The problem is you can only start 6 guys, not 10. It's not getting the highest scoring team, its getting the highest scoring STARTING team.

The logic is flawed because even though the same players are available, by forgoing a TE early you are being able to start more of those same early round WRs along with a late round TE. I have said this before so maybe you missed it, but the choice is not between a 3rd and 7th round TE and a 3rd and 7th round WR with all other choices being the same. The choices (and when you can draft them) will be inherently different due to the choices you make.Also, when I talk of team PPG, that does not refer to total team points, but rather your team's starters as a group. Perhaps I should have made that more clear, but I am not talking about bench points. I am talking about drafting more players that on a weekly basis will give you replicable point production on a high level that will beat opponents in HTH leagues.

You are taking projections as gospel. This is a mistake. You need to draft as many good players as possible that get you to a certain PPG level as a group of starters throughout the year. Who you thought was your RB1 may be your RB2 or RB3 at the end of the year. Maybe your RB2 will miss 4 games to a minor injury so your RB3 will play 1/3 of the season as a starter.

There are so many contingencies out there that you need to look at the players that you draft as a group of interchangable parts that will give you production on some level depending on the week or matchup.

Pigeon-holing players as WR2 does not accomplish this.

 

[bagger.]

But if I forgo Gonzo, I get Horn and Driver/Muhammad/etc. and still get a TE who can at worst produce within 5 PPG of Gonzo.

Horn FBG projections: 194(ADP 7th) Lelie FBG projections: 142

Difference 3.25 PPG

Gonzo FBG projections: 156

(ADP 7th) McMichael FBG projections: 100

Difference 3.5 PPG

That is assuming that:1. Those projections will be exactly correct (they won't)

2. You will have the ability to get both of those players at your draft position in each of those rounds (most likely you won't)

Your examples of FBG projections (which I don't use) and ADPs (which are generalities at best) mean nothing, and I say that in the nicest way possible. They are guidelines, and you relying on them as fact to build the best team is a mistake.

But good luck in the upcoming season.

 

[BassNBrew]

The only way to do it in practice is by drafting.

Speaking of which...why did you it? ???

What? SOSII?I thought I copied everyone on the e-mail but I am significantly cutting back on leagues this year and am doing a Survivor league for another site so that was the one I was going to do.

That is by far the toughest drafts I have ever been a part of, and I really enjoyed my time, but having too many teams was making FF unenjoyable for me.

That league would have taken less time then what you've spent in this thread. Furthermore, a league with competition that stiff would have been ideal to test your theories and mettle. That should have been the last league that you bagged.PS...My Gonzo pick in the 3rd last year in that league kept me around longer then most.