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

[Duckboy]

I participated in an xpertleagues survivor draft on Monday. Drew the 1st pick. Start 1-2-2-1-1-1, 12 teams, standard scoring.First pick was LT; by the time 2.12 rolled around, all of my top WRs (Moss, TO, Harrison, CJ, Holt) were gone, as well as Manning and CPep. With another 22 picks before I went again, I took CMart to get my RB2 and Gonzales.Reasoning: with Martin, I figured I had 2 strong RBs, a 3rd would be overkill, especially since the starters would be gone by the next turn. Pick up a bye-week guy a little later (got Bettis at 6.12 and TJones at 9.1). WRs, I knew I would miss most of my next tier with the WR run starting, but hope someone dropped (grabbed Bennett at 4.12, missed Driver at 6.12/7.1 by a pick).Only other player I considered was McNabb, and I figured I could grab a close QB at the next turn. Took Bulger at 5.1; in retrospect, should have waited QB until the next turn and picked a better WR (ended up with Bulger/Lelie opposed to Driver/Green), but that's a different story.I felt in a mandatory start-TE survivor format, getting a player who is as close to a guarantee over the field was the best way to go.

 

[Cool in the pocket]

Bagger who would you have chosen at 3.9? IMHO, there were no other justifiable options given how the draft laid out. If I reach for one of the rookie RB's or next tier WR's, I am putting my 3rd round pick at huge risk whereas Tony G. provides (arguably) one of the safest choices. True it does force you to scramble for RB/WR later, but most believe that WR's can be found late. As evidence, I got Rod Smith at 10.02 and Santana Moss at 12.02 in this same draft. Not everyone will agree that these specific two should have been there, but most believe you can find serviceable WR's this late. I would rather know that my 3rd pick was as close to a sure thing as there is and scramble for WR later than reach in the 3rd. Scrambling for RB's well that is a different story, but I didn't feel that any of those available at 3.9 were more valuable than Tony G. was.

 

[bagger.]

Stating projections as facts is not a real world scenario.  And picking and choosing what players might work with taking Gonzo in the 3rd is not indicative of who may be available for you in your draft at that given spot.

Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you've got nothing new to say.

 

[bagger.]

Bagger who would you have chosen at 3.9? IMHO, there were no other justifiable options given how the draft laid out. If I reach for one of the rookie RB's or next tier WR's, I am putting my 3rd round pick at huge risk whereas Tony G. provides (arguably) one of the safest choices. True it does force you to scramble for RB/WR later, but most believe that WR's can be found late. As evidence, I got Rod Smith at 10.02 and Santana Moss at 12.02 in this same draft. Not everyone will agree that these specific two should have been there, but most believe you can find serviceable WR's this late. I would rather know that my 3rd pick was as close to a sure thing as there is and scramble for WR later than reach in the 3rd. Scrambling for RB's well that is a different story, but I didn't feel that any of those available at 3.9 were more valuable than Tony G. was.

Valid question.Given the way he drafted, Joe Horn and Chris Brown in the 3rd and 4th rounds. I personally would have drafted DD in the second round but I think given what he did that is the next best alternative.

I understand the logic that WRs can be found late. It is just very difficult for you to land that one guy. When I drafted Gonzo in the past I went with that theory of drafting more WRs in the later rounds hoping to hit one of those guys or get a waiver wire WR...it is much more difficult in practice than it is in theory.

Like I have said before, by drafting Gonzo that early, you are forced to hit a home run on a WR late. That isn't the best way to draft a team.

 

[Monkeyface Prickleback]

bagger, you contend that you now realize the error of your ways, in taking gonzo early in previous years. thus, you now have added wisdom in knowing "not" to take him.there are many things wrong with that idea, but I'll start with the sample pool.

 

[Native]

9 yds X 32 teams X 16 games = 4608 more yards

1.2 pts X 32 teams X 16 games = 614 more points

Is that all the increase was? 

My math must have been wrong or what I posted was incorrect.. Yardage was up 2% and scoring 6%.The actual yardage difference was 2,836 yards (up 88 yards per team on the season). Essentially allocating almost all of that yardage by expanding the RB depth pool leaves almost nothing for all other positions.

If we said that there would be 25 rushers with 1,000+ yards, that would far exceed the total yardage variation from year to year.

For example, in looking at the Player Spotlights and projection threads, many people have 15 or so RBs going over 1,300 rushing yards. Last year there were 8. Some people have close to 25 RB with over 1,000 yards rushing this year. Last year there were 18. When you add up all that additional projected yardage, it is nearly impossible for that to happen--the cumulative league rushing total would be way out of whack compared to other seasons.

Total scoring was up 395 points (or 12 points per team over the course of the season). I can't tell you how many RB are getting projected to have 10 TD this year--almost every starting RB seems to get that in their projections. Even the guys in the RB20s are getting pegged for 10+ TD. Last year there were 12 with that many.

All I'm saying is that the volume of production that people suggest will happen will never happen, as there will not be 25 guys with 1,300 rushing yards and 10 TD.

David, nice post. Please note I wasnt suggesting that all the third and fourth round RB's will have 1300 yard seasons. As you correctly pointed out, history showed that statistically speaking, there simply arent enough yards to go around. But then again, that was never really the question. Every year approxmately 50% of all first round RB's fail to live up to their to preseason statistical expectations. So the real question is, (or should be) - what are the odds that a "second-tier" back drafted in rd 3/4 will put up RB1 or RB2 numbers this year? And my stance has been that this year in particular, you have a number of extremely talented backs in good scenarios that will be available in the mid rounds. Brown, Caddy and Benson are all top five draft picks that have the opportunity to break 300 carries this year. Arrington can as well. Dunn is perpetually on the all-underrated team and can be had as late as the 5th round. Duce Staley is a known commodity that was a top 10 RB before getting injured last year. Not to mention Fred Taylor, who if healthy, will guarantee you 1200 yards.Now, granted, not everyone is high on all these guys. So be it. But my point is, if you believe that one (or more) of the backs falling to the 3rd/4th round have high upside and are in excellent situations to succeed (I do), then you should DEFINIETLY be looking at a guy like Gonzo early on.

Keep in mind that its not every year that there is such an abundance of RB talent in the 3/4th round. For examle, two years ago, the most popular late 3rd/4th round backs were guys like Trung Candidate and Amos Zeroue. Clearly, neither had the talent or pedigree of this years second-tier backs (and owners that picked them suffered). So while not an exact science (duh), you have to look at your own personal rankings to calcuate the odds of finding a diamond in the rough before reaching for non rb/wr's in the early rounds.

 

[harrycarey]

I didn't read the rest of this thread so forgive me if this has been mentioned, but I think there are so many really good te's that you don't need one in the 3rd or 4th.In no particular order top te's are:GonzalezGatesWhittenShockeyHeapDallas ClarkCrumplerClark might be a little below the rest, but that's 6 te's that could all post #1 te numbers.

 

[CalBear]

I didn't read the rest of this thread so forgive me if this has been mentioned, but I think there are so many really good te's that you don't need one in the 3rd or 4th.

In no particular order top te's are:

Gonzalez

Gates

Whitten

Shockey

Heap

Dallas Clark

Crumpler

Clark might be a little below the rest, but that's 6 te's that could all post #1 te numbers.

Read the thread next time, you might learn something.

 

[bagger.]

I didn't read the rest of this thread so forgive me if this has been mentioned, but I think there are so many really good te's that you don't need one in the 3rd or 4th.

In no particular order top te's are:

Gonzalez

Gates

Whitten

Shockey

Heap

Dallas Clark

Crumpler

Clark might be a little below the rest, but that's 6 te's that could all post #1 te numbers.

Read the thread next time, you might learn something.

Just because he has an opposing viewpoint as you does not mean you should treat him with disrespect.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

I didn't read the rest of this thread so forgive me if this has been mentioned, but I think there are so many really good te's that you don't need one in the 3rd or 4th.

In no particular order top te's are:

Gonzalez

Gates

Whitten

Shockey

Heap

Dallas Clark

Crumpler

Clark might be a little below the rest, but that's 6 te's that could all post #1 te numbers.

Read the thread next time, you might learn something.

Just because he has an opposing viewpoint as you does not mean you should treat him with disrespect.

Actually I'm with Calbear on this one. This has been one of the livelier strategy discussions around here in a while. It has been on the front page for 5 days now and has reached 5 pages in length. He decides to jump in, professing he hadn't read anything as if that would somehow excuse the fact that he's making a comment that sets the discussion back 4 days.

 

[BassNBrew]

I didn't read the rest of this thread so forgive me if this has been mentioned, but I think there are so many really good te's that you don't need one in the 3rd or 4th.

In no particular order top te's are:

Gonzalez

Gates

Whitten

Shockey

Heap

Dallas Clark

Crumpler

Clark might be a little below the rest, but that's 6 te's that could all post #1 te numbers.

Read the thread next time, you might learn something.

Just because he has an opposing viewpoint as you does not mean you should treat him with disrespect.

And that viewpoint is that all these guys will be within 5 ppg of Gonzo? Of course there are still only 7 guys on the list so 4 owners would be stuck out in the cold, not to mention the fact that alot of these guys still have to be drafted early enough to impact you in other areas.

 

[stevec]

In no particular order top te's are:GonzalezGatesWhittenShockeyHeapDallas ClarkCrumplerClark might be a little below the rest, but that's 6 te's that could all post #1 te numbers.

Ah, but they won't. In fact most of them won't come close, based on historical averages. Of that group, there are 4 guys who's average season falls in the top 3:Heap 2 of 4 years - 2 years below top 12Gates 1 of 2 years - 1 year below top 12Gonzo 6 of 8 years - 1 year at 10, 1 year below top 12Witten 1 of 2 years - 1 year below top 12Of the 6 guys you list a max of 3 can be top 3 barring ties. So one of these guys will very likely not be top 3.We've already covered that the top TE scores a lot more than the average starter at TE - TE #6, and in fact there's even been historically a big gap between #1 and #3, while sometimes #1 & 2 are close, sometimes not.Yes you can hit the late TE lottery like Gates last year. But lots of us grabbed the wrong guy, and gave up points. Getting the #1 performing TE and the roughly 4-5 PPG boost over other teams in the league is pretty huge. The question is who will it be?

 

[Snotbubbles]

Tony Gonzalez last year (using FBG scoring) had 168.3 pts. That would rank him as the #12 WR. Considering in round 4 you could draft another WR (Wayne, Driver, DJax) who could finish in the top 12. Essentially you're getting two #1 WRs, with one at a position where the #3 guy last year would have been the #47 WR.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you could look at drafting Gonzo in the 3d as drafting your WR1 with the ability of starting him at a position where the #3 guy at the same position would be a WR3 at best.

I don't know...I'm just rambling now.

 

[ko-jack]

Good luck getting a top WR or QB in the 3rd in a 12 team redraft start 2 WR, 1 TE required, 1QB, no flex leaque. Look at recent antsports ADPs. Moss, TO, Harrison, Holt and Johnson are all gone by the end of the second. McNabb is going 3.2.

that was the whole point of the thread. if you play in 10 team leagues that start 2 wr, you can go rb-rb-te all day and still have nothing but quality wrs to choose from.

bottom line, the pro of a stud te early, its a great value.

the con, you give up something to get him.

but isnt it the same for the stud rb theory?, you lose out on the very best wrs and qbs, the stud qb theory? you lose out on the very best wrs/rbs, and the stud wr theory?, you lose out on rbs/qbs.

you can go round and round on this till the end of time. every team will have a need after a draft, every team's success or lack thereof will depend on players drafted in the mid to late rounds. If you could win your league in the 1st 4 rounds, wouldnt everyone be an expert/fantasy god?

this thread shoud be closed. every post is based on mocks and ifs that support ones opinion.

 

[Monkeyface Prickleback]

bagger, you contend that you now realize the error of your ways, in taking gonzo early in previous years. thus, you now have added wisdom in knowing "not" to take him.

there are many things wrong with that idea, but I'll start with the sample pool.

 

[-OZ-]

this thread shoud be closed. every post is based on mocks and ifs that support ones opinion.

it shouldn't be closed, but people need to recognize the balancing act and flexibility of a draft.Personally, if I'm in the 12 hole and I walk away with Portis, Jamal Lewis, Gonzo and Ward, I'm fairly happy.

I'd also be happy with Manning, Ahman, Bell and Arrington.

And a few other possible combinations from the real-time rankings, IMO there is no one "correct" answer here.

 

[bikerider']

I have no problem taking the TE early if a huge upside is possible and I feel his base year is significantly better than the TE-junk you pick up in rds 10 or 11. Gonzo does not have a huge upside. Gates does. Gonzo's best years are behind him.

 

[BassNBrew]

I have no problem taking the TE early if a huge upside is possible and I feel his base year is significantly better than the TE-junk you pick up in rds 10 or 11. Gonzo does not have a huge upside. Gates does. Gonzo's best years are behind him.

You could say the exact same thing about Manning and Boller.

 

[-OZ-]

I have no problem taking the TE early if a huge upside is possible and I feel his base year is significantly better than the TE-junk you pick up in rds 10 or 11. Gonzo does not have a huge upside. Gates does. Gonzo's best years are behind him.

You're confusing upside with risk, and lack of upside with consistancy.

 

[ko-jack]

this thread shoud be closed. every post is based on mocks and ifs that support ones opinion.

it shouldn't be closed, but people need to recognize the balancing act and flexibility of a draft.Personally, if I'm in the 12 hole and I walk away with Portis, Jamal Lewis, Gonzo and Ward, I'm fairly happy.

I'd also be happy with Manning, Ahman, Bell and Arrington.

And a few other possible combinations from the real-time rankings, IMO there is no one "correct" answer here.

yet another ficticious example to support your happiness.

 

[-OZ-]

this thread shoud be closed. every post is based on mocks and ifs that support ones opinion.

it shouldn't be closed, but people need to recognize the balancing act and flexibility of a draft.Personally, if I'm in the 12 hole and I walk away with Portis, Jamal Lewis, Gonzo and Ward, I'm fairly happy.

I'd also be happy with Manning, Ahman, Bell and Arrington.

And a few other possible combinations from the real-time rankings, IMO there is no one "correct" answer here.

yet another ficticious example to support your happiness.

I prefer to consider it a hypothetical.