What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Rob Gronkowski - Dynasty Value Discussion (1 Viewer)

Tanner9919 said:
1st round is too early to select Gronkowski..a bad back, bad ankles, bad forearm, for a player who'll be triple covered now that NE offense is without 5 guys who caught 40+ passes each last season..defenses will key on Gronk and he'll be stifled by the coverage..

Jimmy Graham will be more productive , but the pink elephant in the room is J. Witten, who'll lkely see a huge uptick in TDs - just read whats happening in Dallas training camp, they're throwing to Witten at the goalline now..

and Witten is probably a 3rd round selection? money in the bank for who likely is the most consistent fantasy player,atleast in PPR, ever..
Witten is 31, his yards per route run has been declining precipitously for the last four years, Dez is commanding a larger share of the offense, and the entire Cowboys franchise is teetering on the brink of a cap hell as bad as the one now facing the Oakland Raiders. In the last four years, Romo has thrown 96 touchdowns and just 12 of them (1 in 8) have gone to Witten, so I find it hard to expect a huge uptick in 2013 based on a few goal-line drills in training camp.

Witten is a mess of red flags, and I probably wouldn't draft him in a dynasty startup unless he fell to the 5th round, even in PPR leagues. In non-PPR, I'd consider Witten nearly undraftable in startups. He hasn't produced decent fantasy value with Romo under center since 2007, and history has been rather unkind to TEs on the wrong side of 30, Tony Gonzalez notwithstanding.
Witten hasn't produced decent fantasy numbers since 2007?

He was te 2 last year and te 4 the year before
In non-PPR, I'd consider Witten nearly undraftable. He hasn't produced decent fantasy value with Romo under center since 2007.

In non-PPR, Witten was TE5 and TE6 over the last two years. In 2009, Witten was TE8. Witten managed to finish as TE1 in 2010, but he only did so because Romo got hurt and Witten was Kitna's go-to guy in the red zone- Witten caught 44% of Kitna's touchdown passes, but on average only gets 13% of Romo's. When you pay as much as Witten costs, getting middle-of-the-road TE production doesn't cut it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
you guys know what your getting into, a guy who produces hughly when he plays. Just a have a good back up plan
All you need is a very "average" back up, and just hope Gronk is active for the playoffs.

If the dude plays 8 total games, and you use some waiver wire TE for the other 8, you will still probably score top 4-5 TE points in your league.
Way better, even. Last year, if you had started Rob Gronkowski for 8 games and started me for the other 8, you would have scored as many fantasy points as the Kyle Rudolph owner (about 105). If you had started Rob Gronkowski for 8 games and started Tony Moeaki (who finished the season as the 32nd best TE) for the other 8, you would have scored about as many fantasy points as the Heath Miller owner (about 132). If you'd started Gronkowski for 8 games and started Lance Kendricks (TE18) for another 8, you would have finished with the second most fantasy points, just 8 points behind Graham.

 
I stated this earlier that I tried to buy him in my keeper leagues.

My take is if you can get him for the late 2nd or early 3rd round price that he is going for in start up dynasty I would do it in a heart beat. If you have to pay the late first round price for him I would say hold off.
I don't see Gronk going later than the 13th pick in any dynasty start up where you have to start a TE, there is no way he will ever be there in the 2nd or 3rd entertaining the thought would be pointless.
Rob Gronkowski's ADP is around pick 20 in TE-mandatory dynasty startups. In leagues that award 1.5 PPR to TEs, I doubt Gronk makes it past pick 13, but in leagues without TE-heavy scoring, I've yet to see Gronkowski go in the first round (although I would certainly take him there, if I had to).

 
In 0 PPR leagues I take Gronk over Graham, since he scores 1.5x as much as Graham in terms of VBD per game (historically). That is enough to make up for the injury risk. Graham will give you more games (in expectation) but probably not 1.5 as many.

In 1.5 PPR I prefer Graham, since Gronk is only worth about 1.25x as much as Graham in that format, in VBD per game.

Gronk's advantage is in touchdowns, so when you add more points for anything else that narrows the gap between them. Another way to look at it: in 0 PPR, 2 games of Gronk is worth 3 games of Graham. In 1.5 PPR, 4 games of Gronk is worth 5 games of Graham.

Exact numbers: In 0 PPR leagues, Gronk had 1.77x as much VBD per game as Graham last year and 1.44x in 2011. For 1.5 PPR, 1.28x and 1.21x. (Assuming 12 teams, no TE flex. Baseline ppg determined by sorting TEs by ppg, and going down the list until the total games played adds up to 204, which is 12 starting slots x 17 weeks.)
The relative VBD difference might change, but the absolute VBD difference remains huge. By my back-of-the-envelope calculations, In non-PPR leagues last year, Gronk scored about 2.9 points per game more than Graham (the number increases to 3.1 if you exclude week 17). In a yardage-heavy league I play (0.2 points for all yards), that jumps to 3.0 points (3.5 if you exclude week 17). In the crazy league I mentioned earlier (1.5 PPR + 0.15 points per yard for TEs only), the gap was 2.3 points (3.5 if you exclude week 17). I understand that the relative VBD difference tells us how many more games Graham has to play to even up their value (the smaller the relative difference, the fewer extra games Graham needs), but the absolute difference is what matters when they're both on the field (a 3 point VBD advantage is a 3 point VBD advantage whether you average 4 VBD a week or 40, and Gronk is averaging around a 3 point VBD advantage in all formats).

And like I said, Gronkowski is 2.5 years younger, which is a not-insignificant difference for dynasty, even if both are far from the downslope of their careers. I would say that I would expect Gronk to have more games remaining in his career than Graham, even with the front-loaded injury concerns.
I think we're in agreement about how to do the analysis. I'm just more worried than you are about Gronk missing games or having a shortened career because of his bad back. I expect Graham to have more games remaining in his career.
If all else were equal, I'd expect a 24 year old TE to have maybe 25-30 more expected games remaining than a 26.5 year old TE. Obviously, all else is not equal- I'd put the EV for the number of games Gronk will miss this season owing to his back surgery at 4. Like Coop, I'm not terribly concerned about his arm anymore- neither breaks nor infections are terribly predictive events. So then the question becomes whether we'd expect Gronkowski's back problems to cost him 20-25 games above expectations over his career. And I do not. That's basically saying if he plays 8 more years, you'd expect him to miss three games a year every year for his entire career strictly due to his back injury (above and beyond whatever other wear and tear all TEs are subjected to). If I'm coming up with an EV for career games missed due to back injury, it's going to be well below 24, which is why I continue to expect Gronkowski to have more games remaining in his career (although I expect Graham to have more games remaining with Brees than I'd expect Gronk to have with Brady, for what it's worth).

Gronkowski's back surgery was described as minor, the team doesn't seem very concerned about it, and most importantly... Gronkowski had it before, so we know how he recovers from it (well, to put it mildly).

Out of curiosity, what are your expectations? If all else were equal, how many more games would you expect Gronkowski to have than Graham owing to the 2.5 year age difference? How many games do you expect Gronkowski to miss this season because of his surgery? How many more games do you expect Gronkowski to miss for the remainder of his career owing to his back issues? Does the forearm still trouble you going forward? Are there other factors at play that you believe would leave Gronkowski more likely to miss time than Graham, such as style of play or body type?

 
In 0 PPR leagues I take Gronk over Graham, since he scores 1.5x as much as Graham in terms of VBD per game (historically). That is enough to make up for the injury risk. Graham will give you more games (in expectation) but probably not 1.5 as many.

In 1.5 PPR I prefer Graham, since Gronk is only worth about 1.25x as much as Graham in that format, in VBD per game.

Gronk's advantage is in touchdowns, so when you add more points for anything else that narrows the gap between them. Another way to look at it: in 0 PPR, 2 games of Gronk is worth 3 games of Graham. In 1.5 PPR, 4 games of Gronk is worth 5 games of Graham.

Exact numbers: In 0 PPR leagues, Gronk had 1.77x as much VBD per game as Graham last year and 1.44x in 2011. For 1.5 PPR, 1.28x and 1.21x. (Assuming 12 teams, no TE flex. Baseline ppg determined by sorting TEs by ppg, and going down the list until the total games played adds up to 204, which is 12 starting slots x 17 weeks.)
The relative VBD difference might change, but the absolute VBD difference remains huge. By my back-of-the-envelope calculations, In non-PPR leagues last year, Gronk scored about 2.9 points per game more than Graham (the number increases to 3.1 if you exclude week 17). In a yardage-heavy league I play (0.2 points for all yards), that jumps to 3.0 points (3.5 if you exclude week 17). In the crazy league I mentioned earlier (1.5 PPR + 0.15 points per yard for TEs only), the gap was 2.3 points (3.5 if you exclude week 17). I understand that the relative VBD difference tells us how many more games Graham has to play to even up their value (the smaller the relative difference, the fewer extra games Graham needs), but the absolute difference is what matters when they're both on the field (a 3 point VBD advantage is a 3 point VBD advantage whether you average 4 VBD a week or 40, and Gronk is averaging around a 3 point VBD advantage in all formats).

And like I said, Gronkowski is 2.5 years younger, which is a not-insignificant difference for dynasty, even if both are far from the downslope of their careers. I would say that I would expect Gronk to have more games remaining in his career than Graham, even with the front-loaded injury concerns.
I think we're in agreement about how to do the analysis. I'm just more worried than you are about Gronk missing games or having a shortened career because of his bad back. I expect Graham to have more games remaining in his career.
If all else were equal, I'd expect a 24 year old TE to have maybe 25-30 more expected games remaining than a 26.5 year old TE. Obviously, all else is not equal- I'd put the EV for the number of games Gronk will miss this season owing to his back surgery at 4. Like Coop, I'm not terribly concerned about his arm anymore- neither breaks nor infections are terribly predictive events. So then the question becomes whether we'd expect Gronkowski's back problems to cost him 20-25 games above expectations over his career. And I do not. That's basically saying if he plays 8 more years, you'd expect him to miss three games a year every year for his entire career strictly due to his back injury (above and beyond whatever other wear and tear all TEs are subjected to). If I'm coming up with an EV for career games missed due to back injury, it's going to be well below 24, which is why I continue to expect Gronkowski to have more games remaining in his career (although I expect Graham to have more games remaining with Brees than I'd expect Gronk to have with Brady, for what it's worth).

Gronkowski's back surgery was described as minor, the team doesn't seem very concerned about it, and most importantly... Gronkowski had it before, so we know how he recovers from it (well, to put it mildly).

Out of curiosity, what are your expectations? If all else were equal, how many more games would you expect Gronkowski to have than Graham owing to the 2.5 year age difference? How many games do you expect Gronkowski to miss this season because of his surgery? How many more games do you expect Gronkowski to miss for the remainder of his career owing to his back issues? Does the forearm still trouble you going forward? Are there other factors at play that you believe would leave Gronkowski more likely to miss time than Graham, such as style of play or body type?
First: TEs tend not to last as long as WRs. I'd expect tweeners like Graham to fall somewhere in between, and last longer than guys like Gronk who are active in the trenches (I have similar takes on other positional tweeners, like Sproles & Harvin). I don't know if anyone has looked at this rigorously, but it's easy enough to see that very few TEs put up good receiving seasons in their mid-30s, and the ones that have are not exactly known for their blocking (Gonzalez, Sharpe, Walls).

Gronk's physical style of play does add some extra risk - I think it increases his chances of both missed games & an earlier decline. We've seen some pretty good receiving TEs who were known for their physicality have their careers decline in their mid to late 20s (Shockey, Winslow).

Even without the back issues, that is enough to eat up most of Gronk's 2.5 year cushion on Graham (call it 2 out of the 2.5).

The back issues have 3 possible costs: missed games, reduced level of play, and earlier decline. This is the second time that Gronk's back has caused him require surgery and miss a stretch of several games, so it definitely has me worried. I haven't looked into the medical information in a ton of detail or put exact numbers on my concerns, but I can try to translate my intuitions into numbers right now.

Some rough guesses (in expectation, averaging across a wide range of possible scenarios): This year, Gronk will miss 6 games due to his back (and the VBD equivalent of 1 more from reduced performance or playing time). From 2014 onwards, Gronk will play in 16 games fewer than Graham (during the portion of their careers while they are high-level fantasy TEs). Slightly lower level of performance (or playing time) from having a bad back will cost Gronk 4% of his VBD in the games that he does play in 2014+ (while he is a high-level fantasy TE).

The arm and infection are negligible factors in my predictions.

 
First: TEs tend not to last as long as WRs. I'd expect tweeners like Graham to fall somewhere in between, and last longer than guys like Gronk who are active in the trenches (I have similar takes on other positional tweeners, like Sproles & Harvin). I don't know if anyone has looked at this rigorously, but it's easy enough to see that very few TEs put up good receiving seasons in their mid-30s, and the ones that have are not exactly known for their blocking (Gonzalez, Sharpe, Walls).
Gronk's physical style of play does add some extra risk - I think it increases his chances of both missed games & an earlier decline. We've seen some pretty good receiving TEs who were known for their physicality have their careers decline in their mid to late 20s (Shockey, Winslow).

Even without the back issues, that is enough to eat up most of Gronk's 2.5 year cushion on Graham (call it 2 out of the 2.5).

The back issues have 3 possible costs: missed games, reduced level of play, and earlier decline. This is the second time that Gronk's back has caused him require surgery and miss a stretch of several games, so it definitely has me worried. I haven't looked into the medical information in a ton of detail or put exact numbers on my concerns, but I can try to translate my intuitions into numbers right now.

Some rough guesses (in expectation, averaging across a wide range of possible scenarios): This year, Gronk will miss 6 games due to his back (and the VBD equivalent of 1 more from reduced performance or playing time). From 2014 onwards, Gronk will play in 16 games fewer than Graham (during the portion of their careers while they are high-level fantasy TEs). Slightly lower level of performance (or playing time) from having a bad back will cost Gronk 4% of his VBD in the games that he does play in 2014+ (while he is a high-level fantasy TE).

The arm and infection are negligible factors in my predictions.
Appreciate the conversation - two of my favorite posters. :cool:

Do we have the numbers suggesting Gronk is used much differently than Graham? I feel quite comfortable suggesting that Gronk is every bit the tweener that Graham is, and would suggest their usage is very close. I haven't re-upped my subscription yet, but last I looked, Gronk, Graham, and Hernadez were all among league leaders in number of snaps in the slot. [SIZE=10.5pt]On top of that, I am quite comfortable suggesting that Gronk lined up as the X more often than the other two, too. I think his “between the trenches” usage is being overstated. Witten, for example, is used more in the trenches, based on my memory of the two players. He lines up in a traditional TE position much more than Gronk, at the very least. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]A step further – what does a physically declining Rob Gronkowski look like? I think we have to ask ourselves that question when discussing all time greats, which Gronk certainly is, duration excused. I do the same exercise when projecting Adrian Peterson. I fully expect him to start slowing down any year now. But he could lose plenty and still be a top 5-7 RB in the NFL. Like Peterson, I personally expect Gronk to be among the league's best, even after his peak. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]ETA: Gronk lines up and acts as a WR more than he does a TE. Not having looked at the numbers (I doubt they are out there) - I feel comforatble suggesting that Gronk is used to block no more than than Gonzo has through his career. I'd guess less, actually. [/SIZE]

 
Last edited by a moderator:
you guys know what your getting into, a guy who produces hughly when he plays. Just a have a good back up plan
All you need is a very "average" back up, and just hope Gronk is active for the playoffs.

If the dude plays 8 total games, and you use some waiver wire TE for the other 8, you will still probably score top 4-5 TE points in your league.
Way better, even. Last year, if you had started Rob Gronkowski for 8 games and started me for the other 8, you would have scored as many fantasy points as the Kyle Rudolph owner (about 105). If you had started Rob Gronkowski for 8 games and started Tony Moeaki (who finished the season as the 32nd best TE) for the other 8, you would have scored about as many fantasy points as the Heath Miller owner (about 132). If you'd started Gronkowski for 8 games and started Lance Kendricks (TE18) for another 8, you would have finished with the second most fantasy points, just 8 points behind Graham.
Those games when you have Kendricks or another below #15 TE, are you winning them because in most Playoff formats 6 - 8 doesn't equal playoffs

 
Last edited by a moderator:
First: TEs tend not to last as long as WRs. I'd expect tweeners like Graham to fall somewhere in between, and last longer than guys like Gronk who are active in the trenches (I have similar takes on other positional tweeners, like Sproles & Harvin). I don't know if anyone has looked at this rigorously, but it's easy enough to see that very few TEs put up good receiving seasons in their mid-30s, and the ones that have are not exactly known for their blocking (Gonzalez, Sharpe, Walls).
Gronk's physical style of play does add some extra risk - I think it increases his chances of both missed games & an earlier decline. We've seen some pretty good receiving TEs who were known for their physicality have their careers decline in their mid to late 20s (Shockey, Winslow).

Even without the back issues, that is enough to eat up most of Gronk's 2.5 year cushion on Graham (call it 2 out of the 2.5).

The back issues have 3 possible costs: missed games, reduced level of play, and earlier decline. This is the second time that Gronk's back has caused him require surgery and miss a stretch of several games, so it definitely has me worried. I haven't looked into the medical information in a ton of detail or put exact numbers on my concerns, but I can try to translate my intuitions into numbers right now.

Some rough guesses (in expectation, averaging across a wide range of possible scenarios): This year, Gronk will miss 6 games due to his back (and the VBD equivalent of 1 more from reduced performance or playing time). From 2014 onwards, Gronk will play in 16 games fewer than Graham (during the portion of their careers while they are high-level fantasy TEs). Slightly lower level of performance (or playing time) from having a bad back will cost Gronk 4% of his VBD in the games that he does play in 2014+ (while he is a high-level fantasy TE).

The arm and infection are negligible factors in my predictions.
Appreciate the conversation - two of my favorite posters. :cool:

Do we have the numbers suggesting Gronk is used much differently than Graham? I feel quite comfortable suggesting that Gronk is every bit the tweener that Graham is, and would suggest their usage is very close. I haven't re-upped my subscription yet, but last I looked, Gronk, Graham, and Hernadez were all among league leaders in number of snaps in the slot. [SIZE=10.5pt]On top of that, I am quite comfortable suggesting that Gronk lined up as the X more often than the other two, too. I think his “between the trenches” usage is being overstated. Witten, for example, is used more in the trenches, based on my memory of the two players. He lines up in a traditional TE position much more than Gronk, at the very least. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]A step further – what does a physically declining Rob Gronkowski look like? I think we have to ask ourselves that question when discussing all time greats, which Gronk certainly is, duration excused. I do the same exercise when projecting Adrian Peterson. I fully expect him to start slowing down any year now. But he could lose plenty and still be a top 5-7 RB in the NFL. Like Peterson, I personally expect Gronk to be among the league's best, even after his peak. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]ETA: Gronk lines up and acts as a WR more than he does a TE. Not having looked at the numbers (I doubt they are out there) - I feel comforatble suggesting that Gronk is used to block no more than than Gonzo has through his career. I'd guess less, actually. [/SIZE]
Gronk is used as a slot receiver almost as much as Graham is - PFF says that 62% of Gronk's pass routes were run out of the slot, vs. 65% for Graham (they don't have a separate listing for snaps out wide - I'm not sure if those are included or not). But Gronk also gets used as a blocker a lot more - PFF has Gronk at 325 snaps as a run blocker vs. 146 for Graham, and 76 snaps as a pass blocker vs. 27 for Graham. I don't know of anywhere that has data on what kind of blocking TEs did when they blocked - were they blocking DBs out in space like a WR, or left one-on-one with a DE like an OL, or what? But my sense is that Gronk's blocking is more towards the offensive-lineman-like end of the spectrum.

I agree that Witten is a traditional TE rather than a tweener - he has been a good blocker as well as a good receiver. He was 30 last season; now each season that he puts up big receiving numbers will count as a little bit of evidence against my theory that the tweener TEs are the ones with longevity (especially if he's still doing it in 2015+).

 
Gronkowski at 5.05 in a fairly standard scoring, 12-team league. I don't understand how is that even possible. Witten went at 5.04.

And it's a pretty competitive league, max 2 guppies.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top