VBD and Gates (1 Viewer)

[Johnny]

right now VBD is telling me to take Gates over harrison, moss, and boldin.

I have the first pick in a 10 team league. and then at 20, 21 i would usually take an RB and WR. but VBD is saying take Gates over the WR.

I know Gates is valuable but is 20, 21 to early for Gates. I really think it is and makes sense to take the WR and wait on TE.

I am not asking really if I should take Gates or not.

I am asking is anyone else seeing this and considering taking Gates this early.

Gates in my VBD is 17th overall.

 

[KCC]

Yes. And as I've posted in a few other threads, I would take Gates before any WR. There's more distance between him and all other TEs than any other player at any other position.

 

[mistersmith]

Yeah, I'm getting the same thing with the 6th pick when using the Draft Dominator. Maybe with Brees, I wouldn't question it as much, but you are asking him to dominate this group of TEs with a rookie qb.

 

[Johnny]

i just read quite a few other threads on gates and it looks like most people feel gates is numbers will go down due to a rookie QB.

 

[Musesboy]

If Rivers were a rookie, I would tend to agree with that line of thinking. But Rivers is in his third year and will have had plenty of chance to absorb the playbook. Look at what Culpepper, Brady and Palmer achieved in their first year as starter.

Don't assume it's a complete given that Rivers won't handle it.

 

[Marc Levin]

tough call - my thought on this is to go look at the projections that are currently fed into the DD.

These are the things you need to look for:

1) do you agree with the projected numbers for Gates? If not, change them to what you think will happen.

2) do you agree with the projected numbers for the next two or three TEs? Those numbers are likely what is skewing Gates' VBD numbers. If we are projecting Gates to score 20% more FF points than the #2 TE and then there is a bunching of numbers for the next 6 or more TEs, then, in a 10 team league, 6 or more people without Gates get similar numbers from their TEs, the rest get a "poor" scoring TE, and only one person has Gates, who is expected to pretty much crush all the other TEs (assuming you agree with all the projected numbers).

3) you ALSO need to look at the numbers projected for Harrison Moss and Boldin and see if you agree - and the numbers for the next bunch of WRs down to the WR10 and see if you agree.

4) the way the DD works for determining value is that it compares the player available (in this case Gates) against (I believe) the last starter (TE10) - it then takes that difference in scoring and compares it to the WRs (and all other positions).

In this case, as a VERY simplistic explanation, the DD is saying that Gates will outscore the other available starting TEs to a much greater degree than Harrison, Moss, or Boldin will outscore the WR10. NOTE - I may be off on this - it may actually compare the players available with the middle starter, in this case it would compare Gates with the TE5 and those WRs with the WR5.

Therefore, in a 10-team league, it might be the more "value" move to grab Gates and to wait for a WR. However, my "feeling" is that the DD does not really do dynamic VBD by projecting which WRs will be GONE by your next pick versus which TEs will be gone. You could actually be BETTER OFF Taking the less valuable WR and then taking the TE3 or TE4 at your next set of picks.

Remember that the DD is projection driven, so you must look at, and maybe manually change, the projections we have provided.

 

[Tbone]

Ahh the TE question. The number #1 ranked TE is frequently high on the VBD chart. Notice that so are the #2, #3, and #4 frequently?

I'll tell you this. I'm in a league that requires a TE and the first TE has never been taken as early as their VBD number would suggest. So you'd think whoever got 'em probably had a real advantage right? They got great value.

Funny thing is in 8 years, the person who drafted the #1 TE has never won our league. Never. That's got to tell you something.

 

[Marc Levin]

also, when you look at the VBD numbers on the DD, do you have the option of figuring out what will be available at the next set of picks? That is the TRUE measure of value.

For instance, at the turn at the bottom of the first, if everyone took RBs, you want to know what your team will produce with the RB10+RB11 versus the RB11+WR1 - PLUS you want to know what it'll look like at the 3/4 turn based on what should be available.

Not an easy thing to calculate, but I think the DD can run through the likely scenario for the next couple rounds.

 

[CalBear]

I think if you project Gates to put up 1000+/10+ again, he is absolutely more valuable than the players you mention. In 2005, Gates provided 93 VBD points against the baseline TE; Harrison only scored 70. Heck, Gates came close to scoring as many fantasy points as Harrison, straight up; Harrison only outscored him by 17. Then when you consider that there are a glut of WRs expected to score not much less than Harrison, and no other TE expected to score anywhere close to 1000/10, Gates becomes an easy choice.

That is, if you think Gates will score 1000/10. Personally, I think he will not, and I think Gonzalez and Shockey, who are likely to score as much as Gates, are much better values, two rounds later. But that comes from my projections; if you project Gates to be a monster again, you have to trust yourself and take him.

 

[David Dodds]

Don't be shocked that Gates scores well via VBD. They key though is to maximize that value by drafting him at the last possible moment. I like him in the third round. I don't like him in the second round.

The reason it is generally smarter to wait on TE (than grab a great VBD play like Gates) is because there are a lot of late options that also will crush their Average Draft Positions.

Watson, Winslow and Troupe are the players I generally would target at this position. By waiting at TE you get better RBs and WRs that generally command a lot higher trade value during the season too. Don't get me wrong, Gates will be great. But you can get some of the names I have mentioned at TE very late (11th round or later). The difference between the RB or WR you would get in the third round versus the 11th rounds is significant. In my opinion, it is a lot more significant than the value you will likely get from Gates over the other TEs.

Gates is especially strong in PPR leagues though so that is a consideration.

Recapping: Gates is a solid play at or around his ADP level. Don't reach just because VBD says he is a solid play. Most of the later TEs all have solid production against their draft position.

 

[Bob_Magaw]

insofar as the rivers concerns bears on this question/thread...

and it was alluded to above... rivers is not like a rookie starter... aside from being a third year player, he has a lot of experience behind that... i think he was a four year starter that had the most wins for a QB in ncaa history at the time (record may have been since broken)... he also came up big in crunch time, winning MVPs in all four bowl games he played in (maybe senior bowl, too?)... it doesn't hurt that LT is the RB & will take pressure off...

* he was also tutored earlier in his career by norm chow, who was a star maker with carson palmer & matt leinart...

 

[a_f13nd]

right now VBD is telling me to take Gates over harrison, moss, and boldin.

I have the first pick in a 10 team league. and then at 20, 21 i would usually take an RB and WR. but VBD is saying take Gates over the WR.

I know Gates is valuable but is 20, 21 to early for Gates. I really think it is and makes sense to take the WR and wait on TE.

I am not asking really if I should take Gates or not.

I am asking is anyone else seeing this and considering taking Gates this early.

Gates in my VBD is 17th overall.

I had a similar issue, which I submitted to the DD forum, as the 14th pick in a 14-team league. I ran through scenarios by the numbers picking Chad Johnson or a 2nd RB instead of Gates and then taking Watson later. My TE wound up much weaker, but my overall team was stronger.I like Gates a whole bunch, but probably not more than Shockey two rounds later or any of 7 other guys once I've gotten my RB/WR corps nailed down. I always seem to pick Todd Heap, because he always has value. I've had him nearly each year he's been in the league. But I have almost always been able to pick up a waiver wire TE early in the season who seemed like he could do the same or better job. Heath Miller was that guy last year.

 

[CalBear]

I had a similar issue, which I submitted to the DD forum, as the 14th pick in a 14-team league. I ran through scenarios by the numbers picking Chad Johnson or a 2nd RB instead of Gates and then taking Watson later. My TE wound up much weaker, but my overall team was stronger.

Your team was stronger by what measure? I think people tend to discount the value of the TE when assessing rosters, so a team with more projected VBD points will often be assessed as weaker if a bunch of the VBD points come from the TE. That's due to evaluation bias, not due to real weakness.

 

[(unwelcomed)GUEST]

Funny thing about rookie qbs is that TE's are sometimes their best friends. In a pro-style offense, the qb goes through a progression of reads based on first the play call, from there the initial defensive alignment (checking were the safeties are lined up-if the lb is blitzing-if the cb is tight or loose), then the pre-snap d alignment, then the one second after the snap read, then the "oh-crap" I forget my check-offs-who's-open-read. The majority of the time, the TE is the last check off next to the RB. The qb is counting on that last check off RB to save his butt and pick up that blitzer so he has unconsciously prayed that the RB got tied up with that blitzer and won't be availble in the pass pattern, so if the #1 read - WR ain't open, skip the other options and go to the last: the TE is getting the ball.

Really it happens a lot with inexperienced pro qbs. Look for Davis to have a nice year in SF for this reason alone.

 

[CalBear]

Funny thing about rookie qbs is that TE's are sometimes their best friends. In a pro-style offense, the qb goes through a progression of reads based on first the play call, from there the initial defensive alignment (checking were the safeties are lined up-if the lb is blitzing-if the cb is tight or loose), then the pre-snap d alignment, then the one second after the snap read, then the "oh-crap" I forget my check-offs-who's-open-read. The majority of the time, the TE is the last check off next to the RB. The qb is counting on that last check off RB to save his butt and pick up that blitzer so he has unconsciously prayed that the RB got tied up with that blitzer and won't be availble in the pass pattern, so if the #1 read - WR ain't open, skip the other options and go to the last: the TE is getting the ball.

Really it happens a lot with inexperienced pro qbs. Look for Davis to have a nice year in SF for this reason alone.

I did a study on this, and found that rookie and first-year QBs do not preferentially look to their TEs; their TEs perform worse than the median on average, and with very few exceptions the TEs have better years before or after the QB's rookie/first year. Do you have any evidence that rookie QBs throw more to their TEs than to other positions?

 

[(unwelcomed)GUEST]

Funny thing about rookie qbs is that TE's are sometimes their best friends.  In a pro-style offense, the qb goes through a progression of reads based on first the play call, from there the initial defensive alignment (checking were the safeties are lined up-if the lb is blitzing-if the cb is tight or loose), then the pre-snap d alignment, then the one second after the snap read, then the "oh-crap" I forget my check-offs-who's-open-read.  The majority of the time, the TE is the last check off next to the RB.  The qb is counting on that last check off RB to save his butt and pick up that blitzer so he has unconsciously prayed that the RB got tied up with that blitzer and won't be availble in the pass pattern, so if the #1 read - WR ain't open, skip the other options and go to the last:  the TE is getting the ball.

Really it happens a lot with inexperienced pro qbs.  Look for Davis to have a nice year in SF for this reason alone.

I did a study on this, and found that rookie and first-year QBs do not preferentially look to their TEs; their TEs perform worse than the median on average, and with very few exceptions the TEs have better years before or after the QB's rookie/first year. Do you have any evidence that rookie QBs throw more to their TEs than to other positions?

None, but then again Alex Smith and Phil Rivers aren't rookies are they? Inexperienced QBs should have been a better qualifier. There are relatively few true rookies that start in the NFL. Of those that do, none really stand out as successful, do they?Can you provide two or three true rookies that have had recs., WR or otherwise that perform better than the median for the league?

 

[Dirty Weasel]

VBD is a great tool, when used correctly. The secret to all drafting is to get your picks you want at the latest possible time. Are you really going to draft a defense in the 3rd round if your VBD chart says it's the right thing to do? I should hope not, because that same defense will be there rounds later. Or what about that kicker your chart tells you is value in the 5th round?

VBD cannot factor in the human aspect though. Inevitably, there will be someone in your league who will use it more as gospel than others. If put into the hands of an FF newbie, their first 5 picks might end up being TE1, WR1, D1, K1, QB5. Sure, they got the top picks at 4 positions, and their team looks nice with Antonio Gates, Steve Smith, Chicago D, Adam Vinatieri, and Donovan McNabb. But let's see how far this team goes with Curtis Martin as it's top RB.

What I like to do is determine before the draft where I think my strength lies, as far as drafting sleepers. Am I more confident in my sleeper picks at RB or WR? QB or TE? This year, I think I am more confident in the sleeper RB department. Therefore, I am a guy who, with an early draft spot, may take Gates at the end of round 2/beginning of round 3. I have done a handful of 12-team mocks, and here is the type of roster I end up with:

1.1 - LJ

2.12 - Anquan Boldin, Marvin Harrison, or Randy Moss

3.1 - Antonio Gates

4.12 - DeShaun Foster or Corey Dillon (one of these guys is usually here)

5.1 - Best WR left (it will be anyone from Santana Moss to Derrick Mason)

6.12 - Chris Brown or Fred Taylor (one of these guys is usually here)

7.1 - Marc Bulger, Eli Manning, Daunte Culpepper, or Jake Delhomme

8.12 - DeAngelo Williams or Lawrence Maroney (the cuff for my 4.12 pick)

9.1 - LenDale White or Greg Jones (the cuff for my 6.12 pick)

It all comes down to personal preference. I know I would be happy going into battle with a RB corps like LJ, DeShaun, Chris Brown, DeAngelo, and LenDale, so nabbing Gates in the early 3rd is a smart choice, IMO. We can't all be stacked at every position. The more confident you are in your sleeper picks, the later you can wait to draft those positions.

 

[Despyzer]

Yeah, I'm getting the same thing with the 6th pick when using the Draft Dominator. Maybe with Brees, I wouldn't question it as much, but you are asking him to dominate this group of TEs with a rookie qb.

i just read quite a few other threads on gates and it looks like most people feel gates is numbers will go down due to a rookie QB.

Funny thing about rookie qbs is that TE's are sometimes their best friends.

FBGs should really be better than this.

 

[derek19]

Yeah, I'm getting the same thing with the 6th pick when using the Draft Dominator. Maybe with Brees, I wouldn't question it as much, but you are asking him to dominate this group of TEs with a rookie qb.

i just read quite a few other threads on gates and it looks like most people feel gates is numbers will go down due to a rookie QB.

Funny thing about rookie qbs is that TE's are sometimes their best friends.

FBGs should really be better than this.

 

[Sabertooth]

Yes. And as I've posted in a few other threads, I would take Gates before any WR. There's more distance between him and all other TEs than any other player at any other position.

Why not take him over any running back then as well by that logic?

 

[ookook]

I am not sure I like Gates in the third round, except perhaps at the very end.

When to take your first TE, to me, depends very much on how many WRs are started each week.

In a start 2 WR (boo!), the first TE should go earlier.

In general, I go with Dodd's "let value come to you" axiom.

So at TE this year I like Gonzo at the very beginning of 5th (maybe end of 4th depenidng on who my first three picks were). I think the odds he returns to form are better, as is his health. Shocley same place.

I like Heap if he is there early 6th.

Otherwise I have been waiting.

 

[Tau837]

insofar as the rivers concerns bears on this question/thread...

and it was alluded to above... rivers is not like a rookie starter... aside from being a third year player, he has a lot of experience behind that... i think he was a four year starter that had the most wins for a QB in ncaa history at the time (record may have been since broken)... he also came up big in crunch time, winning MVPs in all four bowl games he played in (maybe senior bowl, too?)... it doesn't hurt that LT is the RB & will take pressure off...

* he was also tutored earlier in his career by norm chow, who was a star maker with carson palmer & matt leinart...

Rivers did not set a record for most wins. He set a record for most starts in a career (51 of a possible 51).He was MVP of 3 of his 4 bowl games (the ones his team won), and the Senior Bowl. So he did win 4 MVPs, but not in 4 regular bowl games. (Antonio Bryant of Pittsburgh won for the one bowl game Rivers lost.)

Agree with your general point that Rivers is very good, however, and I think he will have no affect on Gates. Gates could regress a bit, but that is much more likely to be due to how high his numbers have been than due to Rivers.

 

[Tau837]

Funny thing about rookie qbs is that TE's are sometimes their best friends. In a pro-style offense, the qb goes through a progression of reads based on first the play call, from there the initial defensive alignment (checking were the safeties are lined up-if the lb is blitzing-if the cb is tight or loose), then the pre-snap d alignment, then the one second after the snap read, then the "oh-crap" I forget my check-offs-who's-open-read. The majority of the time, the TE is the last check off next to the RB. The qb is counting on that last check off RB to save his butt and pick up that blitzer so he has unconsciously prayed that the RB got tied up with that blitzer and won't be availble in the pass pattern, so if the #1 read - WR ain't open, skip the other options and go to the last: the TE is getting the ball.

Really it happens a lot with inexperienced pro qbs. Look for Davis to have a nice year in SF for this reason alone.

I'm pretty sure this is not true for San Diego. I think Gates is the first or second read on a high number of their passing plays. So regardless of the general merit of your supposition here, I don't think it applies to this discussion.

 

[KCC]

Yes. And as I've posted in a few other threads, I would take Gates before any WR. There's more distance between him and all other TEs than any other player at any other position.

Why not take him over any running back then as well by that logic?

Because there is significantly less depth at RB than at WR. This is true for studs, potential sleepers, and middle-of-the-road type players at both positions.

 

[Sabertooth]

If everybody wants to chip in for a lapdance, that's one thing. But I don't think that a guy should get a free ride in a league.

 

[KCC]

If everybody wants to chip in for a lapdance, that's one thing. But I don't think that a guy should get a free ride in a league.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Sabertooth]

If everybody wants to chip in for a lapdance, that's one thing.  But I don't think that a guy should get a free ride in a league.

Thanks for sharing.

Wrong post!

 

[KCC]

If everybody wants to chip in for a lapdance, that's one thing.  But I don't think that a guy should get a free ride in a league.

Thanks for sharing.

Wrong post!

Not a problem.

 

[mistersmith]

Yeah, I'm getting the same thing with the 6th pick when using the Draft Dominator. Maybe with Brees, I wouldn't question it as much, but you are asking him to dominate this group of TEs with a rookie qb.

i just read quite a few other threads on gates and it looks like most people feel gates is numbers will go down due to a rookie QB.

Funny thing about rookie qbs is that TE's are sometimes their best friends.

FBGs should really be better than this.

Forgive me. I meant 3rd year NFL QBs inexperienced in playing in NFL games.Yes, I made a mistake with my choice of words by calling him a rookie along with others, but my point is that Rivers is relatively inexperienced when it comes to playing in NFL games.

I think this is a significant factor where you can still lower your projections slightly for Gates. Is Gates still a top TE? Of course. But do you think he'll truly do much better than Gonzo and Shockey to warrant higher value by drafting him early? That is the real question here. (I think Levin states this much more eloquently than me in his earlier posts in this thread.)

 

[Sigfawn]

right now VBD is telling me to take Gates over harrison, moss, and boldin.

I have the first pick in a 10 team league. and then at 20, 21 i would usually take an RB and WR. but VBD is saying take Gates over the WR.

I know Gates is valuable but is 20, 21 to early for Gates. I really think it is and makes sense to take the WR and wait on TE.

I am not asking really if I should take Gates or not.

I am asking is anyone else seeing this and considering taking Gates this early.

Gates in my VBD is 17th overall.

VBD = projections.Using Dodds projections, it sees Gates at 150 points, and #2 at 121 points. Wow there's value there! Big edge on the rest of the league. Go draft him.

If you feel that Gates will merely edge out Gonzo/Shockey by 4-5 FF pts, then Gates will instantly drop 20 rankings in your VBD.

So for picks like this, that might decide your team/draft, make sure you agree with Dodds projections. Gates VBD is based on him being 24% higher then 2nd place. If you don't agree with this, edit the projection, and it will radically change where it ranks Gates.

VBD is only as good as its projections.

 

[KCC]

Yeah, I'm getting the same thing with the 6th pick when using the Draft Dominator. Maybe with Brees, I wouldn't question it as much, but you are asking him to dominate this group of TEs with a rookie qb.

i just read quite a few other threads on gates and it looks like most people feel gates is numbers will go down due to a rookie QB.

Funny thing about rookie qbs is that TE's are sometimes their best friends. 

FBGs should really be better than this.

Forgive me. I meant 3rd year NFL QBs inexperienced in playing in NFL games.Yes, I made a mistake with my choice of words by calling him a rookie along with others, but my point is that Rivers is relatively inexperienced when it comes to playing in NFL games.

I think this is a significant factor where you can still lower your projections slightly for Gates. Is Gates still a top TE? Of course. But do you think he'll truly do much better than Gonzo and Shockey to warrant higher value by drafting him early? That is the real question here. (I think Levin states this much more eloquently than me in his earlier posts in this thread.)

Based on past performance, he should. In another thread, it was pointed out by one of the FBG staffers (Levin? My apologies if I'm wrong on that) that Gates finished at #8 the past two seasons if you ranked players according to their season-ending stats using standard FF scoring and a VBD system.

 

[Sabertooth]

If everybody wants to chip in for a lapdance, that's one thing.  But I don't think that a guy should get a free ride in a league.

Thanks for sharing.

Wrong post!

Not a problem.

Never a bad idea though right?

 

[CalBear]

None, but then again Alex Smith and Phil Rivers aren't rookies are they? Inexperienced QBs should have been a better qualifier. There are relatively few true rookies that start in the NFL. Of those that do, none really stand out as successful, do they?

Can you provide two or three true rookies that have had recs., WR or otherwise that perform better than the median for the league?

My study was on first-year starters, not only rookies. Among the WRs in the group since 2000:

2005 Burress (#11)

2005 Galloway (#5)

2004 C.Johnson (#4)

2004 Bennett (#4)

2003 Holt (#2)

2003 Coles (#13)

2002 Coles (#13)

2001 Troy Brown (#15)

2000 Moss (#1)

That's much better performance than the TEs in the study, and for a number of the WRs, those represent the best numbers of their respective careers.

See the Antonio Gates spotlight.

 

[wannabee]

The Dodds post above brought up Gates in PPR leagues. Here are some pretty shocking numbers to me (This is part of a previous posting in acf):

The one thing we all fall into and forget is that this list of WRs is not the same list that outscored Gates in 2004, even though that was a short list, too. I would guess that only 3-4 WRs outscored Gates over the two year period. I looked it up, in a ppr scoring system, these are the WRs that outproduced Gates in 2004:

Muhsin Muhammad

Joe Horn

Javon Walker

Torry Holt

Marvin Harrison

Terrell Owens

Chad Johnson

Drew Bennett

Tony Gonzalez

Reggie Wayne

Donald Driver

And in 2005:

Steve Smith

Fitzgerald

Chad Johnson

Torry Holt

Anquan Boldin

Santana Moss

Marvin Harrison

Chris Chambers

So, the only WR/TE to outscore Gates in the two years combined are:

Holt

CJohnson

Harrison

This is a testament to these three WRs, too, to be high producers for two straight years. Gates' consistency is one reason he is valuable to your fantasy team. He should produce at a high level for many years to come. I think his chances of outscoring most of the WRs that ourproduced him in 2005 is high.

 

[Bob_Magaw]

insofar as the rivers concerns bears on this question/thread...

and it was alluded to above... rivers is not like a rookie starter... aside from being a third year player, he has a lot of experience behind that... i think he was a four year starter that had the most wins for a QB in ncaa history at the time (record may have been since broken)... he also came up big in crunch time, winning MVPs in all four bowl games he played in (maybe senior bowl, too?)... it doesn't hurt that LT is the RB & will take pressure off...

* he was also tutored earlier in his career by norm chow, who was a star maker with carson palmer & matt leinart...

Rivers did not set a record for most wins. He set a record for most starts in a career (51 of a possible 51).He was MVP of 3 of his 4 bowl games (the ones his team won), and the Senior Bowl. So he did win 4 MVPs, but not in 4 regular bowl games. (Antonio Bryant of Pittsburgh won for the one bowl game Rivers lost.)

Agree with your general point that Rivers is very good, however, and I think he will have no affect on Gates. Gates could regress a bit, but that is much more likely to be due to how high his numbers have been than due to Rivers.

thanx for the clarification, JWB...

 

[valhallan]

VBD is a great tool, when used correctly. The secret to all drafting is to get your picks you want at the latest possible time. Are you really going to draft a defense in the 3rd round if your VBD chart says it's the right thing to do? I should hope not, because that same defense will be there rounds later. Or what about that kicker your chart tells you is value in the 5th round?

VBD cannot factor in the human aspect though. Inevitably, there will be someone in your league who will use it more as gospel than others. If put into the hands of an FF newbie, their first 5 picks might end up being TE1, WR1, D1, K1, QB5. Sure, they got the top picks at 4 positions, and their team looks nice with Antonio Gates, Steve Smith, Chicago D, Adam Vinatieri, and Donovan McNabb. But let's see how far this team goes with Curtis Martin as it's top RB.

What I like to do is determine before the draft where I think my strength lies, as far as drafting sleepers. Am I more confident in my sleeper picks at RB or WR? QB or TE? This year, I think I am more confident in the sleeper RB department.

I very much agree with nearly everything you wrote. My strength is typically in finding sleeper WRs, so I tend to ignore them altogether for a while. It's very important to know your own drafting skills and use them wisely.

 

[BigRed]

So, the only WR/TE to outscore Gates in the two years combined are:

Holt

CJohnson

Harrison

This is a testament to these three WRs, too, to be high producers for two straight years. Gates' consistency is one reason he is valuable to your fantasy team. He should produce at a high level for many years to come.

...and he'd be a no-brainer pick over most WRs IMO in a TE-required league...except the unknown factor of Rivers is a reasonable reason to pause. I still like the idea of going after him, but no matter how great you think Rivers' NFL career will likely be, it's a concern. Most 1st year starters, even those who've been around a bit, don't just waltz in and excel.

 

[John Mamula]

Yes. And as I've posted in a few other threads, I would take Gates before any WR. There's more distance between him and all other TEs than any other player at any other position.

Why not take him over any running back then as well by that logic?

Because there is significantly less depth at RB than at WR. This is true for studs, potential sleepers, and middle-of-the-road type players at both positions.

this is where you are completely mistaken.

 

[KCC]

Yes. And as I've posted in a few other threads, I would take Gates before any WR. There's more distance between him and all other TEs than any other player at any other position.

Why not take him over any running back then as well by that logic?

Because there is significantly less depth at RB than at WR. This is true for studs, potential sleepers, and middle-of-the-road type players at both positions.

this is where you are completely mistaken.

Really? Let's consider the studs. Most would agree that there are 3 top-tier RBs: LJ, Alexander, and LT2. There are about 7-10 top tier WRs (some of which even play for the same teams): Smith, Owens, Harrison, Wayne, C. Johnson, Moss, Fitzgerald, Boldin, Chambers, Holt. If you want to argue with a few I have listed, simply toss them out of the top tier - I think you'll still have a lot more top tier WRs than RBs.

 

[Marc Levin]

In another thread, it was pointed out by one of the FBG staffers (Levin? My apologies if I'm wrong on that) that Gates finished at #8 the past two seasons if you ranked players according to their season-ending stats using standard FF scoring and a VBD system.

if I had to guess, it'd be Tremblay, Yudkin or Wood.

 

[KCC]

In another thread, it was pointed out by one of the FBG staffers (Levin? My apologies if I'm wrong on that) that Gates finished at #8 the past two seasons if you ranked players according to their season-ending stats using standard FF scoring and a VBD system.

if I had to guess, it'd be Tremblay, Yudkin or Wood.

Yep - my bad, it was Mr. Yudkin. Too many bright staffers in these parts. You don't run into problems like this at other FF websites.

 

[David Yudkin]

If you feel that Gates will merely edge out Gonzo/Shockey by 4-5 FF pts, then Gates will instantly drop 20 rankings in your VBD.

This isn't entirely a trueism. If Gonzo/Shockey are projected to get closer to Gates vy increasing their projections, Gates would have the same value score and would still have the same ranking based on VBD. Only Shockey and Gonzo would rank right near him. Remember, VBD is based on the lowest scoring starter at that position (TE 12 in a 12-team league). If Gates was projected at 150 points and #12 was projected at 75, Gates would get a value score of 75 no matter what Shockey or Tony G scored.If Gates' projections are lowered, that's where Gates' value score would take a hit. If you don't think Gates gets to 150 points, deduct the difference from his value score and he would fall some in the value rankings.

 

[David Yudkin]

In another thread, it was pointed out by one of the FBG staffers (Levin? My apologies if I'm wrong on that) that Gates finished at #8 the past two seasons if you ranked players according to their season-ending stats using standard FF scoring and a VBD system.

if I had to guess, it'd be Tremblay, Yudkin or Wood.

Yep - my bad, it was Mr. Yudkin. Too many bright staffers in these parts. You don't run into problems like this at other FF websites.

Yeah, Wood, MT, Drinen, and myself do all the dirty work and Levin is always the one that gets the credit. I'm tired of doing all his leg work and him getting all the credit.

 

[KCC]

In another thread, it was pointed out by one of the FBG staffers (Levin? My apologies if I'm wrong on that) that Gates finished at #8 the past two seasons if you ranked players according to their season-ending stats using standard FF scoring and a VBD system.

if I had to guess, it'd be Tremblay, Yudkin or Wood.

Yep - my bad, it was Mr. Yudkin. Too many bright staffers in these parts. You don't run into problems like this at other FF websites.

Yeah, Wood, MT, Drinen, and myself do all the dirty work and Levin is always the one that gets the credit. I'm tired of doing all his leg work and him getting all the credit.

Well certainly men of your intelligence are capable of disposing of the body of an obnoxious co-worker without getting caught. I'm just spitballing here, not saying you have to.....

 

[CalBear]

If you feel that Gates will merely edge out Gonzo/Shockey by 4-5 FF pts, then Gates will instantly drop 20 rankings in your VBD.

This isn't entirely a trueism. If Gonzo/Shockey are projected to get closer to Gates vy increasing their projections, Gates would have the same value score and would still have the same ranking based on VBD. Only Shockey and Gonzo would rank right near him. Remember, VBD is based on the lowest scoring starter at that position (TE 12 in a 12-team league). If Gates was projected at 150 points and #12 was projected at 75, Gates would get a value score of 75 no matter what Shockey or Tony G scored.If Gates' projections are lowered, that's where Gates' value score would take a hit. If you don't think Gates gets to 150 points, deduct the difference from his value score and he would fall some in the value rankings.

Don't forget the distinction between VBD and DVBD; Gates' DVBD will likely be lower when it's time to pick him, if there are two other TEs with numbers expected to be close to his, than if he has a huge gap to the #2 TE.

 

[fsufan]

Yes. And as I've posted in a few other threads, I would take Gates before any WR. There's more distance between him and all other TEs than any other player at any other position.

what about leagues where TEs are the smae position as WR. Where would rank Gates?

 

[David Yudkin]

If you feel that Gates will merely edge out Gonzo/Shockey by 4-5 FF pts, then Gates will instantly drop 20 rankings in your VBD.

This isn't entirely a trueism. If Gonzo/Shockey are projected to get closer to Gates vy increasing their projections, Gates would have the same value score and would still have the same ranking based on VBD. Only Shockey and Gonzo would rank right near him. Remember, VBD is based on the lowest scoring starter at that position (TE 12 in a 12-team league). If Gates was projected at 150 points and #12 was projected at 75, Gates would get a value score of 75 no matter what Shockey or Tony G scored.If Gates' projections are lowered, that's where Gates' value score would take a hit. If you don't think Gates gets to 150 points, deduct the difference from his value score and he would fall some in the value rankings.

Don't forget the distinction between VBD and DVBD; Gates' DVBD will likely be lower when it's time to pick him, if there are two other TEs with numbers expected to be close to his, than if he has a huge gap to the #2 TE.

Also true, and either way these three guys should be ranked near each other if projected near each other. Gates would drop and the other two would go up some.

 

[KCC]

Yes. And as I've posted in a few other threads, I would take Gates before any WR. There's more distance between him and all other TEs than any other player at any other position.

what about leagues where TEs are the smae position as WR. Where would rank Gates?

I don't have an opinion. It's not something I've looked at since all my leagues use TE as a separate position. Off the top of my head, I would guess top 6-10 for WR/TE combos, but it's purely a guess.

 

[David Yudkin]

what about leagues where TEs are the smae position as WR. Where would rank Gates?

IN 0 PPR leagues, Gates would have been ranked 10th in TE as WR leagues with 172 points.Had he scored the 150 points as FBG apparently is projecting him at, he would have finished tied for 14th.

 

[fsufan]

what about leagues where TEs are the smae position as WR. Where would rank Gates?

IN 0 PPR leagues, Gates would have been ranked 10th in TE as WR leagues with 172 points.Had he scored the 150 points as FBG apparently is projecting him at, he would have finished tied for 14th.

last year he finished 11th WR/TEs- 156 FF pts. and he missed the first game. my league uses 1 pt/10 yard rec, 6 pts TDs, no PPR.