ghostguy123 said:
haterade said:
Tate being a quality backup makes Foster the choice for me.
Why? I view it as kind of a wasted pick (speaking of redraft). If FOster gets hurt then great, you have Tate...........but Tate's points are cancelled out by not having Foster's points.
How bout you take the guy you prefer, and if later on Tate looks like a nice pick for you, then take him. If you take Charles and then get tate later, and Foster gets hurt, then homerun for you.
If you take Foster, and get Tate late and Foster gets hurt, your awesome pick of Ben Tate doesnt even change anything from what your team was already doing (though I clearly think he wouldnt produce as well as Foster, but thats not the issue).
I think saying "Tate's point are cancelled out by losing Foster's points" obscures the situation. The comparison is a RB + handcuff (Foster + Tate) vs other similar RBs without a handcuff (say, Charles).
With the handcuff, the points show up exactly when you needed them. If you're going to look at it from the standpoint of "those points cancel out what you lost", then the important comparison is, with Foster + Tate the points cancel and you're where you started, while with Charles + no handcuff you don't have a backup who flares exactly so your lost points are not canceled out to the same degree.
So, saying Tate cancels Foster is a very good thing, not a bad thing.
The possible situations.
1) You draft Foster. You don't draft Tate but instead take some other RBs to be your backups who have to start if Foster goes down.
2) You take Charles/etc. You don't have a handcuff for them either and have the same set of other RBs to be your backups if Charles goes down.
1 & 2 are exactly identical.
3) You draft Foster. You get Tate and also some other RBs to be your backups. If Foster goes down, the value of Tate suddenly skyrockets for exactly the games you need it to.
3 is better than 1 or 2. But if the cost of getting Tate (because of others drafting him higher than he warrants) is too high, if you take Foster but don't get Tate you're in the same situation as you are if you take Charles.
So at the worst, take the guy you think will score the most fantasy points. If you don't think Tate is going to be overdrafted, then his presence as a handcuff is a good thing. The knock would be if Tate and Foster both healthy means Foster scores less. But that is already included in your decision based on total points you expect from a Foster vs a Charles.
Edit to add: One of the factors to consider in the drafting of Tate and whether it's too high... is that if you don't have a handcuff, you will (should) go for a better RB3. If you do have a handcuff, you might go with a lesser RB3 because you're getting Tate. But then there is a trade off if it is instead your RB2 that is hurt. With Tate and lesser RB3, you lose fewer points if Foster goes out, but may lose more points if RB2 goes out. It's a trade off, and where Tate, the better RB3 and the worse RB3 will be drafted, and how that impact ripples through the rest of your draft at other positions, drives what the best answer is. It might be that getting the better RB3 actually hurts your starters more than Tate + lesser RB3. Or it might help your team more if there's good value at WR when you'd have taken Tate. It's just very league specific based on your scoring system, setup, and how your leaguemates draft.
