Bronco Billy Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 (edited) Background regarding Witten being taken early in the third round in a non-ppr league being discussed in another thread: In a non-PPR last year Gonzalez 166 Witten 121 Clark 121 Gates 118 Shiancoe 102 So no, he was not a major advantage last year compared in his position. But I appreciate the lesson on player value. And I actually have him projected for 7 TDs. Now you've peaked my curiosity. How do you have your TEs (at least the top 6/7) projected this coming year? Do you have Gonzo at the top of the list? Do you have Clark as TE3? Shiancoe as TE5? Serious inquiry - not looking to stick barbs by basing this year's rankings based on last year's production. I'm high on Witten because I see him as the top receiving option in DAL, and I'm projecting him at around 85 catches, 1000 yds, & 8 TDs - and with some room for potential upside. Edited July 2, 2009 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 2, 2009 Author Share Posted July 2, 2009 (edited) So, the question is how soon would you draft the top TE on your board in a FF draft? Typical 12 team draft, mandatory TE, using ppr. This was kicked off by a discussion where Witten was taken at 3.02 in a non-ppr draft and evolved into Witten being taken way too early at that spot. Also - would you draft TE1 later in a non-ppr draft than a ppr draft? Edited July 2, 2009 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaman Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Yes, I'd wait for a later round before getting a TE1 in a non-ppr league. I'd start looking at a TE1 from the 5th round forward. I just can't take a TE1 without having RB1, RB2 and WR1, WR2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 3rd round is fine for an Elite TE in PPR. I would not do so in a non-PPR league. I'd be happy to take Witten or Gates mid third or later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 While I would agree, at least in a PPR league it is important to have a difference making tight end (yea though the difference is not tremendous) but in a non-PPR, I will wait until 8th to 10th round. They just do not carry the bang for the buck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 (edited) Would have preferred an option in the first query relating to a higher PPR amount for TEs. If they are, say, 1.5 PPR, then I'm obviously taking them higher in that league than I would in a non-PPR. I voted "yes" there only because I'd still take them slightly higher in normal PPR leagues than I would in non-PPR leagues. There are some TEs out there that are tremendously valuable with this stat added. And, looks like I'm in the majority so far, adding that I would draft one in the 3rd round, if I were in the "right" draft position and the "right" TE(s) were there for me. Of course, it'd depend on who I had with my first two picks and who I estimated would be available to me in the 4th. Edited July 2, 2009 by darin3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTed46 Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 I'm known for not taking TEs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Round 4 is good for the top TEs. Seems they would put up similar stats to the available WRs left and seems the deltas created by the top TEs to the next level are deeper than for those WRs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Round 4 is good for the top TEs. Seems they would put up similar stats to the available WRs left and seems the deltas created by the top TEs to the next level are deeper than for those WRs. +1 I went with rd 4 as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 2, 2009 Author Share Posted July 2, 2009 (edited) Using a start 2/3 with one flex system and no ppr. Baseline is starting positions. Use 85/1000/7 for TE1 scoring (assume Witten is TE1 - similar to AD being RB1 this season. Only the TDs match Witten's career high, neither the receptions nor the yards meet or exceed career maximums to date, and his situation is ideal for maximizing his scoring this year). Given these conditions in a non-ppr, TE1's value is approximately 71 (he outscores TE12 by approximately 71 pts). That is just above the value of QB3, RB11, and WR7 in that scoring system, dependent upon projections. That would put TE value somewhere between 17 and 21 on the overall value board. If the scoring system is changed to ppr, TE1's value is around 109. You get no QBs more valuable, and TE1 being above RB6 and WR5. That puts TE1' value somewhere between 7 and 11 on the overall value board. Given the above, and even using a conservative position, TE1 ought to be coming off the board at early to middle 3rd round at the latest, and in a ppr ought to be considered in the middle to late second round at the latest. Current ADP of TE1 is 40, meaning his value far exceeds his draft position. Food for thought (or ammo for discussion, as it were)... Edited July 2, 2009 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Company of Heroes Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Using a start 2/3 with one flex system and no ppr. Baseline is starting positions. Use 85/1000/7 for TE1 scoring (assume Witten is TE1 - similar to AD being RB1 this season. Only the TDs match Witten's career high, neither the receptions nor the yards meet or exceed career maximums to date, and his situation is ideal for maximizing his scoring this year). Given these conditions in a non-ppr, TE1's value is approximately 71 (he outscores TE12 by approximately 71 pts). That is just above the value of QB3, RB11, and WR7 in that scoring system, dependent upon projections. That would put TE value somewhere between 17 and 21 on the overall value board. If the scoring system is changed to ppr, TE1's value is around 109. You get no QBs more valuable, and TE1 being above RB6 and WR5. That puts TE1' value somewhere between 7 and 11 on the overall value board. Given the above, and even using a conservative position, TE1 ought to be coming off the board at early to middle 3rd round at the latest, and in a ppr ought to be considered in the middle to late second round at the latest. Current ADP of TE1 is 40, meaning his value far exceeds his draft position. Food for thought (or ammo for discussion, as it were)... Good post, the only thing missing is a consideration of the opportunity cost (in pts) for waiting on a later TE compared to drafting a RB, WR, or QB later. If the drop-off is not dramatic it may still warrant taking another position with lower overall projected pts and making up the difference and more by waiting on that lower tier TE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 It seems like many TEs will have one great game and then disappear the next. I don't have stats (or time) to back that up, but there are wittens/gates types that will have a 100yard 2 TD game but then not do much the next game. I did pretty well with Owen Daniels and later Zach Miller (in a .5ppr league) last year. I like the consistency of TEs that get used often even if the TDs were not there (bad teams). I'll probably target something similar again later than the 6th. I never feel like I can spend a top 4 pick on a TE and usually the name brands are all gone by that time. I know a lot of people believe you can find value later in the draft at QB. I think TE its even easier to find value late (or a good one off the waiver wire). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 I'm known for not taking TEs i have heard of such a man in my country, but i did not think he truly existed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 I'll take Witten in the latter half of the 3rd round. I'd take Gates and Gonzo anywhere in the 4th, and would take Winslow late in the 4th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 I think the biggest problem with simply comparing the top performing player at a position to his peers when determining how important it is to get the best guy is the assumption that, by taking the first TE off the board, you're getting that guy. Case in point, the guy we're talking about as the dude worth taking at 3.02 wasn't even that guy last year. So, when you go to battle armed only with how the top players at a position fared compared to the lowest guys who still deserved a starting position, you're missing out on a very important piece of the puzzle. And you know what they say about a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing. The metric that needs to be produced is not only the typical drop-off from elite to tier 2 that is so often discussed, but also how closely the aggregate pre-season rankings and/or ADP resemble the final standings. It is my opinion that the second part of that equation has as much to do with why RBs dominate the first round as the first. That is, not only are the top RBs seriously out-earning the next tiers, but you also have a damned good idea who they were going to be because there were simply only a handful of guys with the combination of talent and environment to be serious candidates for top dog honors. And honestly, the fact WR is becoming increasingly more predictable in terms of who the studs are is as much a reason to start challenging stud RB drafting theories as anything else. The only position I've ever actually done the math on is D, and as a result, have always just grabbed 2 at the end rather than wasting a mid-round pick on the one who's supposed to be great. The statistics show that not only to top Ds rarely repeat but both the experts and ADP totally whiff on that position more than any other. Look for yourself. You can find historical ADP data on a number of sites. Compare that to the final standings and see how rarely the top 3-4 picked end up being anywhere close to that high at the end of the season. It is my less scientific conclusion that TE tends to follow the same deal to a lesser extent. The main difference being that there are about half as many guys as there are needed starters (5 or 6) that you can absolutely stick in there and feel confident about. It's just that it's hard to nail the #1. So, unlike Ds, I'd rather not just dredge the leftovers and hope to get lucky and will usually spend a mid round pick on one of these guys. That is, unless I happen to have a serious hunch, like the time I lucked out on Gates in his break out year. Of, of course, if the run happens too soon and I'd have to overpay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 I think the biggest problem with simply comparing the top performing player at a position to his peers when determining how important it is to get the best guy is the assumption that, by taking the first TE off the board, you're getting that guy. Case in point, the guy we're talking about as the dude worth taking at 3.02 wasn't even that guy last year. So, when you go to battle armed only with how the top players at a position fared compared to the lowest guys who still deserved a starting position, you're missing out on a very important piece of the puzzle. And you know what they say about a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing. The metric that needs to be produced is not only the typical drop-off from elite to tier 2 that is so often discussed, but also how closely the aggregate pre-season rankings and/or ADP resemble the final standings. It is my opinion that the second part of that equation has as much to do with why RBs dominate the first round as the first. That is, not only are the top RBs seriously out-earning the next tiers, but you also have a damned good idea who they were going to be because there were simply only a handful of guys with the combination of talent and environment to be serious candidates for top dog honors. And honestly, the fact WR is becoming increasingly more predictable in terms of who the studs are is as much a reason to start challenging stud RB drafting theories as anything else. The only position I've ever actually done the math on is D, and as a result, have always just grabbed 2 at the end rather than wasting a mid-round pick on the one who's supposed to be great. The statistics show that not only to top Ds rarely repeat but both the experts and ADP totally whiff on that position more than any other. Look for yourself. You can find historical ADP data on a number of sites. Compare that to the final standings and see how rarely the top 3-4 picked end up being anywhere close to that high at the end of the season. It is my less scientific conclusion that TE tends to follow the same deal to a lesser extent. The main difference being that there are about half as many guys as there are needed starters (5 or 6) that you can absolutely stick in there and feel confident about. It's just that it's hard to nail the #1. So, unlike Ds, I'd rather not just dredge the leftovers and hope to get lucky and will usually spend a mid round pick on one of these guys. That is, unless I happen to have a serious hunch, like the time I lucked out on Gates in his break out year. Of, of course, if the run happens too soon and I'd have to overpay. Yeah, this is pretty much close to what I was gonna post, from a slightly different angle. Be careful about releasing too much info to the masses, some things must be kept sacred Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 I'm known for not taking TEs What if you start 2? Anyway I said 4th but a top TE usually doesn't drop that far. I'd really only do it in the late 4th since there will still be better RBs & WRs on the board early in the round. Of course later in the round when I would take them, they'll be gone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 What if you start 2? Anyway I said 4th but a top TE usually doesn't drop that far. I'd really only do it in the late 4th since there will still be better RBs & WRs on the board early in the round. Of course later in the round when I would take them, they'll be gone And this is why I prefer auctions... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 I think the biggest problem with simply comparing the top performing player at a position to his peers when determining how important it is to get the best guy is the assumption that, by taking the first TE off the board, you're getting that guy. Case in point, the guy we're talking about as the dude worth taking at 3.02 wasn't even that guy last year. So, when you go to battle armed only with how the top players at a position fared compared to the lowest guys who still deserved a starting position, you're missing out on a very important piece of the puzzle. And you know what they say about a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing. The metric that needs to be produced is not only the typical drop-off from elite to tier 2 that is so often discussed, but also how closely the aggregate pre-season rankings and/or ADP resemble the final standings. It is my opinion that the second part of that equation has as much to do with why RBs dominate the first round as the first. That is, not only are the top RBs seriously out-earning the next tiers, but you also have a damned good idea who they were going to be because there were simply only a handful of guys with the combination of talent and environment to be serious candidates for top dog honors. And honestly, the fact WR is becoming increasingly more predictable in terms of who the studs are is as much a reason to start challenging stud RB drafting theories as anything else. The only position I've ever actually done the math on is D, and as a result, have always just grabbed 2 at the end rather than wasting a mid-round pick on the one who's supposed to be great. The statistics show that not only to top Ds rarely repeat but both the experts and ADP totally whiff on that position more than any other. Look for yourself. You can find historical ADP data on a number of sites. Compare that to the final standings and see how rarely the top 3-4 picked end up being anywhere close to that high at the end of the season. It is my less scientific conclusion that TE tends to follow the same deal to a lesser extent. The main difference being that there are about half as many guys as there are needed starters (5 or 6) that you can absolutely stick in there and feel confident about. It's just that it's hard to nail the #1. So, unlike Ds, I'd rather not just dredge the leftovers and hope to get lucky and will usually spend a mid round pick on one of these guys. That is, unless I happen to have a serious hunch, like the time I lucked out on Gates in his break out year. Of, of course, if the run happens too soon and I'd have to overpay. This right here is some A+ input. Knowing historically how positions shake out valuewise is one thing, applying that knowledge to the unknown of future performance is another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.