Originally posted by The FF Maestro:
You want to know what jumps out most to me in that article?...how about the fact that there was an overall 50 point difference between the #1 TE and the #5 TE at season's end?...HA!...I mean, man, 50 points divided by 13 games equals almost a full 4 points per game, per week - week in and week out!...and supposedly that isn't much of a difference-maker?...well then, for those that don't believe so, well, I'll take that week in and week out - EVERY week...I wonder what the point differential was between the #1 QB & the #5 QB last season, eh?...just another example of in order of what one needs to do to reap the benefits and decipher the true meaning of a FF guru/expert/pundit's written article - simply read between the lines ... But you're assuming that you could've DRAFTED the #1 TE instead of the #5 (or worse). Yes, there's a big dropoff from Witten, but unless you drafted him, the difference between last year's #2 and #10 is 30 points:
Jason Witten 246
Vernon Davis 189
Antonio Gates 188
Marcedes Lewis 184
Chris Cooley 178
Tony Gonzalez 172
Kellen Winslow 169
Brandon Pettigrew 167
Benjamin Watson 162
Zach Miller 159
Contrast that with the difference between just about any of the top 5 predictable QBs and the #10 QB, where the difference is well over 50 points:
Manning 418
Brady 416
Rodgers 413
Rivers 408
Brees 407
Vick 393
Manning 368
Ryan 356
Schaub 353
Freeman 353
Yes, there were two major injuries to two other top TEs last year. But QBs, in general, do not get injured as often as position players AND the top 7 QBs or so are largely predictable and reliable from year to year.
[ August 14, 2011, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Sandman62 ]
The Top Tier TE Sans Dilemma
The Top Tier TE Sans Dilemma
I have done 4 drafts so far 2 of the 60's and 2 slow and from the
3rd spot I went
rb,qb,wr,te,wr,te
14th spot
wr,rb,qb,rb,wr,te
4th spot
rb,rb,te,wr,wr,qb
4th spot
rb,rb,wr,te,qb,wr
after looking at my teams I think that the team that went rb,rb,wr,te,qb,wr has the best chances and It
and if big ben played a full season iI think he would be 7th or so at qb and you knew he was suspeneded when drafted.
3rd spot I went
rb,qb,wr,te,wr,te
14th spot
wr,rb,qb,rb,wr,te
4th spot
rb,rb,te,wr,wr,qb
4th spot
rb,rb,wr,te,qb,wr
after looking at my teams I think that the team that went rb,rb,wr,te,qb,wr has the best chances and It
and if big ben played a full season iI think he would be 7th or so at qb and you knew he was suspeneded when drafted.
The Top Tier TE Sans Dilemma
Originally posted by Sandman62:
quote:Originally posted by The FF Maestro:
You want to know what jumps out most to me in that article?...how about the fact that there was an overall 50 point difference between the #1 TE and the #5 TE at season's end?...HA!...I mean, man, 50 points divided by 13 games equals almost a full 4 points per game, per week - week in and week out!...and supposedly that isn't much of a difference-maker?...well then, for those that don't believe so, well, I'll take that week in and week out - EVERY week...I wonder what the point differential was between the #1 QB & the #5 QB last season, eh?...just another example of in order of what one needs to do to reap the benefits and decipher the true meaning of a FF guru/expert/pundit's written article - simply read between the lines ... But you're assuming that you could've DRAFTED the #1 TE instead of the #5 (or worse). Yes, there's a big dropoff from Witten, but unless you drafted him, the difference between last year's #2 and #10 is 30 points:
Jason Witten 246
Vernon Davis 189
Antonio Gates 188
Marcedes Lewis 184
Chris Cooley 178
Tony Gonzalez 172
Kellen Winslow 169
Brandon Pettigrew 167
Benjamin Watson 162
Zach Miller 159
Contrast that with the difference between just about any of the top 5 predictable QBs and the #10 QB, where the difference is well over 50 points:
Manning 418
Brady 416
Rodgers 413
Rivers 408
Brees 407
Vick 393
Manning 368
Ryan 356
Schaub 353
Freeman 353
Yes, there were two major injuries to two other top TEs last year. But QBs, in general, do not get injured as often as position players AND the top 7 QBs or so are largely predictable and reliable from year to year. [/QUOTE]Ok, so just to be fair and do my due diligence here... I can start to appreciate your strategy more if, instead of focusing on the difference between the #1 and #5 at QB vs. TE, we look at the difference between the top 3 and the 12-14th at each position. My reason for suggesting this focus is that it's probably no easy task to pick which among the projected top 3 at each position will actually finish #1, compared to identifying who the top 3 will be (notwithstanding last year's injuries to 2 of the projected top 3 TEs, as that very likely won't happen often). So if you pull the trigger early on a top-3 QB or TE, the odds are pretty good they'll end up there (you'll get what you paid for). And if you wait and get shutout to the point that your QB or TE are among the worst starting NFFC options, then you will have suffered the biggest dropoff.
With that in mind, here are "my" (I start with Rotoworld's, then modify as desired) projected points for the top 3 and 12-14 at QB and TE.
QB TE
1 419 Brady 234 Finley
2 413 Vick 234 Gates
3 412 Brees 220 Witten
AVG 415 AVG 229
12 365 Cutler 150 Lewis
13 360 Freeman 147 Watson
14 357 Manning 145 Miller
AVG 361 AVG 147
Diff. 54 Diff. 82
Wk. 3.4 Wk. 5.1
As you can see, there appears to be the potential for a larger dropoff from top-tier TEs to the last of the NFFC starters than at QB. This is a little different than FF's contention that [paraphrased] "It's better to grab the #1 TE than the #5 TE because the dropoff from QB1 to QB5 is less" because I maintain that it's no easy task to accurately determine the #1 - at least not nearly as easy as identifying the top 3.
Of course, many are confident that they can find the diamonds in the rough and won't get stuck with barely a starting option at these positions. But that doesn't always work out either.
So in summary, I can see FF's point, and he does often, year-to-year, make some good points and craft some creative draft strategies. As usual though, his narcissism ("simply" pick the top TE and you're golden) is what often taints my ability (and I suspect others) to buy into his strategies; too often, there seems to be an assumption that he (or any of us) can or should be able to "simply" :rolleyes: pick the top players and avoid the land mines (which is no small task). But when you step back a bit from an implied claim as bold as "Pick the TE1 instead of TE5 and you'll be better off than if you pick the QB1 instead of QB5", and look at the bigger picture of "Getting a top-3 TE instead of taking the chance of getting stuck with barely a starting option may work out better than grabbing a top-3 QB", I think he makes some valid points regarding the drafting of these two positions.
[ August 15, 2011, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: Sandman62 ]
quote:Originally posted by The FF Maestro:
You want to know what jumps out most to me in that article?...how about the fact that there was an overall 50 point difference between the #1 TE and the #5 TE at season's end?...HA!...I mean, man, 50 points divided by 13 games equals almost a full 4 points per game, per week - week in and week out!...and supposedly that isn't much of a difference-maker?...well then, for those that don't believe so, well, I'll take that week in and week out - EVERY week...I wonder what the point differential was between the #1 QB & the #5 QB last season, eh?...just another example of in order of what one needs to do to reap the benefits and decipher the true meaning of a FF guru/expert/pundit's written article - simply read between the lines ... But you're assuming that you could've DRAFTED the #1 TE instead of the #5 (or worse). Yes, there's a big dropoff from Witten, but unless you drafted him, the difference between last year's #2 and #10 is 30 points:
Jason Witten 246
Vernon Davis 189
Antonio Gates 188
Marcedes Lewis 184
Chris Cooley 178
Tony Gonzalez 172
Kellen Winslow 169
Brandon Pettigrew 167
Benjamin Watson 162
Zach Miller 159
Contrast that with the difference between just about any of the top 5 predictable QBs and the #10 QB, where the difference is well over 50 points:
Manning 418
Brady 416
Rodgers 413
Rivers 408
Brees 407
Vick 393
Manning 368
Ryan 356
Schaub 353
Freeman 353
Yes, there were two major injuries to two other top TEs last year. But QBs, in general, do not get injured as often as position players AND the top 7 QBs or so are largely predictable and reliable from year to year. [/QUOTE]Ok, so just to be fair and do my due diligence here... I can start to appreciate your strategy more if, instead of focusing on the difference between the #1 and #5 at QB vs. TE, we look at the difference between the top 3 and the 12-14th at each position. My reason for suggesting this focus is that it's probably no easy task to pick which among the projected top 3 at each position will actually finish #1, compared to identifying who the top 3 will be (notwithstanding last year's injuries to 2 of the projected top 3 TEs, as that very likely won't happen often). So if you pull the trigger early on a top-3 QB or TE, the odds are pretty good they'll end up there (you'll get what you paid for). And if you wait and get shutout to the point that your QB or TE are among the worst starting NFFC options, then you will have suffered the biggest dropoff.
With that in mind, here are "my" (I start with Rotoworld's, then modify as desired) projected points for the top 3 and 12-14 at QB and TE.
QB TE
1 419 Brady 234 Finley
2 413 Vick 234 Gates
3 412 Brees 220 Witten
AVG 415 AVG 229
12 365 Cutler 150 Lewis
13 360 Freeman 147 Watson
14 357 Manning 145 Miller
AVG 361 AVG 147
Diff. 54 Diff. 82
Wk. 3.4 Wk. 5.1
As you can see, there appears to be the potential for a larger dropoff from top-tier TEs to the last of the NFFC starters than at QB. This is a little different than FF's contention that [paraphrased] "It's better to grab the #1 TE than the #5 TE because the dropoff from QB1 to QB5 is less" because I maintain that it's no easy task to accurately determine the #1 - at least not nearly as easy as identifying the top 3.
Of course, many are confident that they can find the diamonds in the rough and won't get stuck with barely a starting option at these positions. But that doesn't always work out either.
So in summary, I can see FF's point, and he does often, year-to-year, make some good points and craft some creative draft strategies. As usual though, his narcissism ("simply" pick the top TE and you're golden) is what often taints my ability (and I suspect others) to buy into his strategies; too often, there seems to be an assumption that he (or any of us) can or should be able to "simply" :rolleyes: pick the top players and avoid the land mines (which is no small task). But when you step back a bit from an implied claim as bold as "Pick the TE1 instead of TE5 and you'll be better off than if you pick the QB1 instead of QB5", and look at the bigger picture of "Getting a top-3 TE instead of taking the chance of getting stuck with barely a starting option may work out better than grabbing a top-3 QB", I think he makes some valid points regarding the drafting of these two positions.
[ August 15, 2011, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: Sandman62 ]
The Top Tier TE Sans Dilemma
The problem is that at that level of granularity the noise in the projection systems makes those comparisons pretty meaningless. From a projections perspective, there's no meaningful difference between a 200 point player and a 185 point player; both are well within a reasonable deviation for that type of player.
The Top Tier TE Sans Dilemma
Originally posted by Hells Satans:
The problem is that at that level of granularity the noise in the projection systems makes those comparisons pretty meaningless. From a projections perspective, there's no meaningful difference between a 200 point player and a 185 point player; both are well within a reasonable deviation for that type of player. Huh? Was I comparing 200-pt players to 185? I thought I was trying to compare 415-361 at QB and 229-147 at TE?
[ August 15, 2011, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Sandman62 ]
The problem is that at that level of granularity the noise in the projection systems makes those comparisons pretty meaningless. From a projections perspective, there's no meaningful difference between a 200 point player and a 185 point player; both are well within a reasonable deviation for that type of player. Huh? Was I comparing 200-pt players to 185? I thought I was trying to compare 415-361 at QB and 229-147 at TE?
[ August 15, 2011, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Sandman62 ]
The Top Tier TE Sans Dilemma
Originally posted by Sandman62:
quote:Originally posted by Hells Satans:
The problem is that at that level of granularity the noise in the projection systems makes those comparisons pretty meaningless. From a projections perspective, there's no meaningful difference between a 200 point player and a 185 point player; both are well within a reasonable deviation for that type of player. Huh? Was I comparing 200-pt players to 185? I thought I was trying to compare 415-361 at QB and 229-147 at TE? [/QUOTE]Yeah, lack of clarity by me. I was focusing on the 18 point difference between 1-3 QB/TE and 12-14 QB/TE. What I was trying to say is 415-361 could very easily be 423-355 and 229-147 could easily be 225-154 and that those aren't meaningful differences and there's no real way to project to that level of certainty. And that the range of error in any projection system far exceeds those small differences.
[ August 15, 2011, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: Hells Satans ]
quote:Originally posted by Hells Satans:
The problem is that at that level of granularity the noise in the projection systems makes those comparisons pretty meaningless. From a projections perspective, there's no meaningful difference between a 200 point player and a 185 point player; both are well within a reasonable deviation for that type of player. Huh? Was I comparing 200-pt players to 185? I thought I was trying to compare 415-361 at QB and 229-147 at TE?
[/QUOTE]Yeah, lack of clarity by me. I was focusing on the 18 point difference between 1-3 QB/TE and 12-14 QB/TE. What I was trying to say is 415-361 could very easily be 423-355 and 229-147 could easily be 225-154 and that those aren't meaningful differences and there's no real way to project to that level of certainty. And that the range of error in any projection system far exceeds those small differences.[ August 15, 2011, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: Hells Satans ]
The Top Tier TE Sans Dilemma
Here's another Sportsline article that CONCURS with FF's QB/TE draft strategy.
Charting the consistency data has also allowed me to identify trends among the positions which have helped me to shape my draft strategies. In a nutshell, I have found that the elite quarterbacks and the elite tight ends are the most consistent producers each year (definitely on a games played basis) and are the most reliably consistent producers year after year. On the flip side, the running back and wide receiver positions have lower consistency rates each year among the starters than the other positions, while also having much more turnover at the top year in and year out (to the tune of 50 percent year over year).
Not only do you have big bunches of running backs and wide receivers with similar consistency rates, but the individual players who are in the top 24 changes dramatically year after year. That is why, in a nutshell, I think you want to have a consistent stud quarterback and an wlite tight end on your teams while loading up on as many good running back and receiver candidates as you can possibly get. Sure, you need target some consistent anchors at running back and receiver early in the draft, but then you want to grab as many good options as possible at those spots and hope you hit on some lottery tickets.
Still though, I'd have a hard time reaching for an elite TE because:
1) Like QB, we only have to start ONE TE - but UNlike QB, TEs don't account for nearly as big a chunk of our weekly points.
2) In the NFFC, we start THREE WRs and a flex (which oftentimes is another WR). I'd rather be strong there than at the lone TE spot.
YMMV.
Charting the consistency data has also allowed me to identify trends among the positions which have helped me to shape my draft strategies. In a nutshell, I have found that the elite quarterbacks and the elite tight ends are the most consistent producers each year (definitely on a games played basis) and are the most reliably consistent producers year after year. On the flip side, the running back and wide receiver positions have lower consistency rates each year among the starters than the other positions, while also having much more turnover at the top year in and year out (to the tune of 50 percent year over year).
Not only do you have big bunches of running backs and wide receivers with similar consistency rates, but the individual players who are in the top 24 changes dramatically year after year. That is why, in a nutshell, I think you want to have a consistent stud quarterback and an wlite tight end on your teams while loading up on as many good running back and receiver candidates as you can possibly get. Sure, you need target some consistent anchors at running back and receiver early in the draft, but then you want to grab as many good options as possible at those spots and hope you hit on some lottery tickets.
Still though, I'd have a hard time reaching for an elite TE because:
1) Like QB, we only have to start ONE TE - but UNlike QB, TEs don't account for nearly as big a chunk of our weekly points.
2) In the NFFC, we start THREE WRs and a flex (which oftentimes is another WR). I'd rather be strong there than at the lone TE spot.
YMMV.