why cant i draft jimmy g at #3?

[tlance]

The difference between gronk and the top wr is 13 points which isn't much IMO. Forte put up 23 points not much either. Esp when your getting one of the only 2 guys getting 300pts at his position. If jimmy was the 20th best player it wouldn't be worth doing.

But like I said with those rosters mentioned in the previous thread who has the better advantage?


I think the hang up is that I'm putting a lot of value at that flex spot while no one thinks it's valuable.

No. I think the hang up is that you are assuming Gronk will outscore every player on the board at pick 22, or 27 or wherever you take him and also not considering the injury risk for a guy who is 9 months removed from an ACL tear. If you did not already have Graham, I could understand wanting to take a risk like this, but you will have Graham, so

You are paying a premium price for an extreme injury risk and you are not even using that player where he is most valuable.

When you take Graham at 3, the guys picking behind you will be very happy. Then, when you compound it with the Gronk selection, the other 11 owners will already be counting you out.

It sounds like you have your mind made up, so good luck. Just know that the only way this works is if you hit some mid round lottery tickets or some free agent gold, and I am just not sure why you would intentionally put yourself in this position despite every person you sought advice from telling you it is a bad idea.

 

[tlance]

Again, there is nothing wrong with this, the problem is that your logic is flawed...

Draft Graham in the first round- then draft Gronk, Gronk is the flex...

Draft Graham in the first draft anyone instead of Gronk, Insert that player in flex(no matter what position)... then you are in the same position as graham and Gronk...

Actually, he would be in much better shape because he would have more roster flexibility.

 

[tlance]

My last point, and then I am out.

You keep throwing these projections around like they are guaranteed to happen.

IF Gronk is fully healthy and able to play 16 games, then playing him at FLEX won't hurt you too much. That is an awfully big if though, and you are making a completely unnecessary gamble here.

 

[wilwhite]

The only real issue I have with your approach is that you're underestimating the value of the "flex" part of the flex position (echoing Tlance).

If you've locked Gronk into your flex as a key part of your strategy and your #1 RB goes down, your lineup is going to suffer a lot because you're going to put some scrub in at RB1. If you already drafted an okay RB at flex you could "promote" him to one of the RB spots and put your next-best RB/WR/TE in at the flex - with the, um, flexibility to pick the best of the bunch.

Conversely, if you have a couple of decent WRs - say VJAX and Garçon - and you took Watkins with a late pick and he starts to explode, the best advantage you can take if Gronk is clogging up the flex is to put Watkins in and bench one of those other guys. If your flex was a late pick in the first place, you get more out of some other player taking off - and Jeffey or Stacy or whoever you took in the second can still give you the value you drafted them for.

 

[wilwhite]

To pooh-pooh one of Tlance's points, though - I don't care a whit whether other owners think I'm doing them favors during the draft.

 

[nj_cup]

all projections are just that guesses.

is he a health risk? sure he is but hes healthy now. if he stays healthy all season he will put up 300 points that much is certain.


getting a player that scores 300 points in the 3rd round 12 team league is a steal i dont care what spot he plays in.

 

[wilwhite]

getting a player that scores 300 points in the 3rd round 12 team league is a steal i dont care what spot he plays in.

Well... if you do find yourself in a lineup pickle and Gronk is healthy and performing, you'll probably be able to find a trade partner for him or Graham.

(With this discussion, though, we may have jinxed Graham into getting knocked onto IR in the first game while Gronk plays all season.)

 

[TKOSpikes]

Last one for me too. I have already said how "unflexing" your flex can be very bad for you, but if you fo get those two 300 pointers, you're forgetting about the 900 or so the others will get from their RB/WR set, while you're stuck at about 600 (if you hit right)

But then Will reminded us....you can always make trades. I think we all overthink our drafts to a point, because I know my team never looks the same post draft to pre-playoffs.

 

[nj_cup]

The only real issue I have with your approach is that you're underestimating the value of the "flex" part of the flex position (echoing Tlance).

If you've locked Gronk into your flex as a key part of your strategy and your #1 RB goes down, your lineup is going to suffer a lot because you're going to put some scrub in at RB1. If you already drafted an okay RB at flex you could "promote" him to one of the RB spots and put your next-best RB/WR/TE in at the flex - with the, um, flexibility to pick the best of the bunch.

Conversely, if you have a couple of decent WRs - say VJAX and Garçon - and you took Watkins with a late pick and he starts to explode, the best advantage you can take if Gronk is clogging up the flex is to put Watkins in and bench one of those other guys. If your flex was a late pick in the first place, you get more out of some other player taking off - and Jeffey or Stacy or whoever you took in the second can still give you the value you drafted them for.

if my rb1 goes down and i have to take my rb3 from flex and sub him into the rb1 slot....that means my rb4 is going to get put into the flex spot. there is a reason why whoever that is theres a reason why i drafted him as my 4th best rb. so now he would be getting rb3 status. injuries just happen they can derail you in any situation.


your thinking too with the wr's i dont agree with either and i think thats where everyone is getting thrown off. where i will be "limited" at who i can start.

vjax and garcon are tearing it up putting up 20pts a week for me each. gronk in the flex putting up 25pts.
watkins is tearing it up on my bench and putting up 23 points. should i sub him for gronk? or vjax or garcon? say watkins is putting up only 19pts a week who should i take gronk out and put watkins in over him?

if jimmy and gronk get 300pts each this year over a full season that comes out to 18.75 a week average. (jimmy put up 331 last year). whoever goes into your flex spot is going to be your 6th best offensive player do you think that guy is going to be able to put up 18.75 a week? yes i know it can happen with luck and a break out year from someone (moreno) from last year. but you can easily use that thinking and say me without a rb early can find that same gem.

everyone keeps saying i can put anyone i want into the flex it doesn't matter. yes i agree i can put dez in my flex. but guess what then i'm going to be starting my wr3 taken in the 6th round probably in my wr1 slot. i'm just looking at getting the most amount of points in my lineup

 

[wilwhite]

that means my rb4 is going to get put into the flex spot

Only if your RB4 is better than your WR3 or your TE2. Flex.

VJAX/Garçon was an example if you don't draft Gronk. I doubt you'd go Graham/Gronk/VJAX/Garçon. If you had Graham, you'd probably only go VJAX/Garçon if you passed on Gronk and took an RB in round 2.

Go ahead and look at ADP with Graham and Gronk as your first two rounds and whoever you want from guys who have ADP in the next rounds, and post that here, and based on that we can talk about pros and cons.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

if my rb1 goes down and i have to take my rb3 from flex and sub him into the rb1 slot....that means my rb4 is going to get put into the flex spot. there is a reason why whoever that is theres a reason why i drafted him as my 4th best rb. so now he would be getting rb3 status. injuries just happen they can derail you in any situation.


your thinking too with the wr's i dont agree with either and i think thats where everyone is getting thrown off. where i will be "limited" at who i can start.

vjax and garcon are tearing it up putting up 20pts a week for me each. gronk in the flex putting up 25pts.
watkins is tearing it up on my bench and putting up 23 points. should i sub him for gronk? or vjax or garcon? say watkins is putting up only 19pts a week who should i take gronk out and put watkins in over him?

if jimmy and gronk get 300pts each this year over a full season that comes out to 18.75 a week average. (jimmy put up 331 last year). whoever goes into your flex spot is going to be your 6th best offensive player do you think that guy is going to be able to put up 18.75 a week? yes i know it can happen with luck and a break out year from someone (moreno) from last year. but you can easily use that thinking and say me without a rb early can find that same gem.

everyone keeps saying i can put anyone i want into the flex it doesn't matter. yes i agree i can put dez in my flex. but guess what then i'm going to be starting my wr3 taken in the 6th round probably in my wr1 slot. i'm just looking at getting the most amount of points in my lineup

Now you are not even listening to other people... We are going backwards now... You are not starting the most possible points!!!

If you think Gronk will be the best player available when you take him then there is nothing wrong with taking him... But here is the thing, you plan on overspending for him... There is nothing wrong with that though since you are likely not going to get him if you don't overspend for him... The problem is that once you do draft him you are weakening your Graham pick...

You stated earlier, and I even showed your post, that Graham was the 6th highest scoring WR/TE/RB in your league last year... and unless you project Graham to Be the HIGHEST points scorer left when you draft 3rd overall then you are actually throwing away points...

If you think Calvin will outscore Graham, then Calvin + gronk is better than Graham + Gronk... and now you still have the flexibility of the Flex position...

You are paying the positional value twice, which is silly since you don't need to start 2 TE... You say you are giving yourself an advantage vs other teams, but in reality you are only affecting one team on draft day(the team forced to take a TE not ranked top 12 as there starter)...

The only way this move makes sense is if you think Graham will be the HIGHEST scorer left when you draft 3rd and Gronk is the HIGHEST scorer left when you take him...



There is nothing wrong with doing one of these moves, but to do both then you really are relying on your projections to be correct and relying on many other things to go right for you...

 

[tlance]

Now you are not even listening to other people... We are going backwards now... You are not starting the most possible points!!!

If you think Gronk will be the best player available when you take him then there is nothing wrong with taking him... But here is the thing, you plan on overspending for him... There is nothing wrong with that though since you are likely not going to get him if you don't overspend for him... The problem is that once you do draft him you are weakening your Graham pick...

You stated earlier, and I even showed your post, that Graham was the 6th highest scoring WR/TE/RB in your league last year... and unless you project Graham to Be the HIGHEST points scorer left when you draft 3rd overall then you are actually throwing away points...

If you think Calvin will outscore Graham, then Calvin + gronk is better than Graham + Gronk... and now you still have the flexibility of the Flex position...

You are paying the positional value twice, which is silly since you don't need to start 2 TE... You say you are giving yourself an advantage vs other teams, but in reality you are only affecting one team on draft day(the team forced to take a TE not ranked top 12 as there starter)...

The only way this move makes sense is if you think Graham will be the HIGHEST scorer left when you draft 3rd and Gronk is the HIGHEST scorer left when you take him...



There is nothing wrong with doing one of these moves, but to do both then you really are relying on your projections to be correct and relying on many other things to go right for you...

THIS

If you are dead set on Gronk, then pass on Graham and take Gronk in round 3. Simple as that.

Forte, AP, McCoy, even Megatron, whoever you get there would be a MUCH better pairing with Gronk than Graham would. There is no logical argument that you can make to the contrary.

Why overreach for the #1 TE, when you plan to draft the second best option later? Forte is projected to score more points than Graham and he plays a position that you will need more since you are set on drafting Gronk.

And by the way, the fact that multiple RBs score 300 points is even more of a reason for you to get one. They all offer just as big of an advantage over low end RB2s (maybe more) than Graham offers over the low end TE 1s.

One more question, you talk about Gronk like he is a lock to score 300 points. How many times in his 4 year career has he done that?

If you are committed to this experiment, than just do it, but whether you win or not, it is a bad strategy. You will need a lot of other things to go right to make up for the hole you are digging yourself.

 

[Barilko]

THIS

If you are dead set on Gronk, then pass on Graham and take Gronk in round 3. Simple as that.

Forte, AP, McCoy, even Megatron, whoever you get there would be a MUCH better pairing with Gronk than Graham would. There is no logical argument that you can make to the contrary.

Why overreach for the #1 TE, when you plan to draft the second best option later? Forte is projected to score more points than Graham and he plays a position that you will need more since you are set on drafting Gronk.

And by the way, the fact that multiple RBs score 300 points is even more of a reason for you to get one. They all offer just as big of an advantage over low end RB2s (maybe more) than Graham offers over the low end TE 1s.

One more question, you talk about Gronk like he is a lock to score 300 points. How many times in his 4 year career has he done that?

If you are committed to this experiment, than just do it, but whether you win or not, it is a bad strategy. You will need a lot of other things to go right to make up for the hole you are digging yourself.

Agre Agree Agree Did I Say I Agree...

 

[Nasty_Magician]

Similar question, I'm in a very similar league and have the 5 pick. I'm going to assume top 3 to will be Charles, McCoy, Forte. 4, Peterson might go, possibly Calvin. Do you take Calvin at the 5 spot? Is Calvin > Jimmy?

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Similar question, I'm in a very similar league and have the 5 pick. I'm going to assume top 3 to will be Charles, McCoy, Forte. 4, Peterson might go, possibly Calvin. Do you take Calvin at the 5 spot? Is Calvin > Jimmy?

Honestly with the number 5 pick I would pick Calvin over graham. Only because you can get either gronk or Thomas in the 3rd round. And there is a huge difference between the first and second round WRs to the 3rd round.

But if you want to play it safe graham is a good pick at 5. I just think it's guaranteed you can get gronk or Thomas in the 3rd. So why not take Calvin who will out score graham

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Late 2nd round WRs are very bad value IMO.

 

[wilwhite]

Nasty -

I disagree somewhat with Milk. (After all, if it was only about picking somebody to outscore Graham, you could spend your #5 pick on Ryan Tannehill.) Graham doesn't get hurt much and outscores the rest of the TEs (except Gronk when healthy) by a much bigger margin than Calvin has over the rest of the WR1s.

The real difference is all the rounds in between. If you wait on a TE you lose all the advantage Graham would have gotten you over your opponents' TEs, but you accrue advantage at the other positions. If you take Graham you'll draft differently, because you'll be chasing RBs and WRs and might, for example, end up with a sub-par QB.

In the end I think it's a wash, so play it how you feel it.

 

[Nasty_Magician]

I guess my logic would be that Calvin is a better bet because after Jimmy and Gronk there is kind of plateau of decent TEs that can give you pretty consistent production (Witten, Olsen, Cameron, Thomas etc.) whereas with WR it is a crapshoot when you get to the next tier.

 

[wilwhite]

That plateau is very low, though. Last year Graham was 80 FF pts better than Witten and Cameron, and 100 FF pts better than Olsen. In fact, there were only two TEs within 80 pts of Graham.

There were 17 WRs within 80 FF pts of Calvin.

 

[SmokingMonkey]

how is this thread still alive? hahahah