Bench vs starters

[TKOSpikes]

but the difference with TE's is consistency... the difference between Rudolph and Daniels is not enough to even mention, IMO. (actually, Daniels had more points last year). Kyle Rudolph had 6 games of 2 points or less last year! Same as Scott Chandler. Brandon Myers had 4, Bennett had 5.

I understand the potential with Rudolph, and I drafted him already this year... but I'm not confident going with him week in and week out, that's for sure.

 

[TREFF]

3 points, average, is a negligible difference...gimme as many 10+ pt a week RBs as possible. 3 reasons

Firstly, they'll be on my team, not yours.
Secondly, when injuries strike, and they always do, not to mention bye weeks...I have options that will be better than the team who took the "above average" TE. Nor will I be pressed into making a foolish "panic" trade when my #1 or 2 go down.
And finally, I'll have excellent trade bait, whereas no one trades for a TE not named Gronk or Graham..well, at least not anything substantial.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

3 points, average, is a negligible difference...gimme as many 10+ pt a week RBs as possible. 3 reasons

Firstly, they'll be on my team, not yours.
Secondly, when injuries strike, and they always do, not to mention bye weeks...I have options that will be better than the team who took the "above average" TE. Nor will I be pressed into making a foolish "panic" trade when my #1 or 2 go down.
And finally, I'll have excellent trade bait, whereas no one trades for a TE not named Gronk or Graham..well, at least not anything substantial.

I do agree with your points... and i am a huge fan of depth... the only thing to realize is in a 12 owner or larger league. those top 24 RB top 24 WR top 10 QBs and top TEs are already chosen before you even get to a guy like rudolph... so you really are talking about backups in replace of a guy like rudolph... maybe in a 10 team league you could wait longer, and go crazy with depth... remember that 7th round in a 12 team league begins with the 73 pick...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

and i wish that we were able to make this argument without using actual players names... we are getting biased towards whether they are under-rated or over-rated...

 

[JDM]

I am heavily in favor of depth at RB being crucial. It is much harder for a running back sleeper to see the field than a WR sleeper, and I think RB is the hardest spot to add an option off waivers. I've seen even backups without a lot of touches be held in deeper leagues, and you're more likely to find someone getting significant touches with active waiver activity at any spot but running back.

 

[TREFF]

ky bias originates in that after the top 5-8 TE's. There's a whole slew of them that are basically the same. So if I don't pull the trigger on one of those..I'll simply wait, as I feel there is little to no difference between TE #10 and TE #20 (more or less proven by the averages you posted earlier) but if I'm taking that 3rd RB before a stud TE owner gets his second..I have a great option, and he has an even worse 2nd RB..that's just how I see it..the names mean little to me

 

[Sam Sportboy]

Well IMO there are a lot of things to factor in whether or not you will fill your roster before you start filling bench spots. One very important factor would be starting requirements and how you prefer to fill them. Not to use names but let's say I am in a league that requires me to start 2 RB's and 3 WR's. If I drafted any combo of 2RB/2WR when I get to that 5th round, let's say I have a RB ranked a few spots in front of my next WR; I would seriously consider (and depending on who, etc.) taking the lower ranked WR due to my starting requirements of 2RB and 3WR. Same scenario but with a flex instead I'm taking the higher ranked player (who happened to be the RB). So, now we move to the 6th round and my QB (hypothetically) has an ADP of late 7th so I'm sure I'll get him. So depending on which scenario you go with, if I wait on my QB until the 7th, didn't draft a TE yet (targeting a guy with ADP of late 8th round) then my next pick would be a bench player either way.

So with that said, I will personally try to fill all of my spots before adding bench players with the exception of TE and depending on the year QB (this year it will have to take somebody to really fall for me to consider a QB early). The reason I wait on TE is besides Graham, Gronk, Witten and IMO Davis they are mostly the same and I'm not paying the price for one of those guys..............unless they fall.

 

[dblakejr7]

ky bias originates in that after the top 5-8 TE's. There's a whole slew of them that are basically the same. So if I don't pull the trigger on one of those..I'll simply wait, as I feel there is little to no difference between TE #10 and TE #20 (more or less proven by the averages you posted earlier) but if I'm taking that 3rd RB before a stud TE owner gets his second..I have a great option, and he has an even worse 2nd RB..that's just how I see it..the names mean little to me

exactly.. its all about giving yourself as many advantages while limiting your opponents.. there is a movie quote from somethign dont remember which one but it basically says.. take from them everything and give nothing back..

 

[averagejoe]

Doing this from my phone and messed it up once already. Awkward.

Most TE do a little over 100 fantasy points. Which to me puts them into K and DST and WR4 value. It would be crazy to value them any higher. When I get home I plan on looking at our suicide draft results to see which side of the argument is valid.

 

[wilwhite]

It depends on my starters so far. If I have low-risk guys as my first three RBs (say Rice, CJ1K and Bell) I'm not going to worry about them, so I'd probably take a starting TE/WR3 before taking my fourth RB, who would probably be a very late flier. But if my first three RBs are high-risk (say McFadden, MJD and Murray) I'm probably taking two more RBs before I take those other starters.

I don't subscribe to arbitrary 1-6 vs. 7-12 vs. 13-18. There are big drops, and those should define the break points, which are different year-to-year (not to mention opinion-to-opinion). For me for TE this year a big break comes after the second guy, and a smaller break after the fourth; for RB the first break comes after the fourth guy and a smaller one after the ninth.

Remember, the best fantasy value in the history of football was in the K slot, and would have given you a 200-point advantage over the next-best K that year. In that case, you fill your K slot first.

 

[Sam Sportboy]

It depends on my starters so far. If I have low-risk guys as my first three RBs (say Rice, CJ1K and Bell) I'm not going to worry about them, so I'd probably take a starting TE/WR3 before taking my fourth RB, who would probably be a very late flier. But if my first three RBs are high-risk (say McFadden, MJD and Murray) I'm probably taking two more RBs before I take those other starters.

I don't subscribe to arbitrary 1-6 vs. 7-12 vs. 13-18. There are big drops, and those should define the break points, which are different year-to-year (not to mention opinion-to-opinion). For me for TE this year a big break comes after the second guy, and a smaller break after the fourth; for RB the first break comes after the fourth guy and a smaller one after the ninth.

Remember, the best fantasy value in the history of football was in the K slot, and would have given you a 200-point advantage over the next-best K that year. In that case, you fill your K slot first.

RIP George Blanda...........

 

[TREFF]

RIP George Blanda...........

Ahh..those were the days...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I think i probably would agree that this year TE is deep but pretty mediocre... but i do think there is a point where waiting on a position is just not beneficial... like i said in a 12 league team the 7th round starts with the 73 pick... by the 7 round you should have 2 RB, 1 QB, 2WR... of course if you dont have that(or you are in a flex league) you would want to fill out your starting WRs,RBs and QBs... But assuming either bench player or TE 7th round or later, i think i would always slightly reach for a TE(unless some crazy value fell to you)... the way i see it you get a top 10 TE instead of depth, where the depth is a very low end player and possibly a backup for their team... by the 73rd pick there will likely be 12 QBs taken, 28 RB, 28 WR, 4 TE, 1 Def. so 7th round might be a runner on the 5-8 ranked TEs... so in the 7th round when you get the 29th best RB or WR and someone gets a top 8 TE, you are already in a disadvantage(assuming that the RB or WR is a bench player for your team)... I mean, this is like picking shane vereen over kyle rudolph, when you need kyle rudolph...

 

[JDM]

If roughly 28 RBs are taken, I would be perfectly happy with having at least 3 of them (if there is the capability for 3 to start, I might go all 4) . The rest of my team will be OK behind them.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

If roughly 28 RBs are taken, I would be perfectly happy with having at least 3 of them (if there is the capability for 3 to start, I might go all 4) . The rest of my team will be OK behind them.

In this specific example you start 1 QB 2 RBs 3 WR and you have those 6 players on your team already...

 

[TREFF]

Ummm..gimme Shane Vereen over Rudolph ANY day..whether I need a RB or a TE.

 

[JDM]

In this specific example you start 1 QB 2 RBs 3 WR and you have those 6 players on your team already...

I'm just saying that it is never too early to take the right running back. I'm not making it seven rounds without a third running back in almost any situation.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Ummm..gimme Shane Vereen over Rudolph ANY day..whether I need a RB or a TE.

See, if shane vereen is on my bench, and rudolph is starting for me i would rather have rudolph... I just dont think having mediocre players on your bench is worth waiting at a position and risking to have a bad fantasy player at that position...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I'm just saying that it is never too early to take the right running back. I'm not making it seven rounds without a third running back in almost any situation.

I am not opposed to drafting bench players before filling out the major starting positions... i just would rather not take a mediocre bench player instead of a mediocre starter with the risk of having a bad starter at that position...

 

[TREFF]

See, if shane vereen is on my bench, and rudolph is starting for me i would rather have rudolph... I just dont think having mediocre players on your bench is worth waiting at a position and risking to have a bad fantasy player at that position...

Theres a very strong chance that Vareen won't be on your bench though..that's the point. I can get five other TEs that will give what Rudolph will..theres very few RB's at that point in the draft who could easily become an every week starter..even playing behind Ridley.