How many of you feel that TE should not be a position in FF?

[davus]

Ghidra, you make my point exactly. Except for a small handful of TE's...the rest of the league is left with players that are completely worthless half the time or more.

I do understand VBD, but appreciate your breakdown, it can possibly work that way but that's if every manager drafts perfectly. In reality, it's not really an advantage much of the time. Even if it is an advantage and adds strategy, so what? So would adding linemen and getting points for blocks. My point is that this is the only common position in FF leagues where the majority of the managers have pretty much worthless players most of the time.

[KingGhidra]

Again, there's something bigger in play here. The more varied your starting positions are, the more you can compensate for draft order. If you missed the chance to get a top RB earlier in the draft, you can compensate with a top WR later. If you missed out on a top WR, you compensate with a top TE. The guys who don't pick up the top TEs, more than likely were able to get their guys at the RB/WR position, so it's not as critical that they get a top scoring guy there (not that it hurts).

I think what turns most people off to the TE position is they see all the other positions scoring 20-30 points often and a good week for a TE is 12 points. This can easily be compensated for with league settings. Award TEs 2 pts/catch. You could even go so far as to award them more points/receiving yard also. That makes the top 3 guys even MORE valuable (Off the top of my head, that would probably make Gonzo a late 1st rounder value wise). If the coaches see the top 6-8 TEs scoring at least 7-8 points a week with 20 point games more common, this argument goes away.

[davus]

But why alter league settings in order to force TE to be a more valuable position when it just isn't? Why not just get rid of the worthless buggers and be done with it?

[The Great Gambini]

This was the first year I had ever had a good TE (Shockey). It was fun having a good one, as it gave you hope of having some added advantage over the other team. Now that he's done, I'm kind of pissed. lol

[KingGhidra]

But why alter league settings in order to force TE to be a more valuable position when it just isn't? Why not just get rid of the worthless buggers and be done with it?

The thing is, they aren't worthless. They only seem worthless because compared to the point output of a position like RB or QB, they aren't as glamorous. The reality is, since there's only 3 top tier guys and 4-5 mid range guys, it makes them very valuable. Like I said previously, it's a way to gain an advantage or recover from disadvantage having a top TE. When you're looking at your matchups for the next week and most of your players are even then you see he has Tony Gonzalez vs your Anthony Becht you know his team is the slight favorite.

[blueonion]

[b]I am a traditionalist and so there must be a tightend [/b] This seems odd to me. The NFL rules do not state there should be a tighend on every team nor should there be a fullback on every team. In a nutshell, if most NFL teams start a RB, FB and TE, why must some fantasy leagues insist all teams start a tighend but do not mandate each team start a fullback. It is all so odd to me.

[b]Leagues mandating 2 starting Quarterbacks[/b] I have monitored this trend for some time and it seems like most 'high-level' leagues are going in this direction. Personally, in straight drafts, I will not draft a quarterback until round 9 or later. The NFL has 32 starting quarterbacks each week and 99% of time not each one is even drafted in Fantasy Football drafts. Personally I think there is very little disparity between the 4th best quarterback and the 28th worse quarterback stat wise. Now if I had to start 2 quarterbacks each week, I might have to 'think' a little harder.

The BlueOnion

[KingGhidra]

Fantasy doesn't start fullbacks because they don't do anything except block. They'd be less point producers that TEs are. I think 2 QBs is the best way to go to increase the skill level and competition in a league. The only caveat is you can't have more than 10 teams in a league. If you have 12, that's 4 teams without a backup QB for byes.

[matmat]

do NFL rules actually mandate that you have a specified RB and specified QB?

[Bukoski77]

I am a traditionalist and so there must be a tightend This seems odd to me. The NFL rules do not state there should be a tighend on every team nor should there be a fullback on every team. In a nutshell, if most NFL teams start a RB, FB and TE, why must some fantasy leagues insist all teams start a tighend but do not mandate each team start a fullback. It is all so odd to me.

Leagues mandating 2 starting Quarterbacks I have monitored this trend for some time and it seems like most 'high-level' leagues are going in this direction. Personally, in straight drafts, I will not draft a quarterback until round 9 or later. The NFL has 32 starting quarterbacks each week and 99% of time not each one is even drafted in Fantasy Football drafts. Personally I think there is very little disparity between the 4th best quarterback and the 28th worse quarterback stat wise. Now if I had to start 2 quarterbacks each week, I might have to 'think' a little harder.

The BlueOnion

My leagues only start one QB and I would like to see them decrease the point totals QB accumilate and make it a must start 2 QB's as well. Most teams only have one primary RB, but all fantasy teams start 2 RB's. A hypothetical, I'm not going to crunch numbers to see if it balances but say................ RB's score 6 points a TD, 1 point every 15 yards rushing then give QB's 4 points passing TD's 6 points rushing TD's and 1 point every 30 yrds passing. It probably needs to be tweaked but I see that as a good way to even out the value of the positions in fantasy football.

[Calyxes]

it is a part of football so it should be part of fantasy football. If you want a tight end who produces you have to spend that high draft pick!