The TE Land Grab drafting strategy

[joejlitz]

Why is it called "Land Grab" anyway?

[biju]

Why is it called "Land Grab" anyway?

How else would you describe grabbing as much/often as possible on a first come, first serve basis in under 8 letters?

[joejlitz]

Why is it called "Land Grab" anyway?

How else would you describe grabbing as much/often as possible on a first come, first serve basis in under 8 letters?

get 'em all ???

[eagles21]

Why is it called "Land Grab" anyway?

How else would you describe grabbing as much/often as possible on a first come, first serve basis in under 8 letters?

get 'em all ???

Too many syllables.

[spodog]

Why is it called "Land Grab" anyway?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/landgrab

The term dates back to the 1860's, when there were often scrambles to make claims on land that was being offered up by the Federal Government to encourage settlement in newly opened land. The great Oklahoma land rush of 1889 if probably the best known example of a land grab.

Now sometimes used as a generic term for attempting to acquire all or almost all of a scarce resource in a competitive situation, even if you can't use all of the resource yourself.

[scottaa1]

Why is it called "Land Grab" anyway?

How else would you describe grabbing as much/often as possible on a first come, first serve basis in under 8 letters?

get 'em all ???

'hoarding'

[biju]

How else would you describe grabbing as much/often as possible on a first come, first serve basis in under 8 letters?

get 'em all ???

'hoarding'

I like it. It's also 8 characters instead of 9 (depending on if you use a space or not). Also much more descriptive...

[Wenchtamer]

"Monopoly" would work too.

[justinj312]

A couple of years ago I took 2 TE's (Winslow and Cooley) and will never do it again. I used up 2 roster spots and always seemed to play the wrong guy at the wrong time. Plus trading wasn't a great option b/c all the other teams knew I wanted to get rid of one them and were always low-balling me.

I like depth of the TE this year. I think I'll pick a Celek or Z Miller or Keller or Carlson in rd 13 and then watch the waiver wire.

[dgan]

Yup, not a huge fan of this - at least, not intentionally. I do find that in the "flex" spots, there are positions whose value get overlooked because owners categorize players by position - not by lineup. Here is a generalization of what I do with flex spots.

I do a traditional board, separating each position. Then I do another board combining the positions that can be started in the flex position. During the draft when looking at the combined rankings, if a player can be played in two of your OPEN lineup spots, he would take precedent over a player that could only be played in one roster spot. In other words in your league, there may be more value in drafting a Witten rather than P. Rivers because Witten can play in TE or flex and Rivers can only play in QB.

Now, there are two quirks to this. First of all, in your combined list, WRs are typically going to be far more productive than even the best TEs. Which means you will probably fill at least one WR spot before you see the value of taking a TE. The second is that once you draft a TE, now that lineup spot is filled - so you won't draft for your flex spot typically until all your other positions (except K and DEF, of course) are filled.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that I wouldn't be opposed to having two premier TEs if it played out that way, but I don't really envision a scenario where that would be in your best interest. If a RB3 is more productive than a TE2 and you can play either in the flex, why would you draft the one that is less productive?

Interesting scenario, though. I enjoyed thinking this one through.