Tate or Branch?

[jmt57]

Just wanted to re-post this question here (see below) from a new member that does not have enough posts to start a new thread. He's looking for FF input on Tate and Branch.

Hey guys, what's up? New member here, I'm a Chiefs fan through and through, no question. I put them over everybody else in the NFL. Got season tickets and go to every home game. But I got a little love for the Pats deep down too. I know there's the 30 post count rule before starting a thread over in the FF board, but I gotta have a question answered before Sunday.

I've got 2 Patriots receivers Branch and Tate. Branch is projected at 3.20 points while Tate is projected at 14.20 points. Since I'm not up on the Patriots receiver situation, I figure the best way to get up on the situation would be with other Pats fans. So what's your guys opinion of the Branch/Tate situation in NE? Is Tate really going to see playing time over Branch, or will they share the workload? More importantly, who do you think's going to be the most productive not only against SD, but for the rest of the season?

Thanks

 

[jmt57]

First thing that jumps out at me are those projections. My guess is that they are an automated algorithm based strictly on previous production and don't take into account any recent changes. An example of a problem with that approach would be with what happened to the Saints and their running backs, facing a team with a bad run defense (Tampa Bay) last week. Basing your projection strictly on past numbers, Ivory should have been on your bench; putting other factors in you start him and he runs for 150 yards.

I don't know if you are in a PPR league (favors Branch) or one that includes some points for KR yardage (helps Tate), but it's not entirely a case of Branch replacing Tate. Tate (SE) and Branch (FL) will both get plenty of snaps, but I think the Pats will continue to have more 2WR/2TE sets rather than as many 3WR/1TE formations that you have been used to seeing the last few years. That doesn't make either player a great FF start (though it should help the Pats in real football); but if I have to play one I'm going with Branch.

Not sure who you have at TE or how big your league is, but if he's available and you're weak at TE, consider adding Hernandez.

 

[kcchiefs]

First thing that jumps out at me are those projections. My guess is that they are an automated algorithm based strictly on previous production and don't take into account any recent changes. An example of a problem with that approach would be with what happened to the Saints and their running backs, facing a team with a bad run defense (Tampa Bay) last week. Basing your projection strictly on past numbers, Ivory should have been on your bench; putting other factors in you start him and he runs for 150 yards.

I don't know if you are in a PPR league (favors Branch) or one that includes some points for KR yardage (helps Tate), but it's not entirely a case of Branch replacing Tate. Tate (SE) and Branch (FL) will both get plenty of snaps, but I think the Pats will continue to have more 2WR/2TE sets rather than as many 3WR/1TE formations that you have been used to seeing the last few years. That doesn't make either player a great FF start (though it should help the Pats in real football); but if I have to play one I'm going with Branch.

Not sure who you have at TE or how big your league is, but if he's available and you're weak at TE, consider adding Hernandez.

Ya, i figured that it is all pretty preautomated with the stats and all. I think nfl.com is a week behind, as the rotowire update on tate still reads about the Moss trade and him taking most of the snaps. It doesn't mention anything about Branch. I'm pretty much set on starting Branch, just wanted some Pats fans opinions just in case there was something I didn't know.

I'm currently in a 20 team league, all standard scoring, no points for return's. Using the 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 K, 1 DEF setup. At this point Hernandez is long gone, but I do have Gronkowski and he's actually been my starting TE for a while with pretty good production in the red zone. It's funny because my other TE (Scheffler) has more fantasy points on the season, but somehow Gronkowski seems to be more productive on a week to week basis.

 

[jmt57]

20 Team league? Yeesh. No wonder you'd be interested in both Branch and Tate, and obviously Hernandez is long gone.

I much prefer smaller (8-10) team leagues myself, just a personal preference. I found leagues with 14+ teams too often had too many owners quitting or barely participating due to no chance after one or two bad draft picks or injuries. And that's not even bringing up the subject of a starting QB or DEF for every team in the league during bye weeks. Seemed to me that winning teams in large leagues were dominated by the top one or two fantasy football players of that year, while smaller leagues allow teams to compete even if they don't have a top three draft choice or points leader. In other words a bit more like real football; sometimes the league's best player wins a championship but more often the most balanced team does. But to each there own; at least everyone can pick and choose a league that fits their own preference.

 

[kcchiefs]

Yea, but the league is among alot of close friends, and the all activly participate. It's cool because it seems that every team has that 1 or 2 stud players, and the rest are filled out pretty evenly. I'm hoping for big numbers from Branch today, cause that's who I'm starting!