TJ Hockenson

Post Reply  
Great White Shark
Posts: 6408
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014
Sand$: 30,786.96
:lol:
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 60109
Joined: Fri Jul 7, 2006
Sand$: 122,422.50
endzoneview wrote:It’s not even “because rookie tight end” it’s just the tight end position if you didn't take a top 4 guy

I mean, yeah - sure. But that's kinda my point. You've had it with Hock. Okay. But. Who are you replacing him with? If you set your ownership thresh hold at 80% then your list is Ebron, Witten, Rudolph, Dissly, Njoku, Graham, Burton, etc.

:neutral:
Great White Shark
Posts: 5398
Joined: Thu Sep 7, 2017
Sand$: 13,544.54
OarChambo wrote:
ubertaco wrote:The bottom line is that he's not producing, and he's not getting targets to warrant playing him either.

Make whatever excuses you want to make for his lack of production. The problem is that he is lacking production.

I don't see how anyone continues to start him at this point. Whether you hold on to him or not depends on individual league settings.

It isn't excuses. It's the reality of a rookie tight end. If you expected something different than high variance then that's a you thing. If you weren't willing to ride through the low's then why get on in the first place.

Not meaning to salt in wound this - just what I'm reading right now strikes me as a process failure. Think about your process before replacing him.


I don't own him, so there's no wounds. I don't care if he's a rookie or not, he's unplayable right now. You can say 'shoulda known' as much as you want, I just don't get the relevance. Unless you see something in that Detroit offense which makes you think they are going to start using the TE position for anything why would you keep him? Because at this point, it's not just about him, it's about the Lions.
User avatar
Moderator
Posts: 56145
Joined: Sun Aug 2, 2009
Sand$: 40,759.23
OarChambo wrote:
endzoneview wrote:It’s not even “because rookie tight end” it’s just the tight end position if you didn't take a top 4 guy

I mean, yeah - sure. But that's kinda my point. You've had it with Hock. Okay. But. Who are you replacing him with? If you set your ownership thresh hold at 80% then your list is Ebron, Witten, Rudolph, Dissly, Njoku, Graham, Burton, etc.

:neutral:


Lack of production is one thing. Lack of ability to fight for balls is another. Dude looked lackadaisical on the snaps I watched. Guess he’s just a rookie and he’ll learn how to do that. We shall see.
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 60109
Joined: Fri Jul 7, 2006
Sand$: 122,422.50
ubertaco wrote:
OarChambo wrote:
ubertaco wrote:The bottom line is that he's not producing, and he's not getting targets to warrant playing him either.

Make whatever excuses you want to make for his lack of production. The problem is that he is lacking production.

I don't see how anyone continues to start him at this point. Whether you hold on to him or not depends on individual league settings.

It isn't excuses. It's the reality of a rookie tight end. If you expected something different than high variance then that's a you thing. If you weren't willing to ride through the low's then why get on in the first place.

Not meaning to salt in wound this - just what I'm reading right now strikes me as a process failure. Think about your process before replacing him.


I don't own him, so there's no wounds. I don't care if he's a rookie or not, he's unplayable right now. You can say 'shoulda known' as much as you want, I just don't get the relevance. Unless you see something in that Detroit offense which makes you think they are going to start using the TE position for anything why would you keep him? Because at this point, it's not just about him, it's about the Lions.

I don't own him either. I went all-in on Kelce because I didn't want to blind fold dart throw and hope I hit Mark Andrews or Darren Waller. I'm just surprised the yo-yo effect I'm seeing with Hock. Many were arguing him as WW #1 earlier this month. If you felt that strongly about him then you shouldn't feel much differently now. If you do then I think you need to re-visit your process. Which is really all I'm trying to convey. Not a shoulda known thing. It's a good process thing. Good process yields good results. So make sure your process is a good one.
Great White Shark
Posts: 5398
Joined: Thu Sep 7, 2017
Sand$: 13,544.54
But if the process was a bad one (which it was, ok, hindsight I guess) then you're better off admitting that and moving on.

If you think the talent is there but the situation/development isn't, then you hold him, but that only works in deeper benches or dynos.

I wasn't targeting any rookie TEs in my redrafts, but I was looking at them in dyno, but not because I expected to be starting them. I think you're right in the sense of how big a risk it is with rookie TEs, but the advice for people who took that risk now should be to cut their loses.
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 60109
Joined: Fri Jul 7, 2006
Sand$: 122,422.50
ubertaco wrote:But if the process was a bad one (which it was, ok, hindsight I guess) then you're better off admitting that and moving on.

If you think the talent is there but the situation/development isn't, then you hold him, but that only works in deeper benches or dynos.

I wasn't targeting any rookie TEs in my redrafts, but I was looking at them in dyno, but not because I expected to be starting them. I think you're right in the sense of how big a risk it is with rookie TEs, but the advice for people who took that risk now should be to cut their loses.

For Ebron, Witten, Rudolph, Dissly, Graham, Burton, or...or...shrug?
Great White Shark
Posts: 5398
Joined: Thu Sep 7, 2017
Sand$: 13,544.54
OarChambo wrote:
ubertaco wrote:But if the process was a bad one (which it was, ok, hindsight I guess) then you're better off admitting that and moving on.

If you think the talent is there but the situation/development isn't, then you hold him, but that only works in deeper benches or dynos.

I wasn't targeting any rookie TEs in my redrafts, but I was looking at them in dyno, but not because I expected to be starting them. I think you're right in the sense of how big a risk it is with rookie TEs, but the advice for people who took that risk now should be to cut their loses.

For Ebron, Witten, Rudolph, Dissly, Graham, Burton, or...or...shrug?


Yes.

For literally any TE other than Hockenson. Or do you think that most leagues have no one on the WW?
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 60109
Joined: Fri Jul 7, 2006
Sand$: 122,422.50
ubertaco wrote:
OarChambo wrote:For Ebron, Witten, Rudolph, Dissly, Graham, Burton, or...or...shrug?


Yes.

For literally any TE other than Hockenson. Or do you think that most leagues have no one on the WW?

I am not going to pretend what is or is not on someone's wire. All I did was go to Yahoo and pull the top names below 80% owned. That's what came up. I think it's reasonable to assume those above that line are owned. Dump him is an easy answer. But for what isn't. Because ^^^that isn't pretty. Ebron and Witten have topped out at 4 targets per game, Rudolph has 6 all season on a team that is last in pass attempts, Dissly literally needed a meaningless TD at the buzzer to salvage his day last week, Graham's last 2 weeks have gone like Hock's (but add injury), and Burton has 5 total yards on the season.
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 11458
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010
Sand$: 45,117.17
I'm working to sacrifice hard at another position for Kelce, Ertz, Engram, Kittle or Andrews this week. If that doesn't work, I'm likely rolling Hock out again and hoping for a shootout against the Chiefs. After that, I'll likely do my best to get the TE who plays Arizona or the Giants. Dissly is gone in my main league, but I'll likely be adding Eifert this week in advane of his week 5 game.
Great White Shark
Posts: 5398
Joined: Thu Sep 7, 2017
Sand$: 13,544.54
I'd rather ride with Witten and Ebron because we've seen what they can do. Burton has been injured all season basically, but if he's healthy I'd consider him as well.

Rudolph, Dissly, Graham are probably not worth it though.

My guess is that there are likely other options in any league though, or, you make a trade for someone you like (not always practical).

Or, and this is the ideal situation, you lobby your league to remove the TE as a required position to start and you add a WR/TE slot instead. Also get rid of the kicker position while you're at it.
User avatar
Great White Shark
Posts: 2133
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014
Sand$: 5,816.06
I had the choice of Hockenson or Austin Hooper in a trade I made on Friday night (Kittle and Larry Fitzgerald for Davante Adams and one of those TE's). I originally had Hooper in there, and then decided I wanted Hockenson instead. The other guy was fine with that. Now I need 24 points outta Allen Robinson tonight instead of 1 point out of Robinson. Fantasy hindsight is always, and I mean always 20/20.

I also traded Alshon Jeffery for Hockenson prior to Week 2. Jeffery's been out, but that isn't looking to good either.

But...for a position that is so volatile, did I (and others) jump the gun way too quick on a TE that appeared to be on his way to breaking the mold ( the mold being rookie TE's always struggle)?

Maybe, but the upside I (and others) saw after Week 1 was too good to pass up on. It was worth giving up a valuable asset at a position where I otherwise had plenty of depth in order to get a TE that (after Week 1) could potentially be on his way to a top 5 tight end season.

Let's hypothetically say Hockenson had 11 targets for 8 receptions and 100 yards and one touchdown over the last *two* weeks. I'd be content, knowing that I have a TE that has a decent floor and still with that big upside we saw in Week 1. Instead, after the last two weeks, we have a TE that is much more "bust" than "boom." The odds of him putting up 1 point seem to be much higher than him going for 25 points.

Am I giving up on him already? No way. I've now invested in him in two leagues (one of which I, fortunately, have Delanie Walker, but the other league I've got Jack Doyle as the other option). I'll sit him for Walker, but I'll keep him in there over Doyle and hope for the best.

Ultimately, the potential to have a very big advantage at the TE position (after Week 1) was worth giving up valuable assets in order to potentially have that type of production from a position that is trash outside of five or six players (Kelce, Kittle, Ertz, Engram, Andrews, Waller).
_______________________________________

Deep Crimson
User avatar
Great White Shark
Posts: 2133
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014
Sand$: 5,816.06
ubertaco wrote:Also get rid of the kicker position while you're at it.


This.

Kickers suck.
_______________________________________

Deep Crimson
Chum
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2019
Sand$: 26.70
Hockenson should have converted both his redzone looks yesterday. That would be about 15pts in my league. Even if he only had four targets, the opportunities for TDs are there and have been all three weeks.

I started him wk 1 so I'm not too upset with the last two games. I am also starting him with confidence wk 4 and expecting 6-90-2.
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 60109
Joined: Fri Jul 7, 2006
Sand$: 122,422.50
ubertaco wrote:My guess is that there are likely other options in any league though.

Likely? No. That's why I used 80% ownership as the thresh hold.