TJ Hockenson

Post Reply  
Great White Shark
Posts: 3997
Joined: Thu Sep 7, 2017
Sand$: 9,807.36
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.
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 58062
Joined: Fri Jul 7, 2006
Sand$: 118,855.72
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.
User avatar
Moderator
Posts: 52144
Joined: Sun Aug 2, 2009
Sand$: 40,414.11
It’s not even “because rookie tight end” it’s just the tight end position if you didn't take a top 4 guy
User avatar
Great White Shark
Posts: 3432
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2014
Sand$: 8,580.00
more like T.J. Blockenson amirite?
Great White Shark
Posts: 5777
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014
Sand$: 3,630.42
:lol:
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 58062
Joined: Fri Jul 7, 2006
Sand$: 118,855.72
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: 3997
Joined: Thu Sep 7, 2017
Sand$: 9,807.36
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: 52144
Joined: Sun Aug 2, 2009
Sand$: 40,414.11
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: 58062
Joined: Fri Jul 7, 2006
Sand$: 118,855.72
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: 3997
Joined: Thu Sep 7, 2017
Sand$: 9,807.36
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: 58062
Joined: Fri Jul 7, 2006
Sand$: 118,855.72
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: 3997
Joined: Thu Sep 7, 2017
Sand$: 9,807.36
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: 58062
Joined: Fri Jul 7, 2006
Sand$: 118,855.72
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: 11237
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010
Sand$: 46,066.63
I'm working to sacrifice hard at another position for Kelce, Ertz, Engram, Kittle or Andrews this week. If that doesn't work, I'm likely rolling Hock out again and hoping for a shootout against the Chiefs. After that, I'll likely do my best to get the TE who plays Arizona or the Giants. Dissly is gone in my main league, but I'll likely be adding Eifert this week in advane of his week 5 game.
Great White Shark
Posts: 3997
Joined: Thu Sep 7, 2017
Sand$: 9,807.36
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.