I have J. Graham on a bye this week so I'm looking for my best option to fill his bye in Week 6. I also want to add the best insurance for him going forward just in case he missed any addition time after the Saints bye week. Not sure if the answer to both questions is the same. Here are my TE options in my 14 team 0.5PPR league:
Clay Harbor (at TEN) - Currently on my roster. Picked him up after his Week 4 performance (8 receptions & 70 yards). Wasn't involved as much in Week 5 (3 receptions & 22 yards). His stats for the season (only played 2 games) are 12 targets, 11 receptions & 92 yards).
Here are the free agents
Jared Cook (vs SF) - 31 targets. 19 receptions, 221 yards
Eric Ebron (at MIN) - 16 targets, 8 receptions, 80 yards & 1 TD
Tim Wright (at BUF) - 10 targets, 9 receptions, 120 yards & 1 TD
Jermaine Gresham (vs CAR) - 13 targets, 8 receptions, 61 yards
Garrett Graham (vs IND) - 13 targets, 10 receptions & 98 yards
Charles Clay (vs GB) - 22 targets, 14 receptions, 111 yards
Scott Chandler (vs NE) - 19 targets, 13 receptions, 137 yards
Jace Amaro (vs DEN) - 17 targets, 14 receptions, 144 yards
I have the last waiver in our league because the waivers reset every week based on reverse standings and I'm in 1st place. Here are the guys that I'm considering. Am I missing someone?
Cook is the obvious choice as an insurance guy since he's the most involved in his offense but he has a bad match-up in Week 6 for TEs (vs SF which is 7th best against opposing TE by allowing only 8pts per week).
Tim Wright is a risk/reward flyer after his big week in Week 6 (5 receptions, 85 yards & 1 TD) but will New England continue to use him in the old Aaron Hernandez role or will they ignore him again.
With Calvin Johnson's injury, does it open up more targets for Eric Ebron? So far, with only 8 targets over the past 2 weeks, it seems unlikely that he's ready to contribute at a high level although he has great size as a red zone target.
Charles Clay had a nice season last year (69 receptions, 759 yards & 6 TDs) but he really hasn't done much in 2014. It seems like the new OC isn't using him the same way as he was being used last year.
Which of these guys would you drop Harbor for?
Thanks in advance.
Clay Harbor (at TEN) - Currently on my roster. Picked him up after his Week 4 performance (8 receptions & 70 yards). Wasn't involved as much in Week 5 (3 receptions & 22 yards). His stats for the season (only played 2 games) are 12 targets, 11 receptions & 92 yards).
Here are the free agents
Jared Cook (vs SF) - 31 targets. 19 receptions, 221 yards
Eric Ebron (at MIN) - 16 targets, 8 receptions, 80 yards & 1 TD
Tim Wright (at BUF) - 10 targets, 9 receptions, 120 yards & 1 TD
Jermaine Gresham (vs CAR) - 13 targets, 8 receptions, 61 yards
Garrett Graham (vs IND) - 13 targets, 10 receptions & 98 yards
Charles Clay (vs GB) - 22 targets, 14 receptions, 111 yards
Scott Chandler (vs NE) - 19 targets, 13 receptions, 137 yards
Jace Amaro (vs DEN) - 17 targets, 14 receptions, 144 yards
I have the last waiver in our league because the waivers reset every week based on reverse standings and I'm in 1st place. Here are the guys that I'm considering. Am I missing someone?
Cook is the obvious choice as an insurance guy since he's the most involved in his offense but he has a bad match-up in Week 6 for TEs (vs SF which is 7th best against opposing TE by allowing only 8pts per week).
Tim Wright is a risk/reward flyer after his big week in Week 6 (5 receptions, 85 yards & 1 TD) but will New England continue to use him in the old Aaron Hernandez role or will they ignore him again.
With Calvin Johnson's injury, does it open up more targets for Eric Ebron? So far, with only 8 targets over the past 2 weeks, it seems unlikely that he's ready to contribute at a high level although he has great size as a red zone target.
Charles Clay had a nice season last year (69 receptions, 759 yards & 6 TDs) but he really hasn't done much in 2014. It seems like the new OC isn't using him the same way as he was being used last year.
Which of these guys would you drop Harbor for?
Thanks in advance.
Comment