Dell and 1.03 or Nacua and 1.06

[PigeonBoys]

For those who have Puka and Dell fairly close in value, where do you have each of them ranked at WR?

Personally I really don't understand how these two are really close at all. Puka just set rookie WR records while Dell played half the year and while he was good he wasn't putting up anywhere near what Puka was doing. Dell is also almost two years older than Puka. I, for once, agree with KTC on this one, Puka at WR6 and Dell at WR20.

Kind of why I was asking. I'm always looking for where there are discrepancies b/w the market and my ranks. I think what we're seeing in this thread is that folks are lower than that on Puka and higher than that on Dell.

I keep seeing threads where Puka is being valued lower than I have him. I guess I need to go buy some Puka shares.

Yeah I am thoroughly confused behind the negative sentiment behind Puka, I mean the guy literally couldn't have performed any better than he did. I remember seeing him all over the top advanced metrics last year, FantasyPros was ALL over this guy to a point where it got annoying, well they were right. Anyway, Dell played half a year, plays at 165 lbs in the slot, is "old" for a rookie WR, I see him more as a WR2, he won't ever be that target hog kind of a guy and if he does I have serious concerns about his ability to stay on the field. Puka already played 17 games in a high target role so he proved his worth and then some this year.

[SStory93]

I’m glad to see this is evening out. I also posted the thread about Dell and Richardson for Nacua and Laporta

However Dell and Richardson is winning by a large margin. To me I don’t see how either of these offers are different. Richardson is equivalent to Maye or Daniels (1.03) all three a pretty much unknown with high draft capital. Maye and Daniels actually have a better prospect profile, but we have seen Richardson produce in a limited time span.
However 1.06 is best case scenario Brock bowers being Sam laporta. That’s more unlikely outcome and yet Nacua is getting the favor here.

[BigBawseRoss]

For those who have Puka and Dell fairly close in value, where do you have each of them ranked at WR?

Personally I really don't understand how these two are really close at all. Puka just set rookie WR records while Dell played half the year and while he was good he wasn't putting up anywhere near what Puka was doing. Dell is also almost two years older than Puka. I, for once, agree with KTC on this one, Puka at WR6 and Dell at WR20.

if you look at ppg dell was at 15 and puka was at 17.5 or something. and we all know that a massive chunk of that production came week 1-4 and then he was basically the same player dell was the rest of the way. puka didnt consistently have more opportunity, grabs, yards, tds etc. week 5 on puka was at 8.5 looks a game and dell was at 7.5 and i believe that included the 0 he got in the game he was hurt. here is a link showing stats weeks 5-12 (where both guys had full offense and were healthy) and you can see how closely they produced https://www.fantasypros.com/nfl/stats/w ... nd_week=12

[BigBawseRoss]

I’m glad to see this is evening out. I also posted the thread about Dell and Richardson for Nacua and Laporta

However Dell and Richardson is winning by a large margin. To me I don’t see how either of these offers are different. Richardson is equivalent to Maye or Daniels (1.03) all three a pretty much unknown with high draft capital. Maye and Daniels actually have a better prospect profile, but we have seen Richardson produce in a limited time span.
However 1.06 is best case scenario Brock bowers being Sam laporta. That’s more unlikely outcome and yet Nacua is getting the favor here.

qb is more valuable than te. you are looking into it too much haha

[PigeonBoys]

I’m glad to see this is evening out. I also posted the thread about Dell and Richardson for Nacua and Laporta

However Dell and Richardson is winning by a large margin. To me I don’t see how either of these offers are different. Richardson is equivalent to Maye or Daniels (1.03) all three a pretty much unknown with high draft capital. Maye and Daniels actually have a better prospect profile, but we have seen Richardson produce in a limited time span.
However 1.06 is best case scenario Brock bowers being Sam laporta. That’s more unlikely outcome and yet Nacua is getting the favor here.

Yeah I'm not parting with Laporta for pretty much anything at this point in time if I was lucky enough to draft him last year. What's with all of these rookies breaking records and yet being undervalued??

To me:
Puka landslide over Dell, I have the difference at about a late first
Richardson over Laporta in a 2QB start league, but not by much.

I personally like Laporta and Puka side, I think it's way easier to get a top tier QB than it is top tier TE. Seems like that's an unpopular opinion but I'm with you here. However alot of this may have to do with my valuation of Dell, if you are a believer then the difference is a bit negligible but I have a big gap between the two WR's and that's the difference maker right there.

[PigeonBoys]

For those who have Puka and Dell fairly close in value, where do you have each of them ranked at WR?

Personally I really don't understand how these two are really close at all. Puka just set rookie WR records while Dell played half the year and while he was good he wasn't putting up anywhere near what Puka was doing. Dell is also almost two years older than Puka. I, for once, agree with KTC on this one, Puka at WR6 and Dell at WR20.

if you look at ppg dell was at 15 and puka was at 17.5 or something. and we all know that a massive chunk of that production came week 1-4 and then he was basically the same player dell was the rest of the way. puka didnt consistently have more opportunity, grabs, yards, tds etc. week 5 on puka was at 8.5 looks a game and dell was at 7.5 and i believe that included the 0 he got in the game he was hurt. here is a link showing stats weeks 5-12 (where both guys had full offense and were healthy) and you can see how closely they produced https://www.fantasypros.com/nfl/stats/w ... nd_week=12

I will politely agree to disagree. First think you have to take time on the field into consideration, Dell produced like that...for half of a year. Puka did it every game all year long, big difference to me. The best skill/asset is ability to stay on the field, I don't care if you AVG 15 PPG for half the year and isn't available in the playoffs when I really need it.

"He was basically the same player Dell was the rest of the way." Not sure what this means when Puka actually played the rest of the year, we're taking a 10 game sample size and saying he would produce like that over the course of the next 7 games when we have no idea if that's true or not. What we do know that is true, is the performance of Puka because he actually did it, we don't have to guess at what he would've done. Call me a contrarian but I like 105/1486/6 over 17 games vs 47/709/7 over 11 games.

[Mtt33]

I'd take Puka over Dell, but that's only a part of the deal.

With 1.03 you are almost assured of getting your choice at the second QB chosen. At 1.06, you are probably looking at the fourth rookie QB or abandoning choosing a QB in the 1st round. You didn't list your '24 draft picks, but I assume you have only one first round pick.

I think I'd rather have a rookie QB I believed in WAY MUCH MORE than the third rookie WR or Bowers. Correction, I know I would rather have the QB. Comparing this to last year's draft, we're talking about the difference between JSN/Flowers/Addison (the guys in the running for third WR chosen) and ARichardson/Stroud (the guys in the running for 2nd QB chosen.) No matter how hard I twist my brain, I can't make the difference between Dell and Puka equal the canyon of difference between one of AR/Stroud and one of those '23 WRs.

In a vacuum I have to lean toward the 1.03+Dell side.
For a team needing/wanting a rookie QB, I am heavily on the 1.03 side. And that's not even close for me.

Why are we comping this to last years Draft? The 3rd wr in this draft as a prospect >> the first last year.

I get your points but I think you’re selling short the gap between puka who broke records as a rookie and tank (who I like a lot) who flashed in a smaller sample size as a rookie. Tank, again I have and want shares of, to me Carrie’s a ton more risk of defensive adjustment, bumps at the line, etc. puka did it all season, teams tried to adjust and couldn’t, he’s a #1.

This draft is very strong through 6/7 (depending how you like bowers).

[BigBawseRoss]

Personally I really don't understand how these two are really close at all. Puka just set rookie WR records while Dell played half the year and while he was good he wasn't putting up anywhere near what Puka was doing. Dell is also almost two years older than Puka. I, for once, agree with KTC on this one, Puka at WR6 and Dell at WR20.

if you look at ppg dell was at 15 and puka was at 17.5 or something. and we all know that a massive chunk of that production came week 1-4 and then he was basically the same player dell was the rest of the way. puka didnt consistently have more opportunity, grabs, yards, tds etc. week 5 on puka was at 8.5 looks a game and dell was at 7.5 and i believe that included the 0 he got in the game he was hurt. here is a link showing stats weeks 5-12 (where both guys had full offense and were healthy) and you can see how closely they produced https://www.fantasypros.com/nfl/stats/w ... nd_week=12

I will politely agree to disagree. First think you have to take time on the field into consideration, Dell produced like that...for half of a year. Puka did it every game all year long, big difference to me. The best skill/asset is ability to stay on the field, I don't care if you AVG 15 PPG for half the year and isn't available in the playoffs when I really need it.

"He was basically the same player Dell was the rest of the way." Not sure what this means when Puka actually played the rest of the year, we're taking a 10 game sample size and saying he would produce like that over the course of the next 7 games when we have no idea if that's true or not. What we do know that is true, is the performance of Puka because he actually did it, we don't have to guess at what he would've done. Call me a contrarian but I like 105/1486/6 over 17 games vs 47/709/7 over 11 games.

well the year before that dell led the entire nation in receiving yards and puka was hurt and posted 600 yards so that throws a wrench in that logic. in fact in 3 years dell played 8, 13, 14 games for a total of 35 games in 3 years. puka played 32 in 4 years. the argument is very short sighted and of a limited sample size. no player is more prone to breaking their freaking leg lol.

[PigeonBoys]

if you look at ppg dell was at 15 and puka was at 17.5 or something. and we all know that a massive chunk of that production came week 1-4 and then he was basically the same player dell was the rest of the way. puka didnt consistently have more opportunity, grabs, yards, tds etc. week 5 on puka was at 8.5 looks a game and dell was at 7.5 and i believe that included the 0 he got in the game he was hurt. here is a link showing stats weeks 5-12 (where both guys had full offense and were healthy) and you can see how closely they produced https://www.fantasypros.com/nfl/stats/w ... nd_week=12

I will politely agree to disagree. First think you have to take time on the field into consideration, Dell produced like that...for half of a year. Puka did it every game all year long, big difference to me. The best skill/asset is ability to stay on the field, I don't care if you AVG 15 PPG for half the year and isn't available in the playoffs when I really need it.

"He was basically the same player Dell was the rest of the way." Not sure what this means when Puka actually played the rest of the year, we're taking a 10 game sample size and saying he would produce like that over the course of the next 7 games when we have no idea if that's true or not. What we do know that is true, is the performance of Puka because he actually did it, we don't have to guess at what he would've done. Call me a contrarian but I like 105/1486/6 over 17 games vs 47/709/7 over 11 games.

well the year before that dell led the entire nation in receiving yards and puka was hurt and posted 600 yards so that throws a wrench in that logic. in fact in 3 years dell played 8, 13, 14 games for a total of 35 games in 3 years. puka played 32 in 4 years. the argument is very short sighted and of a limited sample size. no player is more prone to breaking their freaking leg lol.

That's great what he did in college but he's in the NFL now. Puka set rookie records going through a 17 game season, Dell did not. Seems a bit short sighted to ding Puka for his college injuries and not ding Dell for his NFL injuries. You're projecting Dell to be more durable than he showed to be last year (where he was dinged up numerous times broken leg notwithstanding) while assuming Puka will be less durable (by citing injuries from years ago). Like I said agree to disagree. I feel like Puka has the body type to stand up to a 17 game NFL season whereas the 165lb Dell might have issues staying n the field. Seems like a valid concern considering how their rookie years went. I hear alot about how injuries are "unlucky" but are they for a 165lb WR? AND he broke his leg run blocking lol you can't tell me that is a good use of Tank Dell.

[BigBawseRoss]

I will politely agree to disagree. First think you have to take time on the field into consideration, Dell produced like that...for half of a year. Puka did it every game all year long, big difference to me. The best skill/asset is ability to stay on the field, I don't care if you AVG 15 PPG for half the year and isn't available in the playoffs when I really need it.

"He was basically the same player Dell was the rest of the way." Not sure what this means when Puka actually played the rest of the year, we're taking a 10 game sample size and saying he would produce like that over the course of the next 7 games when we have no idea if that's true or not. What we do know that is true, is the performance of Puka because he actually did it, we don't have to guess at what he would've done. Call me a contrarian but I like 105/1486/6 over 17 games vs 47/709/7 over 11 games.

well the year before that dell led the entire nation in receiving yards and puka was hurt and posted 600 yards so that throws a wrench in that logic. in fact in 3 years dell played 8, 13, 14 games for a total of 35 games in 3 years. puka played 32 in 4 years. the argument is very short sighted and of a limited sample size. no player is more prone to breaking their freaking leg lol.

That's great what he did in college but he's in the NFL now. Puka set rookie records going through a 17 game season, Dell did not. Seems a bit short sighted to ding Puka for his college injuries and not ding Dell for his NFL injuries. You're projecting Dell to be more durable than he showed to be last year (where he was dinged up numerous times broken leg notwithstanding) while assuming Puka will be less durable (by citing injuries from years ago). Like I said agree to disagree. I feel like Puka has the body type to stand up to a 17 game NFL season whereas the 165lb Dell might have issues staying n the field. Seems like a valid concern considering how their rookie years went. I hear alot about how injuries are "unlucky" but are they for a 165lb WR? AND he broke his leg run blocking lol you can't tell me that is a good use of Tank Dell.

not at all, i didnt bring up anything about injury, you did. i dont care about either guys injury past or think that any 1 injury is indicative of future ones. i poo-pooed all the people fed up with cmc too haha. but either way my stance is dell and puka are dang close in talent and opportunity so i dont have some big gap. thats all. you combatted my stance with injury and availability so i naturally went to debunk your own argument point.

[Anteaters]

I'd take Puka over Dell, but that's only a part of the deal.

With 1.03 you are almost assured of getting your choice at the second QB chosen. At 1.06, you are probably looking at the fourth rookie QB or abandoning choosing a QB in the 1st round. You didn't list your '24 draft picks, but I assume you have only one first round pick.

I think I'd rather have a rookie QB I believed in WAY MUCH MORE than the third rookie WR or Bowers. Correction, I know I would rather have the QB. Comparing this to last year's draft, we're talking about the difference between JSN/Flowers/Addison (the guys in the running for third WR chosen) and ARichardson/Stroud (the guys in the running for 2nd QB chosen.) No matter how hard I twist my brain, I can't make the difference between Dell and Puka equal the canyon of difference between one of AR/Stroud and one of those '23 WRs.

In a vacuum I have to lean toward the 1.03+Dell side.
For a team needing/wanting a rookie QB, I am heavily on the 1.03 side. And that's not even close for me.

Why are we comping this to last years Draft? The 3rd wr in this draft as a prospect >> the first last year.

I get your points but I think you’re selling short the gap between puka who broke records as a rookie and tank (who I like a lot) who flashed in a smaller sample size as a rookie. Tank, again I have and want shares of, to me Carrie’s a ton more risk of defensive adjustment, bumps at the line, etc. puka did it all season, teams tried to adjust and couldn’t, he’s a #1.

This draft is very strong through 6/7 (depending how you like bowers).

In a SF no TEP league, there is a world of difference between the value of Maye and Bowers (or any other guy you'd draft at 1.06).

I'm not selling short the actual gap between Puka and Dell. I disagree the actual gap is as large as you think it is. And even if the gap is dynasty WR8 and Dynasty WR18, I don't think that gap is 50% of the gap of Maye vs 1.06 in a SF league.

[SStory93]

I'd take Puka over Dell, but that's only a part of the deal.

With 1.03 you are almost assured of getting your choice at the second QB chosen. At 1.06, you are probably looking at the fourth rookie QB or abandoning choosing a QB in the 1st round. You didn't list your '24 draft picks, but I assume you have only one first round pick.

I think I'd rather have a rookie QB I believed in WAY MUCH MORE than the third rookie WR or Bowers. Correction, I know I would rather have the QB. Comparing this to last year's draft, we're talking about the difference between JSN/Flowers/Addison (the guys in the running for third WR chosen) and ARichardson/Stroud (the guys in the running for 2nd QB chosen.) No matter how hard I twist my brain, I can't make the difference between Dell and Puka equal the canyon of difference between one of AR/Stroud and one of those '23 WRs.

In a vacuum I have to lean toward the 1.03+Dell side.
For a team needing/wanting a rookie QB, I am heavily on the 1.03 side. And that's not even close for me.

Why are we comping this to last years Draft? The 3rd wr in this draft as a prospect >> the first last year.

I get your points but I think you’re selling short the gap between puka who broke records as a rookie and tank (who I like a lot) who flashed in a smaller sample size as a rookie. Tank, again I have and want shares of, to me Carrie’s a ton more risk of defensive adjustment, bumps at the line, etc. puka did it all season, teams tried to adjust and couldn’t, he’s a #1.

This draft is very strong through 6/7 (depending how you like bowers).

In a SF no TEP league, there is a world of difference between the value of Maye and Bowers (or any other guy you'd draft at 1.06).

I'm not selling short the actual gap between Puka and Dell. I disagree the actual gap is as large as you think it is. And even if the gap is dynasty WR8 and Dynasty WR18, I don't think that gap is 50% of the gap of Maye vs 1.06 in a SF league.

This is where I’m sitting too, the QB option or Nabers plus Dell vs Nacua and Bowers. With how A Rich is being valued higher than Nacua with only a 4 game sample size and both Maye or Daniels being better prospects than him. I lean with 1.03 and Dell.