Horatio's post and
Double Asymmetric's response are worth reviewing.
I had mostly agreed with the comments here that if you're going to do aero's in a taildragger you should probably do the full tailwheel rating. However that thought was, naturally, from my own viewpoint - as someone who's not in the slightest bit interested in aero's.
Probably the main reason for that is simply that, probably owing to an earlier unfortunate experience, aero's quite simply make me ill. However if I leave that aside I can see, and agree, that aeros by themselves should lead to an enhanced appreciation of the aircraft performance and (hopefully) a consequent improvement in ones handling skills. Whether this is more or less useful than learning how to fly a tailwheel machine from go to whoa is perhaps a moot point that I expect would be better determined by your intended future flying.
For me I was happy to gain the rating for a tailwheel machine so that I could improve my flying skills and usefulness as a pilot. As it happened it led to bigger and better things for which I'm grateful (well, bigger taildraggers at least!), but while I didn't do aero's I was also mindful of improving my skills elsewhere. To this end I also agree(d) with
Double Asymmetric's comment
If aeros isn't your thing, at least some quality upset (UPRT) exposure in something aerobatic should be a minimum.
so I went on to do spin training, even though it wasn't required for my CPL.
At the end of the day I suggest it boils down to 'horses for courses' and your particular perspective. Both can have their separate uses, and (if you're not solo) it's entirely possible to enjoy/learn aero's in a taildragger without going to the expense of a full rating.
FP.