bustedflush16 Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 I pick seventh out of the ten team league. But the debate has already begun about what the guy at #4 will do with the selection. With QB passing TDs worth six pts. Is Manning the pick at #4 after some order of SA/LJ/LT or would you guys pull Tiki or Portis or Edge or whoever? Have not seen much discussion of the 6 pt passing td strategies for this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengal Mania Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 The "All RBS All the Time" cult will show up soon to suggest you're an idiot for even considering Manning (or any QB) before the first 70 RBs are off the board.... Ok, that's a slight exageration. But a similar message will arrive. #4 is too early no matter what the scoring. But I think (and I'm in a minority here) that Manning should get consideration, esp in a league w/ 6-pt TDs, long before the RB mob does. If he's there in the 2nd Rnd, esp w/ a 10-team league (where the quality RBs last longer), I'd consider him for sure. The drawback is not "too early for a QB" , IMO, it's whether you think he will be playing come FFL playoff time. The best QB in the league NEVER gets hurt. That ought to bump him up the chart, even for the stubborn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 you're an idiot for even considering Manning (or any QB) before the first 70 RBs are off the board.... Fixed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?s=&s...dpost&p=1516864 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otis Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?s=&s...dpost&p=1516864 This is the correct answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Huddle vets know that the difference even when considering a scoring system with 6 pt TDs for QBs is not significantly different (when comparing within the QB category) than any other scoring system. I'm convinced there needs to be a fantasy revolution regarding QB scoring somehow. We have to get some separation in the game so they become more relevant to draft strategy IMO. Stud RB theory, despite the yearly questions about it, continues to be the norm. And its boring. Rounds 1 and 2 are just too predictable year after year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Huddle vets know that the difference even when considering a scoring system with 6 pt TDs for QBs is not significantly different (when comparing within the QB category) than any other scoring system. I'm convinced there needs to be a fantasy revolution regarding QB scoring somehow. We have to get some separation in the game so they become more relevant to draft strategy IMO. Stud RB theory, despite the yearly questions about it, continues to be the norm. And its boring. Rounds 1 and 2 are just too predictable year after year. THe answer lies not in the scoring system, as that does little to affect the value of players overall (ie, 6pt TDs and/or reception points have a very minor affect on the overal lrankings of the top players. 6pt TDs have a mild affect on ranking mid-tier QBs, reception points improves the value of mid-tier WRs compared to their mid-tier RB counterparts). The answer lies in creating value. The standard way for determining value is taking the starter baseline approach, so, for a 12-team league that starts 1 QB, 2 RB and 3 WR, you take your estimated points scored for your last starter, in this case, the 12th QB, 24th RB and 36th WR, and subtract those points from the estimates of all of the other players within the position. (Yes, this is a simplistic take, but for our purposes it works). This gives us a baseline to use in comparing ACROSS positions. Under most typical scoring systems, RBs will be heavily valued as there are just a lot fewer of them that provide significant points when compared to the number of required starters from the position. So, if the question is, how do we artificially adjust player values if changing the scoring system doesn't work. Well, you do the only thing possible to significantly alter the vallues, YOU CHANGE THE BASELINE. This is achieved by adjusting the number of required starters for a given position. TO increase the value of a position, you increase the number of required starters. To decrease the value of a position, you decrease the number of required starters. So, without having done the actual numbers (something I may do if my schedule frees up in the next week or so), your options to equalize the position is to increase the number of required QB starters (though, in a 12 or more team league, this means some teams WILL NOT HAVE A BACKUP QB FOR BYE WEEKS), decrease the number of RB starters, or increase the number of WR starters. These suggestions assume that the norm of RBs being heavily valued hold true to your scoring system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bustedflush16 Posted June 19, 2006 Author Share Posted June 19, 2006 THe answer lies not in the scoring system, as that does little to affect the value of players overall (ie, 6pt TDs and/or reception points have a very minor affect on the overal lrankings of the top players. 6pt TDs have a mild affect on ranking mid-tier QBs, reception points improves the value of mid-tier WRs compared to their mid-tier RB counterparts). The answer lies in creating value. The standard way for determining value is taking the starter baseline approach, so, for a 12-team league that starts 1 QB, 2 RB and 3 WR, you take your estimated points scored for your last starter, in this case, the 12th QB, 24th RB and 36th WR, and subtract those points from the estimates of all of the other players within the position. (Yes, this is a simplistic take, but for our purposes it works). This gives us a baseline to use in comparing ACROSS positions. This is true. My league has an odd starting line-up configuration. We start 2 QBs, 3 Rbs, 4 Wrs, a TE, a K and a DEF. The value of QBs in this league is different than in any standard 1 starting QB league. But still, two years ago when Manning had his 49 td year, he outscored every QB, short of Culpepper, by a large margin. If someone projects Manning to have another 2004 type year, would that not be the right pick at #4 over say Tiki or Portis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Huddle vets know that the difference even when considering a scoring system with 6 pt TDs for QBs is not significantly different (when comparing within the QB category) than any other scoring system. I'm convinced there needs to be a fantasy revolution regarding QB scoring somehow. We have to get some separation in the game so they become more relevant to draft strategy IMO. Stud RB theory, despite the yearly questions about it, continues to be the norm. And its boring. Rounds 1 and 2 are just too predictable year after year. Agree with this. If you want to shake things up, modify your lineup requirements so that a team can only start 1 RB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 So, if the question is, how do we artificially adjust player values if changing the scoring system doesn't work. Well, you do the only thing possible to significantly alter the vallues, YOU CHANGE THE BASELINE. This is achieved by adjusting the number of required starters for a given position. TO increase the value of a position, you increase the number of required starters. To decrease the value of a position, you decrease the number of required starters. So, without having done the actual numbers (something I may do if my schedule frees up in the next week or so), your options to equalize the position is to increase the number of required QB starters (though, in a 12 or more team league, this means some teams WILL NOT HAVE A BACKUP QB FOR BYE WEEKS), decrease the number of RB starters, or increase the number of WR starters. These suggestions assume that the norm of RBs being heavily valued hold true to your scoring system. There it is. (Though 2 QBs is dumb IMO ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmutts Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 I pick seventh out of the ten team league. But the debate has already begun about what the guy at #4 will do with the selection. With QB passing TDs worth six pts. Is Manning the pick at #4 after some order of SA/LJ/LT or would you guys pull Tiki or Portis or Edge or whoever? Have not seen much discussion of the 6 pt passing td strategies for this year. Scoring in my league for QB's is the following: all td's 6 pts, 1 point every 20 yards passing and bonus points over 300 yards. also no interception penalties. 2 years ago this was a redraft that became a keeper. In this format, the top QB's can almost equal the top RB numbers. At 1.10 I picked Rudi. At 2.2 I picked Cpepper. Cpepper went off and carried me to the final where I lost. Granted Cpepper was the main reason I was there but all season I struggled fielding my 2nd RB. If you take Manning in the first you will need to get real lucky at RB in the 2nd and even luckier getting your 2nd RB. This year more than ever we appear to be facing more RBBC's than ever. At 4 I would take Portis and let someone else fret about Manning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 I think we have this discussion every year....last year it was Manning at #3 because of Holmes and his injury concerns... my local awards 6-9 pts per TD for QB's, pending on the distance....and 9-12 pts per TD for rec. or rush TD's for QB's as well pending on the distance... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengal Mania Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Huddle vets know that the difference even when considering a scoring system with 6 pt TDs for QBs is not significantly different (when comparing within the QB category) than any other scoring system. I'm convinced there needs to be a fantasy revolution regarding QB scoring somehow. We have to get some separation in the game so they become more relevant to draft strategy IMO. Stud RB theory, despite the yearly questions about it, continues to be the norm. And its boring. Rounds 1 and 2 are just too predictable year after year. "Huddle Vets", Is this the yearly call to "Huddle Experts" in disguise? Huddle Experts (Vets) are the smartest FFL'ers around, just look at how many posts they have! I agree Round 1 is too early to take Manning or any QB. I just think it's foolish to say you don't even consider him before Rounds 4 or 5 (as many here on this board have indicated). Manning is far and away the best QB over the last half dozen years. He is MONEY for the most FFL QB points. Plus, he NEVER gets hurt. How many of the STUD RBs never get hurt? If the scarcity of RB talent is the issue, then why in the hell has it been considered worthwhile to consider Moss/Owens/Harrison in late 1/early 2? What happened to the derth of stud RBs? If I get a stud RB in early mid Rnd 1, and Manning is on the board in Rnd 2 (he won't be), you bet I'm considering him. Him and Palmer (if he were sans inujury) would probably be the only two I'd consider here. If you started a run during the 2/3 turn, there may be a surprising back or WR who falls to you in the 3rd. I understand the "relative" comparison between scoring systems not really changing the value order within the QB position. But I do think the clear cut #1 QB (without any arguments from anyone except Menudo) moves up some in overall value in a league where the QB scores a higher % of a teams points. If you have more points for long TDs (Manning and Palmer throw a LOT of these), then them move up a little more. I said a "little", not up the the 3rd pick in the draft! Just my non-Vet opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Plus, he NEVER gets hurt. How many of the STUD RBs never get hurt? good job at jinxing the heck out of him... everyone stay away from Manning this year! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 If the scarcity of RB talent is the issue, then why in the hell has it been considered worthwhile to consider Moss/Owens/Harrison in late 1/early 2? What happened to the derth of stud RBs? Most leagues start 1 QB Most leagues start 2+ RBs Most leagues start 2+ WRs So in a 12 team league that means there will be 12 QBs started each week out of a possible 32 available starting NFL QBs. Getting a starting QB in your draft is easy ... even in the late rounds. You can get one of the top 12 starters if you wait to the mid to late rounds. So, assuming you can predict which QBs will the top 3 next year, will it be worth it to grab one of those instead of a top tier RB or WR versus waiting and getting a mid QB? If you wait past the 3rd round for a starting RB it is going to be slim pickens ... if you wait past the 4th round you probably won't get a projected starter. There are certainly more starting WRs available to draft from ... but the logic still holds true. Getting a stud like Owens, Harrison, Boldin, Holt, Moss etc etc is bigger bang for your buck then grabbing Manning and then getting a Keyshawn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 "Huddle Vets", Is this the yearly call to "Huddle Experts" in disguise? Huddle Experts (Vets) are the smartest FFL'ers around, just look at how many posts they have! Oh stop, that was a reference to a DMD article a year or two ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Yeah, I get that starting 2 QBs shakes things up, but keeping with the fantasy football tradition of starting a "realistic" offensive roster, 1 QB makes sense with some combination of 5 RB/WR/TE. I'd be interested to see more of a scoring system solution. Maybe I'll play around with this a bit this summer.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 "Huddle Vets", Is this the yearly call to "Huddle Experts" in disguise? Huddle Experts (Vets) are the smartest FFL'ers around, just look at how many posts they have! Just my non-Vet opinion newbie tool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengal Mania Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 (edited) Most leagues start 1 QB Most leagues start 2+ RBs Most leagues start 2+ WRs So in a 12 team league that means there will be 12 QBs started each week out of a possible 32 available starting NFL QBs. Getting a starting QB in your draft is easy ... even in the late rounds. You can get one of the top 12 starters if you wait to the mid to late rounds. So, assuming you can predict which QBs will the top 3 next year, will it be worth it to grab one of those instead of a top tier RB or WR versus waiting and getting a mid QB? If you wait past the 3rd round for a starting RB it is going to be slim pickens ... if you wait past the 4th round you probably won't get a projected starter. There are certainly more starting WRs available to draft from ... but the logic still holds true. Getting a stud like Owens, Harrison, Boldin, Holt, Moss etc etc is bigger bang for your buck then grabbing Manning and then getting a Keyshawn. Grits - I understand all that. I get the # of positions, # of starters, I get all of that. I guess my only real disagreement w/ the "cult mentality", as I affectionately call it, is that I think Manning is a great value pick much earlier than 4th round. The old arguments, at least to me, don't recognize that Manning is MONEY year in year out, that he never gets hurt, etc. I just can't believe people really believe that the unquestioned best player at his position (by a long margin) has not value earlier than the 4th round or so. Actually, I don't believe that most believe it even when they espouse the theory. I think every Stud-RB theorist on this board would "soil" themselves while jumping at Manning were he to fall to the 3rd round. The reason they never do that, is because somebody always takes him before then. If they took him in Rnd 1 (TOO EARLY) they paid the price elsewhere. If they took him in late 2/early 3, they are/were the favored team to win the league (assuming they knew how to draft the rest of their team) Edited June 19, 2006 by Bengal Mania Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengal Mania Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Oh stop, that was a reference to a DMD article a year or two ago. Dude, I'm just being a smart-a$$ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Grits - I understand all that. I get the # of positions, # of starters, I get all of that. I guess my only real disagreement w/ the "cult mentality", as I affectionately call it, is that I think Manning is a great value pick much earlier than 4th round. The old arguments, at least to me, don't recognize that Manning is MONEY year in year out, that he never gets hurt, etc. I just can't believe people really believe that the unquestioned best player at his position (by a long margin) has not value earlier than the 4th round or so. Actually, I don't believe that most believe it even when they espouse the theory. I think every Stud-RB theorist on this board would "soil" themselves while jumping at Manning were he to fall to the 3rd round. The reason they never do that, is because somebody always takes him before then. If they took him in Rnd 1 (TOO EARLY) they paid the price elsewhere. If they took him in late 2/early 3, they are/were the favored team to win the league (assuming they knew how to draft the rest of their team) I believe you are stuck on 2004. In 2005 Manning was the 3rd over all QB and 48.85 points ahead of the 10th QB. In 2004 Manning was the 2nd over all QB and 177.45 points ahead of the 10th QB. in 2003 Manning was the 1st over all QB and 54.30 points ahead of the 10th QB. So if you hit on Manning in 2004 you were rewarded. However in all other years that "money in the bank" you are referring to is really not much better than 9 other QBs on the board. Personally I would have been happy with Brady in the 5th round in all those years. 2005 Brady 2nd QB with 359.70 points, 10.35 points BETTER than Manning 2004 Brady 10th QB with 338.60 points, 177.45 off from Manning 2003 Brady 11th QB with 316.50 points, 66.55 off from Manning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengal Mania Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 (edited) Expert Mock draft on Home Page. David Dorey (you may know him) lands Payton Manning at 3.10 and calls it "ridiculous value" Apparently my opinion is faulty to all of you, but the Owner of this website clearly does not see it that way. I'll rest my case. Edited June 19, 2006 by Bengal Mania Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Men In Tights Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Expert Mock draft on Home Page. David Dorey (you may know him) lands Payton Manning at 3.10 and calls it "ridiculous value" Apparently my opinion is faulty to all of you, but the Owner of this website clearly does not see it that way. I'll rest my case. Let me start by saying I sort of agree with what you are trying to say. But, you are trying to make an argument for drafting Manning with 1.04, where DMD got him at 3.10. I believe Manning should go anywhere from 1.08 forward, so getting Manning at 3.10 is a ridiculous value but doesn't help your argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengal Mania Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 (edited) Let me start by saying I sort of agree with what you are trying to say. But, you are trying to make an argument for drafting Manning with 1.04, where DMD got him at 3.10. I believe Manning should go anywhere from 1.08 forward, so getting Manning at 3.10 is a ridiculous value but doesn't help your argument. you need to reread my argument and try again. Edited June 19, 2006 by Bengal Mania Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 you need to reread my argument and try again. it's not your argument....someone always argues this every year.... at 3.10 I'd take Manning if I had the 2 RB's I wanted and there wasn't a stud WR that slipped to me at that point... because if Manning was there...I'd feel confident in Palmer slipping to me the following round... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.