BeeR Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 (edited) As I recall you're a big back of this strat, true? I've been also, but due to very disappointing year for a number of (most?) top RBs, makes me wonder. You could write this off as just a weird year, but I have to wonder about paying top $ for a top RB next year vs opting for two+ "lesser" RBs. Agree? Edited November 6, 2007 by BeeR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irish Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 I'm still a proponent of drafting what are expected to be stud RBs. I did it this year and so far it's working out pretty well. However, I can totally see your point with all the issues with RBs this year. That's why there will never be one set in stone method of drafting a solid team. The best advice is to take what the draft gives you based on the general expectations of players and most importantly your own gut instinct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Actually I have always been a proponent of drafting a total team, not just RBs and whatever else you can get. The Stud RB theorists took it on the chin this year to be sure though really it is hard to argue against a RB in the first round with a few exceptions. But loading up on then in the second and third to the detriment of other starting positions can certainly hurt. I cannot wait to see drafts next year - we had so many leagues going RB for all the first round picks that it will be interesting to see where Brady and Moss get taken next summer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 If Moss isn't still on the Patriots, he could go anywhere outside of the first round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfish247 Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 As I recall you're a big back of this strat, true? I've been also, but due to very disappointing year for a number of (most?) top RBs, makes me wonder. You could write this off as just a weird year, but I have to wonder about paying top $ for a top RB next year vs opting for two+ "lesser" RBs. Agree? My observations, at least for NON-PPR... The teams that went RB heavy earlier in the draft and amassed RB depth are starting to come on pretty strong lately. It's true that it's been a down year for the top RBs but it's not really due to anything other than injuries and/or underachieving top picks. The rushing stats are still there, it's just the names have changed and seem to change with more frequency week-to-week this season. The teams with a pair of "stud" WRs that started out the year strong have really started to slump... one team has Steve Smith and Roy Williams. He started strong but lost like 6 straight weeks. The team with Brady has zip at RB (SA was the only RB he took in the first 4 rounds) but has been carried by TO and Burress. Although even Burress is starting to slump. The team with Holt, Boldin and AJ is 2-7. Seems to me that WRs, like most years, have been very deep this year and no significant advantage has been seen by those teams that took 2 WRs in the first 3-4 rounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 (edited) If you went Addai, brady, Gates, Moss Edwards, White, your team probably kicks butt. EDIT: Or better, Addai, brady, Peterson, Moss, Edwards, White, Witten. Edited November 6, 2007 by Caveman_Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 The Stud RB theorists took it on the chin this year Not me! Yet... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 just like always its about avoiding the busts and drafting players that play and do so productively but that is easier said then done Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 My observations, at least for NON-PPR... Seems to me that WRs, like most years, have been very deep this year and no significant advantage has been seen by those teams that took 2 WRs in the first 3-4 rounds. What is a non-PPR league? In 3 redraft leagues (starting 3 WRs plus a flex) I went 2 WRs in the first four rounds (RB - WR - RB- WR in 2 leagues while going RB - WR-WR-RB in 1 league). I'm doing very well in each league. Some of it is due to all the RB injuries this year, but the strategy going in was assuming a handful of RBs would be available in the 3rd and 4th rounds that would perform just as well as a lot of the RB2s getting picked in the 2nd round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 What is a non-PPR league? No points per reception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfish247 Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 (edited) What is a non-PPR league?... No points per reception. In a PPR league, taking WRs early (after top few RBs and RBs that amass tons of receptions are taken) will absolutely pay off but that kind of goes without saying the last few years. Edited November 6, 2007 by kingfish247 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 No points per reception. Forgot to put in the wink to indicate sarcasm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irish Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Forgot to put in the wink to indicate sarcasm. Liar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 In a PPR league, taking WRs early (after top few RBs and RBs that amass tons of receptions are taken) will absolutely pay off but that kind of goes without saying the last few years. Still, most teams go RB-RB and some still go RB-RB-RB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 people get the 'draft a RB early' theory all confused.... it's not about who gets more points between a QB/RB/WR.... it's about the dropoff at the position... there is a greater dropoff outside the top 10-15 RB's than there is for WR's..... of course there is always a steal one way or another...but the dropoff at RB is too severe to not address that position early... this may or may not have already been mentioned in this thread....but I just wanted to address this for those who don't understand why you take a RB early... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Actually I have always been a proponent of drafting a total team, not just RBs and whatever else you can get. The Stud RB theorists took it on the chin this year to be sure though really it is hard to argue against a RB in the first round with a few exceptions. But loading up on then in the second and third to the detriment of other starting positions can certainly hurt. I cannot wait to see drafts next year - we had so many leagues going RB for all the first round picks that it will be interesting to see where Brady and Moss get taken next summer. I've noticed that there is somewhat of a trend that rarely follows back to back... one year RB's will dominate...and the next year it will be QB's and WR's... but actually...to contradict myself...RB's usually dominate 2 years in a row and then you see QB's and WR's... 2004 was dominated by QB's and WR's...at least in my local....but 05 and 06 was RB's... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAUgrad Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 If you went Addai, brady, Gates, Moss Edwards, White, your team probably kicks butt. EDIT: Or better, Addai, brady, Peterson, Moss, Edwards, White, Witten. Or you could've gone Gore, Maroney, Fitz, Kitna, A. Green, D. Branch......... and have a crapy year like me in one league. How I'm 4-5 in this league is absolutely amazing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 I went THenry/CJ/MJD/Boldin/AP/Portis...and I forget the rest... I traded CJ/MJD/Boldin/Portis and got CJ back over a month ago... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Liar. One Menudo on this site is enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 As I recall you're a big back of this strat, true? I've been also, but due to very disappointing year for a number of (most?) top RBs, makes me wonder. You could write this off as just a weird year, but I have to wonder about paying top $ for a top RB next year vs opting for two+ "lesser" RBs. Agree? Changing strategy isn't going to result in a better team. Drafting the right personnel will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Changing strategy isn't going to result in a better team. Drafting the right personnel will. ding ding ding, WInner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfish247 Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 ....there is a greater dropoff outside the top 10-15 RB's than there is for WR's..... of course there is always a steal one way or another...but the dropoff at RB is too severe to not address that position early... this may or may not have already been mentioned in this thread....but I just wanted to address this for those who don't understand why you take a RB early... In a PPR, it absolutely makes sense to go WR early and often especially if you have a RB/WR flex option giving you the option of a starting lineup with RB-WR-WR-WR. In my PPR , 5 of the top 10 scorers amongst RBs/WRs are WRs. 8 WRs in the top 20. If there's one trend that I think will continue, it will be that it absolutely makes sense to grab WRs early and often in a PPR for the foreseeable future. IMO, this is due mostly to the changes in pass interference/illegal contact rules and offenses taking full advantage by putting up some ridiculous passing stats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 (edited) In a PPR, it absolutely makes sense to go WR early and often especially if you have a RB/WR flex option giving you the option of a starting lineup with RB-WR-WR-WR. In my PPR , 5 of the top 10 scorers amongst RBs/WRs are WRs. 8 WRs in the top 20. If there's one trend that I think will continue, it will be that it absolutely makes sense to grab WRs early and often in a PPR for the foreseeable future. IMO, this is due mostly to the changes in pass interference/illegal contact rules and offenses taking full advantage by putting up some ridiculous passing stats. see, you're letting the numbers cloud things... PPR doesn't change the dropoff....you can still get good WR's later.... if you get a RB that catches, that gives even more reason to take one early... PPR doesn't change the dropoff at RB.....if you follow this, your team has a higher chance of being more balanced.... for me...it's all about the dropoff at each position....that's where I gauge my value and when to take someone elsewhere... edit: if there was a flex position....I'd like to go RB-RB-WR-RB/WR(dpending on who is available)...and then the other position that I didn't take unless Gates or a clear-cut stud QB is available.. Edited November 6, 2007 by Avernus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Changing strategy isn't going to result in a better team. Drafting the right personnel will. Knowledge here. You can consider scoring systems and how they may effect certain positions or potential drafting strategies, but I've often finding that going out the window based on available players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfish247 Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 ...for me...it's all about the dropoff at each position....that's where I gauge my value and when to take someone elsewhere... ... I understand what you're saying but why, in a PPR, would you wait 3-4 rounds before you take your first WR just to load up on RBs when half the top scorers amongst RB and WRs will be WRs? I agree the dropoff for RBs is greater, but the purpose of PPR is to level the playing field amongst those that don't land a stud RB. That's central to the argument of switching to a PPR league. There has been countless articles on this. 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.