Big Country Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 I don't go in with a set plan. I go with the idea of trying to fill in my best possible team, and that entails looking at what picks the owners between my picks have made and trying to gauge where they are likely to go next so that I can plan accordingly. Where has that led me. A very random assortment of picks. I;ve gone RB in 3 of the 1st 4 rounds in the last 3 years, gone RB in the first followed by 3 WRs, and even gone RB/WR/QB/TE/WR in a league, and that turned out pretty good until injury/suspensions hit righrt as playoffs began. What I am getting at, is that a prelaid plan of attack, be it RB heavy or TE/TE or whatever is doomed for failure when you are unwilling to adjust to the flow of the draft and the needs of the teams drafting around you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 Gotta plan ahead. Go ahead a draft RB/RB/RB/WR/QB again and finish 6th. I did that 2 years ago and finished 2nd.....lost in the championship by 3 points... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 It's too scoring specific to adopt any one strategy across the board. Each scoring system demands it's own evaluation. 1PPR or 0.5? 6 pts for TD passes or 4? I am in one league where 14 out of the top 20 scorers were QB's. (trying to get that changed). Then any flex rule changes things as well. In general, WR's have increased in value over the past several years. RB value is down after the top 5 or so. TE value has gone up. Having said that, being in different leagues with different scoring systems makes it more interesting. There is no cookie cutter strategy that fits each one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 It's too scoring specific to adopt any one strategy across the board. Each scoring system demands it's own evaluation. 1PPR or 0.5? 6 pts for TD passes or 4? I am in one league where 14 out of the top 20 scorers were QB's. (trying to get that changed). Then any flex rule changes things as well. In general, WR's have increased in value over the past several years. RB value is down after the top 5 or so. TE value has gone up. Having said that, being in different leagues with different scoring systems makes it more interesting. There is no cookie cutter strategy that fits each one. see, I always thought that it mattered not which position held the most points but rather which position had a faster dropoff.... if I can get 2 top RB's before the dopoff while still getting a 2nd tier QB and two WR's in the top 3 tiers....this works out great.....and/or maybe a stud TE if the pickin's is right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delicious_bass Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 Gotta plan ahead. Go ahead a draft RB/RB/RB/WR/QB again and finish 6th. Arent you being just a little fraudulent with this statement? There is no guarantee drafting multiple TE early is going to pay off for you any better than drafting multiple RB or WR. Like others have said, its all about getting the "right" players. Period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 see, I always thought that it mattered not which position held the most points but rather which position had a faster dropoff.... if I can get 2 top RB's before the dopoff while still getting a 2nd tier QB and two WR's in the top 3 tiers....this works out great.....and/or maybe a stud TE if the pickin's is right And you would be right. To a degree. Points are still points. In a league that values QB's this much, I want one of the top five, regardless of the dropoff. In a league that over values any given position, I want one of the top 5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 And you would be right. To a degree. Points are still points. In a league that values QB's this much, I want one of the top five, regardless of the dropoff. In a league that over values any given position, I want one of the top 5. If those top QBs outscore the rest of the QBs (and other positions) by a large margin, then yes, this is correct, such as in leagues where all yardage, including passing, is 1 pt per 10 yards, you see things like this where QBs score so much more than the other positions in general that it makes sense to get the top QB possible and fill in behind that, even if the projected dropoff is similar at other positions (unlikely if QBs do score that much more than other positions), the volatility of the QBs is too much to ignore. I saw this in a league last year where, as noted, passing yards were 1 pt per 10. There was no PPR. QBs, while still bunched together scoring wise, contributed 55%+ of weekly points, even with a lineup of 2 RBs, 2 WRs, 1 TE, 1 flex a K and a D. So, having a high end, consistent QB was beyond hugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 "Draft the players that score the most points and you will win" -- Henry Muto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 If those top QBs outscore the rest of the QBs (and other positions) by a large margin, then yes, this is correct, such as in leagues where all yardage, including passing, is 1 pt per 10 yards, you see things like this where QBs score so much more than the other positions in general that it makes sense to get the top QB possible and fill in behind that, even if the projected dropoff is similar at other positions (unlikely if QBs do score that much more than other positions), the volatility of the QBs is too much to ignore. I saw this in a league last year where, as noted, passing yards were 1 pt per 10. There was no PPR. QBs, while still bunched together scoring wise, contributed 55%+ of weekly points, even with a lineup of 2 RBs, 2 WRs, 1 TE, 1 flex a K and a D. So, having a high end, consistent QB was beyond hugh. I definitely agree that playing with no 3rd WR, even if flex is allowed makes it more important to concentrate on the QB position when there are just a few that are clearly dominant. No doubt about that. I play mostly 2rb/3wr/te/flex and in that format the necessity of having a top QB is diminished to a degree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 (edited) Then you trade one of your stud TE's to the guy that gets him, the waiver wire guy tanks, and you forget about your stud TE theory. Of course, this is just a theory. Maybe it's a conspiracy. I get to watch this movie (Cars) quite a bit with a little one around the house. Edited July 12, 2010 by MikesVikes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 "Draft the players that score the most points and you will win" -- Henry Muto Blitz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 If those top QBs outscore the rest of the QBs (and other positions) by a large margin, then yes, this is correct, such as in leagues where all yardage, including passing, is 1 pt per 10 yards, you see things like this where QBs score so much more than the other positions in general that it makes sense to get the top QB possible and fill in behind that, even if the projected dropoff is similar at other positions (unlikely if QBs do score that much more than other positions), the volatility of the QBs is too much to ignore. I saw this in a league last year where, as noted, passing yards were 1 pt per 10. There was no PPR. QBs, while still bunched together scoring wise, contributed 55%+ of weekly points, even with a lineup of 2 RBs, 2 WRs, 1 TE, 1 flex a K and a D. So, having a high end, consistent QB was beyond hugh. in my local, 8 of the top 10 scorers were QB's.....here's how that went... QB Rodgers - 561 RB Johnson - 541 QB Brees - 499 QB Schaub - 479 QB P Manning - 475 QB Romo - 456 QB Brady - 455 QB Favre - 454 QB Rivers - 445 QB Roethlisberger -442 RB Rice - 390 note: between the next 10 scorers, 7 of them were QB's, 2 were RB's and 1 was a WR ( MJD, AD and AJ were all within the next 5)... so as far as QB's go...you have 3 elite guys, then a group that kinda blends together and then another tier that blends together..... the trick is to build a sound team around the QB if you can't draft an elite QB early on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 in my local, 8 of the top 10 scorers were QB's.....here's how that went... QB Rodgers - 561 RB Johnson - 541 QB Brees - 499 QB Schaub - 479 QB P Manning - 475 QB Romo - 456 QB Brady - 455 QB Favre - 454 QB Rivers - 445 QB Roethlisberger -442 RB Rice - 390 note: between the next 10 scorers, 7 of them were QB's, 2 were RB's and 1 was a WR ( MJD, AD and AJ were all within the next 5)... so as far as QB's go...you have 3 elite guys, then a group that kinda blends together and then another tier that blends together..... the trick is to build a sound team around the QB if you can't draft an elite QB early on... See, this is really not enough info to make a true statement on value. What is see is a 115 point drop from the #1 scoring QB to the #8 QB. I also see a 151 point drop from the #1 RB to the #2 RB (one reason a 3 year look is better than a 1 year look is to see if this is an anomaly or typical). To do a proper analysis using the best starter method I have shown before (not foolproof, but a solid simple value view) would require 3 years worth of data of the top 12 QBs, 24 RBs and 36 WRs and 12 TEs (assuming a 1QB/2RB/3WR/1TE lineup) so we could see if this is a case of QBs just being very high scoring as a group, or if there is truly value in the top QBs compared to the other positions. Another factor is consistency, especially with QBs scoring so highly, asnoted in one of my earlier responses, a consistent high scoring QB can be very important due to the sheer volume of points, even if they are not neccessarily outscoring their compatriots over the season by a large margin, but if the position is contributing 50%+ of weekly points, you want consistency, not one of the boom/bust guys in that position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 See, this is really not enough info to make a true statement on value. What is see is a 115 point drop from the #1 scoring QB to the #8 QB. I also see a 151 point drop from the #1 RB to the #2 RB (one reason a 3 year look is better than a 1 year look is to see if this is an anomaly or typical). To do a proper analysis using the best starter method I have shown before (not foolproof, but a solid simple value view) would require 3 years worth of data of the top 12 QBs, 24 RBs and 36 WRs and 12 TEs (assuming a 1QB/2RB/3WR/1TE lineup) so we could see if this is a case of QBs just being very high scoring as a group, or if there is truly value in the top QBs compared to the other positions. Another factor is consistency, especially with QBs scoring so highly, asnoted in one of my earlier responses, a consistent high scoring QB can be very important due to the sheer volume of points, even if they are not neccessarily outscoring their compatriots over the season by a large margin, but if the position is contributing 50%+ of weekly points, you want consistency, not one of the boom/bust guys in that position. position-wise....it looks like this just about every year.... QB's dominate my scoring and unless you have the top 2 or 3 QB's, you might as well wait it out and fill in other positions with quality players... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 in my local, 8 of the top 10 scorers were QB's.....here's how that went... QB Rodgers - 561 RB Johnson - 541 QB Brees - 499 QB Schaub - 479 QB P Manning - 475 QB Romo - 456 QB Brady - 455 QB Favre - 454 QB Rivers - 445 QB Roethlisberger -442 RB Rice - 390 note: between the next 10 scorers, 7 of them were QB's, 2 were RB's and 1 was a WR ( MJD, AD and AJ were all within the next 5)... so as far as QB's go...you have 3 elite guys, then a group that kinda blends together and then another tier that blends together..... the trick is to build a sound team around the QB if you can't draft an elite QB early on... I would say there are 4 QB's in that first teir. Like BC said, if the QB garners 50% of the weekly points, or even 40%, I want to get a consistant one early. Take Rothlisberger out, now, does Favre play? Rivers may have a WR problem. One of Romo's WR's will be a rookie. Brady might not have Welker early. The top 4 start to look even better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 I would say there are 4 QB's in that first teir. Like BC said, if the QB garners 50% of the weekly points, or even 40%, I want to get a consistant one early. Take Rothlisberger out, now, does Favre play? Rivers may have a WR problem. One of Romo's WR's will be a rookie. Brady might not have Welker early. The top 4 start to look even better. I think Romo is good where he's at by default and you have Kolb/Ryan/Flacco inside there by bumping down Favre, Roethlisberger and Brady... the top 10 should look like this imo Rodgers Brees Schaub P Manning Romo Rivers Ryan Kolb Flacco Brady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 I think Kolb, Ryan and Flacco carry some risk. I like their individual upsides, but again, I'd want one of the top 4. Now in leagues that don't over value QB's, I am all for waiting on one. If QB's score the most points, by a long margin, I want a teir 1 QB. Like I said earlier, I think this entire thread is point scoring system dependent. Now, if all of the top 4 QB's are gone, then I would wait it out for a long time, maybe even the 6th or 7th round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 If QB's score the most points, by a long margin, I want a teir 1 QB. Like I said earlier, I think this entire thread is point scoring system dependent. Even if, such as with the limited data so far, the top 8 Qbs are within 115 points of each other and there is a 150 point gap between the #1 and #2 RB, much less what the gap must be between the top 20 RBs? I ask because it is one of those cases where, assuming in general QBs do score that much more as a whole than all of the other spots, even though they are still relatively bunched together, does it make sense to lock in a more stable one, or, do you go ahead and take shots at a late round QB noting that the relative drop off in production still is not there compared to other positions, despite the "QB friendly" scoring system? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 Even if, such as with the limited data so far, the top 8 Qbs are within 115 points of each other and there is a 150 point gap between the #1 and #2 RB, much less what the gap must be between the top 20 RBs? I ask because it is one of those cases where, assuming in general QBs do score that much more as a whole than all of the other spots, even though they are still relatively bunched together, does it make sense to lock in a more stable one, or, do you go ahead and take shots at a late round QB noting that the relative drop off in production still is not there compared to other positions, despite the "QB friendly" scoring system? Obviously, one takes CJ given that sort of gap. That is more of an anomaly I think. He is pretty much assured of being the first player off the board in just about any league. I might go Rice over a QB in a full 1 PPR league for RB's too. I'm not saying that I'd take the top 4 QB's in the first 4 picks here. If I'm picking 7 or 8, I want one of those QB's for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 Even if, such as with the limited data so far, the top 8 Qbs are within 115 points of each other and there is a 150 point gap between the #1 and #2 RB, much less what the gap must be between the top 20 RBs? I ask because it is one of those cases where, assuming in general QBs do score that much more as a whole than all of the other spots, even though they are still relatively bunched together, does it make sense to lock in a more stable one, or, do you go ahead and take shots at a late round QB noting that the relative drop off in production still is not there compared to other positions, despite the "QB friendly" scoring system? here's how our top 10 RB's look at the end of the season... Johnson, Chris RB TEN 541.0 Rice, Ray RB BAL 390.0 Jones-Drew, Maurice RB JAC 360.0 Peterson, Adrian RB MIN 354.0 Gore, Frank RB SF 325.0 Addai, Joseph RB IND 290.0 Williams, Ricky RB MIA 272.0 Jackson, Steven RB STL 260.0 Charles, Jamaal RB KC 254.0 Jackson, Fred RB BUF 254.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 Obviously, one takes CJ given that sort of gap. That is more of an anomaly I think. He is pretty much assured of being the first player off the board in just about any league. I might go Rice over a QB in a full 1 PPR league for RB's too. I'm not saying that I'd take the top 4 QB's in the first 4 picks here. If I'm picking 7 or 8, I want one of those QB's for sure. yeah, it's a PPR scoring league and last year I took Brees around the 7th pick... I think that with the scoring in my league...getting a top QB in the later 1st round might be the best way to go... even when I don't take a QB early, I always end up trading for one of them when I'm stacked at another position... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 You can plan maybe the first two rounds, but after that - you've got to play the best hand with the cards you are dealt. You can't plan based upon how people drafted last year. Every draft is an orginism. If one person changes their stratagy, the whole orginism changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 You can plan maybe the first two rounds, but after that - you've got to play the best hand with the cards you are dealt. You can't plan based upon how people drafted last year. Every draft is an orginism. If one person changes their stratagy, the whole orginism changes. it's kinda like the hot tub time machine....change one thing and the whole system goes haywire.... ...so true, so true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 yeah, it's a PPR scoring league and last year I took Brees around the 7th pick... I think that with the scoring in my league...getting a top QB in the later 1st round might be the best way to go... even when I don't take a QB early, I always end up trading for one of them when I'm stacked at another position... Is a QB really the best route to go. Not knowing your lineup requirements, I'll assume you start 2 RBs. Even though QBs are far and away the highest scoring position in the league, there was still only a 115 point gap between the top 10. For RBs, even taking Chris Johnson out of the equation, there is a 150 point gap in the top 10, and, if you start 2 RBs, you really need to be looking at the gap in the top 20-24 (depending on # of teams), which would exacerbate the value differential even more. Obviously, as has been noted, the key is still to find the right player that actually scores at projected levels. However, assuming the trend is similar to last year and the top 10 QBs are bunched up in about a 100 point range, I would be much more comfortable using a5th or 6th round pick on my projected 6th-10th QBs, whom all have the potential to be top 5, while using my earlier picks on higher projected RBs, as the value is just there, and using the higher picks on RBs gives me a better shot, at least in my opinion, of selecting the RBs that do perform at or above projected levels, as I am able to take RBs that are in better situations, with better potential. If the point drop off was not so severe at RB, then a stronger argument could be made to go for one of the top rated QBs, it;s just that, in the examples provided, the drop off just is not there to warrant it. Again, as noted in previous posts, I would want to be looking at at least 3 years worth of data to make sure last years data was not an aberration from the norm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 (edited) I just can't bring myself to subscribe to a 2 TE theory. I've always had pretty good luck taking a couple fliers on TE's late. If they don't end up working out, I trade one of my extra RB's or QB's for one. The strength of my teams is almost always at RB & QB, and I've been fortunate enough to have a fairly high success rate. TE's will have games of 3 catches for 30 yards. If you draft your TE really early, you probably lose that week. Stud QB's and RB's are a lot less likely to have a game so low. Edited July 13, 2010 by Seahawks21 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.