Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Going RB 1st 2nd and 3rd Rounds.


ttran
 Share

Recommended Posts

That link is worthless. So

 

5 Holt, Torry WR 208 93

6 Johnson, Chad WR 207 92

7 Gates, Antonio TE 168 89

8 Smith, Steve WR 203 88

9 Boldin, Anquan WR 196 81

10 Fitzgerald, Larry

 

all should be taken in the first round since their value is higher than Frank Gore, Brian Westbrook, Parker, Alexander??

 

Man, I should have drafted Tiki Barber with teh 4th pick. The values change every year. That list is so outdated, Barry Sanders should be on there.

 

But back to the ORIGINAL TOPIC about RBs being more valuable than WRs....

 

Did you read the posts at all? If you did, then you would know that you have obviously misinterpreted everything as it is laid out pretty clearly how to use the list. And yes, the first post is quite outdated.. as it was made in I believe July of LAST YEAR. So... why don't you take the time to read the posts in that thread, then I will allow yo uto reconsider your reply. Perhaps you will "hughmor" us and provide the data to do a value analysis of your league, as requested before, so as to wither support or refute your claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Don't know how you did it, kid, but you managed to take on about half of the most respected members here. Awards are given out at the end of the year, and you are now on the short list for a really good one - you can put it on your mantle....

 

But you'll find I'm one of the most laid back cats here - living in L.A. - so I'll try to answer your question. Don't get defensive now...

 

1) RBs - you probably did the right thing for RB depth, since your top 2 RBs have high risk. You needed to shore them up with a solid RB3, but it might've made more sense to grab a sleeper later after getting a top WR. If your top 2 avoid injury, you do just fine, but cross your fingers.

2) WRs - you may get lucky with these 2 guys as your WR anchors, but it would be just that - luck. They are not bad, but not top tier either.

3) Overall - I think others may be in a better position with their QB-RB-WR groups overall, but I have no way of knowing....

 

Hope this helps, honestly...

 

 

Thanks for the input w/o flaming the helll out of me. This quote is not aimed at you, but all the ppl who insist on calling me an idiot for taking a RB in the 2nd round.

 

I'll say it once again and I want everyone to read what I have to say. Everyone is coming in here calling me an idiot and whatever. Thinking I did the wrong move by taking 3 rbs in a row instead of grabbing a worthless "STUD" receiver in the 2nd round. That is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard if you agree on taking a WR in the 2nd round.

 

Here are my reasons why RB > ALL. Please read through everything carefully before you respond with comments that don't make any sense or related to the original topic.

 

Why QBs are Overated:

No. 1 quarterback last season (Peyton Manning) and the No. 10 (Vince Young) averaged out to just five points per game. Yet the difference between last season's No. 1 running back (LaDainian Tomlinson) and the No. 30 back (Julius Jones) was 14 points per game.

 

There's a lot of depth at quarterback and at wide receiver. You can get a productive one in the later rounds, but if you take a quarterback or receiver in the first two rounds, in Rounds 3 and 4 you'll find yourself saying things like "Uh, is Samkon Gado still available?" And no one wants that.

 

Why WRs are Overated:

The only players guaranteed to touch the ball multiple times per game are running backs and quarterbacks. Receivers are very inconsistent. Consider Chad Johnson, one of the best, who had 11 weeks last season with 10 or fewer fantasy points. The difference between No. 20 and No. 50 is less than three points a game. From a fantasy standpoint, they're basically all the same.

 

We play with numbers, not names. Donald Driver's not nearly as big a name as others, but did you know that over the past three years, only Torry Holt and Chad Johnson have more receiving yards than him? So go ahead and keep drafting your "STUD" WRs and I'll take my average RB that will put up bigger numbers than them.

 

FYI: Ladell Betts > Torry Holt, Chad Johnson, T.J. Houshmandzadeh, Reggie Wayne, Larry Fitzgerald.

Edited by ttran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read the posts at all? If you did, then you would know that you have obviously misinterpreted everything as it is laid out pretty clearly how to use the list. And yes, the first post is quite outdated.. as it was made in I believe July of LAST YEAR. So... why don't you take the time to read the posts in that thread, then I will allow yo uto reconsider your reply. Perhaps you will "hughmor" us and provide the data to do a value analysis of your league, as requested before, so as to wither support or refute your claims.

 

 

While your thread is probably helpful for others, I just can't see myself going by a "Value System." Like I said before, we are playing for points not names.

Edited by ttran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the input w/o flaming the helll out of me. This quote is not aimed at you, but all the ppl who insist on calling me an idiot for taking a RB in the 2nd round.

 

I'll say it once again and I want everyone to read what I have to say. Everyone is coming in here calling me an idiot and whatever. Thinking I did the wrong move by taking 3 rbs in a row instead of grabbing a worthless "STUD" receiver in the 2nd round. That is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard if you agree on taking a WR in the 2nd round.

 

Here are my reasons why RB > ALL. Please read through everything carefully before you respond with comments that don't make any sense or related to the original topic.

 

Why QBs are Overated:

No. 1 quarterback last season (Peyton Manning) and the No. 10 (Vince Young) averaged out to just five points per game. Yet the difference between last season's No. 1 running back (LaDainian Tomlinson) and the No. 30 back (Julius Jones) was 14 points per game.

 

There's a lot of depth at quarterback and at wide receiver. You can get a productive one in the later rounds, but if you take a quarterback or receiver in the first two rounds, in Rounds 3 and 4 you'll find yourself saying things like "Uh, is Samkon Gado still available?" And no one wants that.

 

Why WRs are Overated:

The only players guaranteed to touch the ball multiple times per game are running backs and quarterbacks. Receivers are very inconsistent. Consider Chad Johnson, one of the best, who had 11 weeks last season with 10 or fewer fantasy points. The difference between No. 20 and No. 50 is less than three points a game. From a fantasy standpoint, they're basically all the same.

 

We play with numbers, not names. Donald Driver's not nearly as big a name as others, but did you know that over the past three years, only Torry Holt and Chad Johnson have more receiving yards than him? So go ahead and keep drafting your "STUD" WRs and I'll take my average RB that will put up bigger numbers than them.

 

FYI: Ladell Betts > Torry Holt, Chad Johnson, T.J. Houshmandzadeh, Reggie Wayne, Larry Fitzgerald.

Sorry, couldn't help myself. Just one simple question. Why did you bother putting "good idea???" as a subtitle if anyone who didn't think so would be called an idiot?

 

Notice that the only person that you aren't fighting tooth and nail with here is the only guy who happens to like your strategy. For the record, knowing now that you can start 3 RBs, I have no problem with going RB/RB/RB. I missed that bit in your first post. Freaking sue me, or better still, make sure to make a point of making it very clear that you can start a flex. Some of us don't read and then re-read posts to find some cryptic mention of a "slot R/W".

 

However, McGehee is still not in my top 20, so I don't like the pick. Is that OK with you? Really? I mean, by your standards, the first 50 players taken should be RBs. At some point one must be allowed to take a WR or QB, right? Well, in my world, it happens before Willis Mc's name gets called. It also tends make my team better than most.

 

Now, you should also understand that you are mostly being flamed for being a total a-hole, not because you drafted RB/RB/RB. You do realize this, don't you?

Edited by detlef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, couldn't help myself. Just one simple question. Why did you bother putting "good idea???" as a subtitle if anyone who didn't think so would be called an idiot?

 

Notice that the only person that you aren't fighting tooth and nail with here is the only guy who happens to like your strategy. For the record, knowing now that you can start 3 RBs, I have no problem with going RB/RB/RB. I missed that bit in your first post. Freaking sue me, or better still, make sure to make a point of making it very clear that you can start a flex. Some of us don't read and then re-read posts to find some cryptic mention of a "slot R/W".

 

However, McGehee is still not in my top 20, so I don't like the pick. Is that OK with you? Really? I mean, by your standards, the first 50 players taken should be RBs. At some point one must be allowed to take a WR or QB, right? Well, in my world, it happens before Willis Mc's name gets called. It also tends make my team better than most.

 

Now, you should also understand that you are mostly being flamed for being a total a-hole, not because you drafted RB/RB/RB. You do realize this, don't you?

 

I'm not fighting against anyone. IF you want to word it in that manner, than you are fighting against me. I see it as a heated debate. Most of the replies are just insults and name calling. I have yet to see, but 2 replies that actually have some useful info for readers.

 

I don't see how i've been an ahole. I've taken a lot of name calling and ppl tell me to leave the forums, but I refrained from responding to childish remarks. I'm just trying to have a debate here. Thats what these forums are for right???

 

One question: Who would you take in the 2nd round before Mcgahee??If you name a WR, maybe you should go and reread what I wrote again.

 

Heres how my draft went: Now Jones Drew was an option that I thought about taking, but he shares the load with Fred Taylor. Plus, I don't think he'll have a repeat TD galore season like 06.

Round 1

1. LaDainian Tomlinson

2. Larry Johnson

3. Steven Jackson

4. Shaun Alexander

5. Laurence Maroney

6. Frank Gore

7. Joseph Addai

8. Willie Parker

9. Brian Westbrook

10. Rudi Johnson

Round 2

1. Peyton Manning

2. Reggie Bush

3. Clinton Portis

4. Marvin Harrison

5. Ronnie Brown

6. Travis Henry

7. Willis McGahee T

8. Cedric Benson

9. Brandon Jacobs

10. Maurice Jones-Drew

Edited by ttran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how i've been an ahole. I've taken a lot of name calling and ppl tell me to leave the forums, but I refrained from responding to childish remarks. I'm just trying to have a debate here. Thats what these forums are for right???

 

One question: Who would you take in the 2nd round before Mcgahee??If you name a WR, maybe you should go and reread what I wrote again.

 

Heres how my draft went: Now Jones Drew was an option that I thought about taking, but he shares the load with Fred Taylor. Plus, I don't think he'll have a repeat TD galore season like 06.

Round 1

1. LaDainian Tomlinson

2. Larry Johnson

3. Steven Jackson

4. Shaun Alexander

5. Laurence Maroney

6. Frank Gore

7. Joseph Addai

8. Willie Parker

9. Brian Westbrook

10. Rudi Johnson

Round 2

1. Peyton Manning

2. Reggie Bush

3. Clinton Portis

4. Marvin Harrison

5. Ronnie Brown

6. Travis Henry

7. Willis McGahee T

8. Cedric Benson

9. Brandon Jacobs

10. Maurice Jones-Drew

You meant the part where you said the difference between the 20th and 50th is next to nothing? Wow, good stuff there. That's your argument? That all the mediocre to bad ones are basically the same? Jeez, that changes everything. Well, for starters, I would take C Benson over him. I would also take C Johnson or S Smith ahead of him as well. So, what RBs were there when your 4th pick came up?

 

If you don't see how you've been an a-hole, you'd best check yourself. You know my mother is a horrible driver. Believe me, I had to ride in that car plenty as a kid. The funny thing is, she is always commenting on the fact that everyone else is such a horrible driver because she's almost getting in wrecks all the time.

 

So, it took like 100 posts for you to finally tell us what else was out there when you made your 2nd pick. Do we need to wait another for you to explain why you asked for "advice" on something that already happened that you also happened to be so convinced was right that anyone who said otherwise would be called out for not understanding the game? Really, it's not that hard a question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not fighting against anyone. IF you want to word it in that manner, than you are fighting against me. I see it as a heated debate. Most of the replies are just insults and name calling. I have yet to see, but 2 replies that actually have some useful info for readers.

Don't you mean to say, "I have yet to see but 2 replies that think taking Willis was a smart move and thus worth looking at because I really just want to be loved'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You meant the part where you said the difference between the 20th and 50th is next to nothing? Wow, good stuff there. That's your argument? That all the mediocre to bad ones are basically the same? Jeez, that changes everything. Well, for starters, I would take C Benson over him. I would also take C Johnson or S Smith ahead of him as well. So, what RBs were there when your 4th pick came up?

 

If you don't see how you've been an a-hole, you'd best check yourself. You know my mother is a horrible driver. Believe me, I had to ride in that car plenty as a kid. The funny thing is, she is always commenting on the fact that everyone else is such a horrible driver because she's almost getting in wrecks all the time.

 

So, it took like 100 posts for you to finally tell us what else was out there when you made your 2nd pick. Do we need to wait another for you to explain why you asked for "advice" on something that already happened that you also happened to be so convinced was right that anyone who said otherwise would be called out for not understanding the game? Really, it's not that hard a question.

 

 

Wow are you kidding me? Where is your info to back up these claims as why these players are better??? Without anything to back it up other than saying, "i'll take these players over him anyday" means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

 

Tell me why C Johnson or S Smith would be better?

 

Chad: The guy who had 11 games of 10 or less points in 06?

Smith: The guy that got beat by Ladell Betts in Fantasy Points when Betts started 10 games in 06.

 

Benson hasn't proven anything to anyone. Hes been a good backup. Reason why I didn't take him.

 

Just stop already, because other than calling me an A-hole and dissing your own mom, you have nothing else to say. And I don't really think talking about your mom and her driving is relevant to Fantasy Football. Hate me as a person all you want, but I put the facts on the table.

 

"you'd best check yourself. " Thats some EThug stuff right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't you mean to say, "I have yet to see but 2 replies that think taking Willis was a smart move and thus worth looking at because I really just want to be loved'?

 

 

We are not taking about Willis Mcgahee here. Are you Mentally retarded or just illiterate? This thread is about taking 3 Rbs in a row. Some ppl argue that I should have taken a WR in the 2nd round, but I beg to difer.

 

Serious, all your replies are wasting space. If you don't have anything to backup your claims, just go home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yes wait on WRs.

 

Statistically speaking, they're a dime a dozen. Look, you score in fantasy football the same way you score in real football … by touching the ball. And the only players guaranteed to touch the ball multiple times per game are running backs and quarterbacks. Receivers are very inconsistent. Consider Chad Johnson, one of the best, who had 11 weeks last season with 10 or fewer fantasy points

 

You are one of those guys that have no idea how fantasy works. You just want the best available player overall. You don't take into account that RBs > WRs anyday.

 

 

This is how you think:

 

Steve Smith: Wow big name Player. One of the best in the NFL. I want him early!!! 176 points scored throughout 06.

 

Ladell Betts: Who the hell is he? I don't want him because noones heard of him. 183 Fantasy points scored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are not taking about Willis Mcgahee here. Are you Mentally retarded or just illiterate? This thread is about taking 3 Rbs in a row. Some ppl argue that I should have taken a WR in the 2nd round, but I beg to difer.

 

Serious, all your replies are wasting space. If you don't have anything to backup your claims, just go home.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize the question was, "Is going RB/RB/RB always the wise choice regardless of who is available". In that case, my vote is no.

 

In every draft I'm in, I like to actually decide who the best guys available at each pick are and take one of them. That might mean that I go RB/RB/RB but it also might mean I slip a WR in there. Rarely do I take a QB then.

 

Now. Answer my freaking question! Why did you bother asking for opinions on something that you are completely set upon? Was it to test the acumen of all of us? Well, if blindly following a draft plan regardless of who is there at each pick is what it takes, then most of us here fail.

 

Good luck and good night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yes wait on WRs.

 

Statistically speaking, they're a dime a dozen. Look, you score in fantasy football the same way you score in real football … by touching the ball. And the only players guaranteed to touch the ball multiple times per game are running backs and quarterbacks. Receivers are very inconsistent. Consider Chad Johnson, one of the best, who had 11 weeks last season with 10 or fewer fantasy points

 

You are one of those guys that have no idea how fantasy works. You just want the best available player overall. You don't take into account that RBs > WRs anyday.

This is how you think:

 

Steve Smith: Wow big name Player. One of the best in the NFL. I want him early!!! 176 points scored throughout 06.

 

Ladell Betts: Who the hell is he? I don't want him because noones heard of him. 183 Fantasy points scored.

So, for the record. You will draft Ladell Betts over Steve Smith? Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize the question was, "Is going RB/RB/RB always the wise choice regardless of who is available". In that case, my vote is no.

 

In every draft I'm in, I like to actually decide who the best guys available at each pick are and take one of them. That might mean that I go RB/RB/RB but it also might mean I slip a WR in there. Rarely do I take a QB then.

 

Now. Answer my freaking question! Why did you bother asking for opinions on something that you are completely set upon? Was it to test the acumen of all of us? Well, if blindly following a draft plan regardless of who is there at each pick is what it takes, then most of us here fail.

 

Good luck and good night.

 

 

I'm set on what I did because ppl like you have yet to come up with a feasable explaination on why a WR is better in the 2nd round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yes wait on WRs.

 

Statistically speaking, they're a dime a dozen. Look, you score in fantasy football the same way you score in real football … by touching the ball. And the only players guaranteed to touch the ball multiple times per game are running backs and quarterbacks. Receivers are very inconsistent. Consider Chad Johnson, one of the best, who had 11 weeks last season with 10 or fewer fantasy points

 

You are one of those guys that have no idea how fantasy works. You just want the best available player overall. You don't take into account that RBs > WRs anyday.

This is how you think:

 

Steve Smith: Wow big name Player. One of the best in the NFL. I want him early!!! 176 points scored throughout 06.

 

Ladell Betts: Who the hell is he? I don't want him because noones heard of him. 183 Fantasy points scored.

 

Why sure that strategy works if you are in a league where only RBs and QBs are mandated, but if you are REQUIRED to play other positions, then you must take into account where the value breakpoints are in the general value pool and choose your players appropriately.

 

Once you are in tier three of the RBs, they tend to level off somewhat losing somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-20 points over the course of a round of selection, while the difference between a Gates and the next TE (which you will have to field) is something along the lines of 40 points over the course of a season.

 

So if you take your Ahman Green who for the sake of argument will score 220 points over the course of a season, and have the brilliant luck to pick up say, Gonzo (124) the next round, then your total over the season is 344.

 

However, if instead, you pick up Gates @ 161, then pick up Betts @ 200 , you will have 361. Both choices give you the third running back and the tight end spot you need, but there is a clear advantage to the Gates pick. Simply going into the draft and picking the first three running backs you can is short sighted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, for the record. You will draft Ladell Betts over Steve Smith? Really?

 

 

Never said I would take him over Steve Smith. I was just trying to prove a point that WRs that you think are so GODLY are over rated. Why is that so hard to understand? Do you think that just because his name is Steve Smith, he gets extra points for that or something???The great CHAD JOHNSON in the 2nd round eh? 11 games of 10 points of less in 06. What is a dissapointment for a 2nd rounder!

 

My point here is that WRs can wait till later rounds because they are so deep. I picked up Coles in the 7th round. You wanna know his stats compared to Steve Smith??176 to 148. Thats a difference of 1.75 points per game.

 

I'm not saying I would take anyone over anyone. My arguement is what I prefer to take the first 3 rounds of MY LEAGUE. I have never gotten a TOP wideout in any of my leagues, because you dont need them to win.

 

I won 2 out of 4 leagues last year drafting the way I do. None of my winning teams had a top wideout, payton manning, or laidainian tomlinson. I had good wideouts that fell into the later rounds and consistent RBs carrying the load with a Good QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why sure that strategy works if you are in a league where only RBs and QBs are mandated, but if you are REQUIRED to play other positions, then you must take into account where the value breakpoints are in the general value pool and choose your players appropriately.

 

Once you are in tier three of the RBs, they tend to level off somewhat losing somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-20 points over the course of a round of selection, while the difference between a Gates and the next TE (which you will have to field) is something along the lines of 40 points over the course of a season.

 

So if you take your Ahman Green who for the sake of argument will score 220 points over the course of a season, and have the brilliant luck to pick up say, Gonzo (124) the next round, then your total over the season is 344.

 

However, if instead, you pick up Gates @ 161, then pick up Betts @ 200 , you will have 361. Both choices give you the third running back and the tight end spot you need, but there is a clear advantage to the Gates pick. Simply going into the draft and picking the first three running backs you can is short sighted.

 

 

ahh. Very good point and numbers. At last, someone has actually put some thought into their reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ahh. Very good point and numbers. At last, someone has actually put some thought into their reply.

 

Those numbers were the exact point of the thread I referred you to that you apparently ignored. It is why until provided the data needed to do a basic value analysis of your league, any debate on the subject is moot as no data has been provided, but, just because a Ladell Betts scores more points than a Steve Smith or anAntonio Gates does not neccesarily make him more valuable than those players.

 

I'll reiterate my earlier point, getting guys like Coles in the 7th and I think it was you who mentioned Winslow in the 10th is less indicative of your FF acumen and more indicative of the level of competition, be it owner experience level or number of teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ahh. Very good point and numbers. At last, someone has actually put some thought into their reply.

All of us understand his point, he's simply the first person that was able to successfully dumb it down for you to understand. This is why we should never argue with an idiot, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information