Taking P Manning #1

[Grits and Shins]

Before I see "the Light", you will have to enlighten me on the calculations used to arrive at the value by position

 

It's called basic math

[Qball86]

Before I see "the Light", you will have to enlighten me on the calculations used to arrive at the value by position

 

Look....I think somethings about to bite. He must be intriqued by the smell of the "value rank list" bait you used. I'm telling you what JJ, give in to it now. You can fight it all you want but eventually when you finally sit down and read it, it makes sense.

[Big Country]

Before I see "the Light", you will have to enlighten me on the calculations used to arrive at the value by position

 

Here is what I did.

 

I took the numbers you posted and put them into Excel. I deleted the three outliers that all ahve agreed are non-typical performances (Manning an Culpepper in 2005 and LT in 2006).

 

THen, I delete the names assosciated with the scores as they are irrelevent. THe top scoring QB is now QB1. I then average QB1 for the three years of data that we have. I do this for QB2 on through QB24. Repeat theprocess for RBs and WRs and I now have my average score for each rank within each position.

 

Then, to determine "value" so that we can compare across position and not just within position, I take the score of QB24 and subtract that from all of the QBs. I do the same for RBs, using the score for RB24 and for WRs using WR24. This is why the 24 for each position has a value of 0. This now gives us a number that can be used to show relative value between positions, based on a 3-year scoring average for the positions.

 

Simply sort the QB, RB and WR by the value number and you get the list I showed you in my initial post.

 

In that post I then detailed the thought process and considerations that need to be made when looking at those first 5-6 rounds of picks, utilizing an established draft pattern of your other owners (QB heavy in the first 2 rounds, light on RBs and almost no WRs) to show the effects and overall value of certain draft options.

 

Obviously, the player you select must perform at or above their draft position, but, quite frankly, I would be a lot more confident in a WR like Chad Johnson, Steve Smith, etc. performing closer to the top of the WRs ranks than I would be in the performance of whatever QB you are considering at the end of the 2nd/beginning of the 3rd. Because QB performance is relatively flat beyond the first 4-5, which the numbers support, there is little benefit to taking a QB in the 2nd/3rd (whether your first one if you do go LT with #1 or your second one if you do go Manning) compared to the QBs you would be looking at in the 4th/5th or the 6th/7th compared to the enormous drop you will see in WR performance for sure and to a lesser extent, RB performance.

 

At the very least, I hope this discussion has "opened your mind" to the possibility that the historical performance of players and your leagues draft tendencies certainly provide some extremely advantageouos positions for you to consider with your picks if you buck the QB/QB/RB mentality that is apparently prevalent in your league.

[Grits and Shins]

The "X" Factor.

[Bronco Billy]

Here is what I did.

 

I took the numbers you posted and put them into Excel. I deleted the three outliers that all ahve agreed are non-typical performances (Manning an Culpepper in 2005 and LT in 2006).

 

THen, I delete the names assosciated with the scores as they are irrelevent. THe top scoring QB is now QB1. I then average QB1 for the three years of data that we have. I do this for QB2 on through QB24. Repeat theprocess for RBs and WRs and I now have my average score for each rank within each position.

 

Then, to determine "value" so that we can compare across position and not just within position, I take the score of QB24 and subtract that from all of the QBs. I do the same for RBs, using the score for RB24 and for WRs using WR24. This is why the 24 for each position has a value of 0. This now gives us a number that can be used to show relative value between positions, based on a 3-year scoring average for the positions.

 

Simply sort the QB, RB and WR by the value number and you get the list I showed you in my initial post.

 

In that post I then detailed the thought process and considerations that need to be made when looking at those first 5-6 rounds of picks, utilizing an established draft pattern of your other owners (QB heavy in the first 2 rounds, light on RBs and almost no WRs) to show the effects and overall value of certain draft options.

 

Obviously, the player you select must perform at or above their draft position, but, quite frankly, I would be a lot more confident in a WR like Chad Johnson, Steve Smith, etc. performing closer to the top of the WRs ranks than I would be in the performance of whatever QB you are considering at the end of the 2nd/beginning of the 3rd. Because QB performance is relatively flat beyond the first 4-5, which the numbers support, there is little benefit to taking a QB in the 2nd/3rd (whether your first one if you do go LT with #1 or your second one if you do go Manning) compared to the QBs you would be looking at in the 4th/5th or the 6th/7th compared to the enormous drop you will see in WR performance for sure and to a lesser extent, RB performance.

 

At the very least, I hope this discussion has "opened your mind" to the possibility that the historical performance of players and your leagues draft tendencies certainly provide some extremely advantageouos positions for you to consider with your picks if you buck the QB/QB/RB mentality that is apparently prevalent in your league.

 

Something else you need to remember, jj, is that BC is doing some very basic value calcs to come to his conclusions. If he weighted the players (for the exact reason he mentioned - that you can draft a better team even without picking the "most valuable" player with the first pick shows that LT does indeed have more value) and then ran a dynamic analysis as the draft progressed, you'd see RB & then WR values jump through the roof as you came up to draft.

 

That's a bit more complicated than the basics we're doing here, but I'm hoping that you see the point. The best part about all of this - the education is free & willingly given, unlike some other sites. There's no smoke & mirrors, and quite frankly it's not very difficult math. It's just a way to maximize your product as you play FF.

 

Good luck - I hope you take this to your draft with you. You'll enjoy some significant success in your league, until your leaguemates start catching on to what you are doing. But then the league gets really fun, because teams are better not because they happen to have great players accidentally fall into their laps, but because owners learn to be better FF players.

 

That's the reason we're all here - we love FF but we all know that there are ways to improve & make the experience really fun.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Bronco Billy

[jjwbean]

I come up with this result following 2 extremes for draft strategy based on players picked in 2006 draft. This is using your value table

 

 

Value

1.10 ---- RB ---- RB ! ---- 148

2.12 ---- WR ---- WR 2 ---- 73

3.10 ---- WR ---- WR 3 ---- 65

4.12 ---- RB ---- RB 15 ---- 27

5.10 ---- QB ---- QB 27 ---- 0

6.12 ---- QB ---- QB 32 ---- 0

Total 313

 

 

 

Value

1.10 ---- QB ---- QB 1 ---- 152

2.12 ---- RB ---- RB 8 ---- 60

3.10 ---- QB ---- QB 16 ---- 36

4.12 ---- RB ---- RB 15 ---- 27

5.10 ---- WR ---- WR 7 ---- 53

6.12 ---- WR ---- WR 18 ---- 10

Total 338

 

2006 Draft Results

 

Actual Cumulative

QB ---- RB ---- WR ---- QB ---- RB ---- WR

Round 1 ---- 9 ---- 3 ---- 0 ---- 9 ---- 3 ---- 0

Round 2 ---- 6 ---- 5 ---- 1 ---- 15 ---- 8 ---- 1

Round 3 ---- 5 ---- 6 ---- 1 ---- 20 ---- 14 ---- 2

Round 4 ---- 7 ---- 1 ---- 4 ---- 27 ---- 15 ---- 6

Round 5 ---- 1 ---- 4 ---- 7 ---- 28 ---- 19 ---- 13

[Grits and Shins]

I come up with this result following 2 extremes for draft strategy based on players picked in 2006 draft. This is using your value table

 

 

Value

1.10 ---- RB ---- RB ! ---- 148

2.12 ---- WR ---- WR 2 ---- 73

3.10 ---- WR ---- WR 3 ---- 65

4.12 ---- RB ---- RB 15 ---- 27

5.10 ---- QB ---- QB 27 ---- 0

6.12 ---- QB ---- QB 32 ---- 0

Total 313

Value

1.10 ---- QB ---- QB 1 ---- 152

2.12 ---- RB ---- RB 8 ---- 60

3.10 ---- QB ---- QB 16 ---- 36

4.12 ---- RB ---- RB 15 ---- 27

5.10 ---- WR ---- WR 7 ---- 53

6.12 ---- WR ---- WR 18 ---- 10

Total 338

 

2006 Draft Results

 

Actual Cumulative

QB ---- RB ---- WR ---- QB ---- RB ---- WR

Round 1 ---- 9 ---- 3 ---- 0 ---- 9 ---- 3 ---- 0

Round 2 ---- 6 ---- 5 ---- 1 ---- 15 ---- 8 ---- 1

Round 3 ---- 5 ---- 6 ---- 1 ---- 20 ---- 14 ---- 2

Round 4 ---- 7 ---- 1 ---- 4 ---- 27 ---- 15 ---- 6

Round 5 ---- 1 ---- 4 ---- 7 ---- 28 ---- 19 ---- 13

 

 

How did both teams end up with RB15?

 

I take it that you also have teams draft THREE QBs in the first 6 rounds if the best team 1 can do is QB27 and QB32???? I think if teams are taking 3 QBs in the first 6 rounds team 1 can do better than RB15 as his second RB

 

[EDIT]

I take you don't mean both teams were drafted in the same draft ... but both are examples of a draft that could have occurred. I still say if you have teams taking THREE QBs in the first 6 rounds then the first team can do better than RB15 in round 4. I also expect that in round 5 26 QBs aren't already off the board ... so that teams have drafted THREE QBs in the first 5 rounds.

 

If the QB that is available to me in the 5th round is so bad that it looks like he will score a zero then I will take another WR or RB reducing the talent at those position for all other teams.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Grits and Shins

[Big Country]

Well, with teams taking a 3rd QB in their first 4 picks, they are obviously hurting their starting lineup severely, but, also then forcing you to move earlier on QB.

 

I'm gonna have to say though, with what you have shown with draft tendencies, this league is very little fantasy football and very much QB crapshoot. I honestly don't see how you can derive a whole lot of enjoyment out of the game.

 

But, now that you see the "values, what non-extreme provides the best team. Could it be going RB, QB, QB knowing that your opponents are leaving the top WRs out there for you at the end of the 4th.

 

DOn't have time irght now, but I'd look to see what a RB, QB, QB, WR, WR team looked like or a QB, QB, WR, WR, RB team.

[Grits and Shins]

Well, with teams taking a 3rd QB in their first 4 picks, they are obviously hurting their starting lineup severely, but, also then forcing you to move earlier on QB.

 

I'm gonna have to say though, with what you have shown with draft tendencies, this league is very little fantasy football and very much QB crapshoot. I honestly don't see how you can derive a whole lot of enjoyment out of the game.

 

But, now that you see the "values, what non-extreme provides the best team. Could it be going RB, QB, QB knowing that your opponents are leaving the top WRs out there for you at the end of the 4th.

 

DOn't have time irght now, but I'd look to see what a RB, QB, QB, WR, WR team looked like or a QB, QB, WR, WR, RB team.

 

Like I edited to add to my previous comment ... if teams have taken 3 QBs by the 5th round and the QBs that are available to me all are projected at ZERO points then I will find better value by taking another RB or WR ... the best of either position that is available. This will reduce the talent of these positions available to teams who drafted 3 QBs and they will take zeroes in the RB1 or WR1 position.

[Big Country]

Like I edited to add to my previous comment ... if teams have taken 3 QBs by the 5th round and the QBs that are available to me all are projected at ZERO points then I will find better value by taking another RB or WR ... the best of either position that is available. This will reduce the talent of these positions available to teams who drafted 3 QBs and they will take zeroes in the RB1 or WR1 position.

 

I agree, however, with teams taking 3 QBs, you still need to draft two starting QBs, even if they are poor. I'd take Croyle and whomever ends up starting in Cleveland over backups. And, with only 2 starting RBs and WRs, you may be hurting the other teams, but not enough to make up for the loss at QB due to the number of available starters atthose positions (more so WR than RB). This is why most leagues I have seen that do start 2 QBs still have something like a 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE and one flex RB/WR/TE for their starting lineups.. so there is still some semblance of parity amongst the positions.

[Grits and Shins]

I agree, however, with teams taking 3 QBs, you still need to draft two starting QBs, even if they are poor. I'd take Croyle and whomever ends up starting in Cleveland over backups. And, with only 2 starting RBs and WRs, you may be hurting the other teams, but not enough to make up for the loss at QB due to the number of available starters atthose positions (more so WR than RB). This is why most leagues I have seen that do start 2 QBs still have something like a 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE and one flex RB/WR/TE for their starting lineups.. so there is still some semblance of parity amongst the positions.

 

Actually it looks like they start a TE ... I would draft Mr. Gates before a scrub QB

[PantherDave]

Ahhhh, guy's, he's disagreeing with the formula and your advise

 

he has RB WR WR RB QB etc=313

 

and QB RB QB RB WR etc=338

 

 

Like BC said, this is not FF, but a QB derby.

Edited August 14, 2007 by PantherDave

[PantherDave]

Grits, BC and BB-I commend all three of you...job well done. Alas, the saying is true.....you can lead a fektard to the keg, but ya can't make him drink of it's vast knowledge. It's best to let this Bush League return from wits it came...The Bush.

[Big Country]

Grits, BC and BB-I commend all three of you...job well done. Alas, the saying is true.....you can lead a fektard to the keg, but ya can't make him drink of it's vast knowledge. It's best to let this Bush League return from wits it came...The Bush.

 

But I like Bush...

[PantherDave]

But I like Bush...

 

 

Well, do you plan on "taking the mound" tonight

[Big Country]

Well, do you plan on "taking the mound" tonight

 

Well ,actually, my mother in law is supposed to be watching my oldest..... and once I am done with the CORE Auction and my wife kicks her Bunco friends out, I may have a full 10 minutes of time with her..... until she has to feed the 3 month old. At least that is 8 more minutes then I will really need.

[PantherDave]

Well ,actually, my mother in law is supposed to be watching my oldest..... and once I am done with the CORE Auction and my wife kicks her Bunco friends out, I may have a full 10 minutes of time with her..... until she has to feed the 3 month old. At least that is 8 more minutes then I will really need.

 

 

You gett'em Quick Draw!!!!

[jjwbean]

Grits, BC and BB-I commend all three of you...job well done. Alas, the saying is true.....you can lead a fektard to the keg, but ya can't make him drink of it's vast knowledge. It's best to let this Bush League return from wits it came...The Bush.

 

To PantherDave - thanks for being a total JackAss

 

To all others - thanks for the insight. It does make sense to look at top TE early based on 2006 results.

 

Gates, Antonio TE SD  ------------------------ 102

Gonzalez, Tony TE KC  ------------------------ 80

Winslow, Kellen TE CLE  ------------------------ 66

Crumpler, Alge TE ATL  ------------------------ 48

Shockey, Jeremy TE NYG  ------------------------ 42

Cooley, Chris TE WAS ------------------------ 38

Heap, Todd TE BAL  ------------------------ 36

Clark, Desmond TE CHI ------------------------ 36

Smith, L.J. TE PHI  ------------------------ 32

Miller, Heath TE PIT ------------------------ 30

Daniels, Owen TE HOU ------------------------ 30

Stevens, Jerramy TE TB  ------------------------ 26

[Grits and Shins]

IMO there are a few factors at play that cause the first few rounds of your draft to be dominated by the QB

 

1) All TDs are worth 6 points and clearly QBs score more TDs than any other position

2) Your league starts 2 QBs but the normal amount of other position players (2 RBs, 2 WRs, 1 TE, 1 PK, 1 DF)

3) Your league only awards yardage points at high thresholds (300 yards for QBs and 100 yard for all others)

4) Owners in your league tend to panic when QBs start flying off the board and once a run starts it doesn't stop until the QB position is drained

 

It doesn't seem to make sense to me to start 2 QBs and so few other skill positions. If I were going to start 2 QBs I also require 3 starting RBs and 4 starting WRs.

 

I'd also enhance the value of the other positions by awarding points per reception and I'd open up the yardage scoring so that points are awarded for every yard and not just at the threshold (you could still have threshold bonuses).

[jjwbean]

IMO there are a few factors at play that cause the first few rounds of your draft to be dominated by the QB

 

1) All TDs are worth 6 points and clearly QBs score more TDs than any other position

2) Your league starts 2 QBs but the normal amount of other position players (2 RBs, 2 WRs, 1 TE, 1 PK, 1 DF)

3) Your league only awards yardage points at high thresholds (300 yards for QBs and 100 yard for all others)

4) Owners in your league tend to panic when QBs start flying off the board and once a run starts it doesn't stop until the QB position is drained

 

It doesn't seem to make sense to me to start 2 QBs and so few other skill positions. If I were going to start 2 QBs I also require 3 starting RBs and 4 starting WRs.

 

I'd also enhance the value of the other positions by awarding points per reception and I'd open up the yardage scoring so that points are awarded for every yard and not just at the threshold (you could still have threshold bonuses).

 

Thanks for the analysis. I can not change the sytem and must work within the rules as set.

 

From our league's perspective starting 2 QB's makes as much sense as starting two RB's Most pro-sets only have one true RB in a game at one time with either a full back, an additonal WR or a TE\H back.

[Grits and Shins]

Thanks for the analysis. I can not change the sytem and must work within the rules as set.

 

From our league's perspective starting 2 QB's makes as much sense as starting two RB's Most pro-sets only have one true RB in a game at one time with either a full back, an additonal WR or a TE\H back.

 

I don't get your point ... it is rarer for there to be two QBs in the back field at the same time.

[jjwbean]

I don't get your point ... it is rarer for there to be two QBs in the back field at the same time.

 

 

My point is there is only 1 true RB on a team just like 1 true QB. To be accurate a fantasty offense should consist of one of the following

 

QB RB FB TE WR WR

QB RB TE WR WR WR

QB RB FB WR WR WR

 

Two actual starting RB's makes no more or no less sense than 2 QB's

[Big Country]

But this aint the NFL.

 

And, even you must concede that the majority of teams use multiple RBs over the course of the game, whether in the same backfield or as a rotation, with or without a FB.

 

I have no issues with your league setup. IMO, it emphasizes luck of QB performance and greatly de-emphasizes any other position, making it less of a game of strategy where you have a multitude of options to build yourself a winning team and makes it more of a QB lottery. Honestly, I do not think I would find much enjoyment from it as the luck factor of QB performances week in and week out greatly outweight the value of preparation and building a TEAM. But, if you and your other owners enjoy it, more power to you.

[jjwbean]

But this aint the NFL.

 

And, even you must concede that the majority of teams use multiple RBs over the course of the game, whether in the same backfield or as a rotation, with or without a FB.

 

I have no issues with your league setup. IMO, it emphasizes luck of QB performance and greatly de-emphasizes any other position, making it less of a game of strategy where you have a multitude of options to build yourself a winning team and makes it more of a QB lottery. Honestly, I do not think I would find much enjoyment from it as the luck factor of QB performances week in and week out greatly outweight the value of preparation and building a TEAM. But, if you and your other owners enjoy it, more power to you.

 

Your opinion of how are league works has no merit. As far as the 2 RB issue, virtually no team in the NFL will have 2 RB on the field at the same time with any real fantasy value other than the Saints A RB committee does not count as one RB is riding the pine while the other is in the game.

[Big Country]

Out of curiousity, is this the only league you have ever played in?