Mock draft

[Bronco Billy]

So, Bronco, are you going to back up your assertion that taking Brady in the mid 1st round is so unbelievably stupid that it warranted your comments?

 

Give me 15 minutes

 

I mean, short of just regurgitating some dogmatic RB/RB auto draft pap?

 

Yeah, sure - that's me, Mr. RB/RB

[The Wolf]

Give me 15 minutes

 

Edited May 29, 2008 by The Wolf

[tazinib1]

 

Could you pass me the remote? Or get off your butt and turn up the volume please? thanks.

[Caveman_Nick]

Could you pass me the remote? Or get off your butt and turn up the volume please? thanks.

 

 

I like this guy.

[detlef]

Give me 15 minutes

It's been 25...

[The Wolf]

Could you pass me the remote? Or get off your butt and turn up the volume please? thanks.

 

 

Go get your shine box!

[tazinib1]

 

Go get your shine box!

 

lol...well at least grab me a beer on your way out of the kitchen next time. Sheesh

[Bronco Billy]

Okay, using the scoring system above: 6 pts all TDs, 1 pt/20 yds passing, 1 pt/10 yds rush/rec, 1 ppr, here are the averages of 4 years of FF scoring data by position for starters, assuming 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE:

 

 

QB	1	438.2QB	2	419.8QB	3	381.6QB	4	370.4QB	5	365.6QB	6	361.0QB	7	351.4QB	8	337.0QB	9	334.0QB	10	331.8QB	11	323.9QB	12	312.3RB	1	416.2RB	2	395.2RB	3	367.4RB	4	340.6RB	5	324.3RB	6	306.1RB	7	291.5RB	8	269.4RB	9	258.3RB	10	246.1RB	11	240.5RB	12	235.1RB	13	231.2RB	14	226.1RB	15	220.7RB	16	215.4RB	17	211.2RB	18	206.5RB	19	203.8RB	20	198.3RB	21	191.1RB	22	182.0RB	23	178.8RB	24	175.6WR	1	338.2WR	2	313.0WR	3	290.1WR	4	285.1WR	5	282.3WR	6	278.1WR	7	272.4WR	8	264.6WR	9	261.0WR	10	249.6WR	11	247.0WR	12	243.9WR	13	240.9WR	14	236.5WR	15	230.3WR	16	224.0WR	17	218.1WR	18	215.7WR	19	212.9WR	20	209.1WR	21	206.8WR	22	204.3WR	23	198.5WR	24	192.7WR	25	189.6WR	26	187.0WR	27	184.5WR	28	181.9WR	29	179.3WR	30	174.8WR	31	171.3WR	32	165.1WR	33	162.7WR	34	161.1WR	35	159.4WR	36	156.5TE	1	242.3TE	2	201.8TE	3	184.1TE	4	168.3TE	5	165.1TE	6	157.7TE	7	155.8TE	8	141.8TE	9	128.7TE	10	121.7TE	11	120.2TE	12	116.4

 

 

We can see that QB is the highest scoring position, and in this system even the worst starting QB scores more than RB6, WR3, and TE1.

 

However, by just using scoring, we can't make comparisons between positions. What we need to look at is the difference between players at each position and compare those differences. This is a very basic value based comparison. If we look at having the highest scoring QB vs having the lowest scoring starting QB, we get a difference of 438.2 - 312.3 = 125.9 pts. But if we do the same thing with RBs, we get the highest scoring RB minus the lowest scoring starting RB, we get 416.2 - 175.6 = 240.6 pts. So even though the top RB scores less than the top QB, he is much more valuable than the top QB, because the difference between starting him against the worst starting RB in the league vs starting the top QB against the worst starting QB in the league is a difference of 114.7 pts. You score a lot more than your opponent with the top RB.

[Bronco Billy]

So is we create a baseline using the worst starter at each position: QB12, RB24, WR36, and TE12 as the baseline of each position, and then judge value of each player by how much more each player scores than the worst player at his position, we get a value for each player based upon the difference a team gains by starting that player over a lesser one at his position, but allowing a comparison across positions.

 

By ranking each player in terms of value, we get this:

 

 

1	RB1	240.62	RB2	219.63	RB3	191.84	WR1	181.75	RB4	165.06	WR2	156.67	RB5	148.78	WR3	133.79	RB6	130.510	WR4	128.611	QB1	125.912	TE1	125.913	WR5	125.914	WR6	121.615	WR7	116.016	RB7	115.917	WR8	108.218	QB2	107.519	WR9	104.520	RB8	93.821	WR10	93.222	WR11	90.523	WR12	87.424	TE2	85.425	WR13	84.526	RB9	82.727	WR14	80.128	WR15	73.929	RB10	70.430	QB3	69.331	TE3	67.732	WR16	67.533	RB11	64.934	WR17	61.735	RB12	59.536	WR18	59.237	QB4	58.138	WR19	56.539	RB13	55.540	QB5	53.341	WR20	52.642	TE4	51.943	RB14	50.544	WR21	50.345	TE5	48.746	QB6	48.647	WR22	47.848	RB15	45.149	WR23	42.150	TE6	41.351	RB16	39.852	TE7	39.453	QB7	39.154	WR24	36.255	RB17	35.656	WR25	33.257	RB18	30.958	WR26	30.659	RB19	28.260	WR27	28.161	TE8	25.462	WR28	25.463	QB8	24.764	WR29	22.865	RB20	22.766	QB9	21.767	QB10	19.568	WR30	18.369	RB21	15.570	WR31	14.871	TE9	12.372	QB11	11.673	WR32	8.674	RB22	6.375	WR33	6.376	TE10	5.377	WR34	4.778	TE11	3.879	RB23	3.280	WR35	3.081	QB12	0.082	RB24	0.083	TE12	0.084	WR36	0.0

 

 

You can see that RBs still dominate the top 12 spots (theoretcially the 1st round values), but with the 1 ppr, top WRs can creep up and have significant value, so we get 4 of them in the top 12. It takes until the 11th-13th slot before we see the value of QB1 show up, tied with TE1 and WR5, and above RB7. Then we see by the value of QBs that only one should go per round for the first 3 rounds until we get to the 4th round and we get multiple QBs in the same round.

 

In other words, the difference between selecting a top 2 or 3 starting QB, even in a 6 pt/pass TD league isn't nearly as great as making sure that you fill top RB or WR spots in those first 3 rounds if you can. Those positions score more comparative points than the QBs do.

 

It's very basic value based drafting, and there is aa lot more to the theory than this, but it's pretty simple to see the differnce between the points a player scores and the value a player has.

[Bronco Billy]

This is also why players become more valuable as you start more players at that position. The deeper that a league has to go to find starters, say in a start 3 WR league vs a start 2 WR league, the more valuable those players become, because you increase the required player base to fill starting positions, thus requiring lower scoring players to be started, which in turn increases the difference in scoring that the higher scoring players have over the lowest starters, or in short, increasing their value.

 

It's also why increasing the scoring of passing TDs from say 4 pts/TD to 6 pts/TD doesn't make too much of a difference. The difference in scoring is the difference between how many TDs the top QB throws vs the TDs the worst QB throws, say maybe 36 TDs vs 24 TDs. That's a difference of 12 TDs X 2 pts/pass TD = 24 points. So while you may increase the value of the top QB by 24 points, the value of succesive QBs isn't nearly as great because the difference between passing TDs narrows as we go down the list. If we drop the top QB by 24 points, we see that he drops down the value chart by 7 slots. That's only half a round of value for those 2 points per passing TD over an entire season.

[Square]

I'm no expert but I've heard this enough times to believe it. Last year I thought Big Country just had a cut & paste response for this. Maybe we should sticky or have someone save the full explanation. People can disagree but it would at least save some time so the poster doesn't have to go through the explanation in multiple posts at multiple times throughout the year. Just my 2cents.

[Bronco Billy]

I'm no expert but I've heard this enough times to believe it. Last year I thought Big Country just had a cut & paste response for this. Maybe we should sticky or have someone save the full explanation. People can disagree but it would at least save some time so the poster doesn't have to go through the explanation in multiple posts at multiple times throughout the year. Just my 2cents.

 

Big Country = the man when it comes to explaining value. I'm just mumbling my way through this stuff and trying to provide some numbers so that it is easier to see and hopefully easier to understand. BC does an outstanding job, plus he's not the arrogant prick that I am.

[detlef]

Dude, I understand the whole bit about the top QB not being that much better than the 12th bit. Whereas the top RB is way better than the 24th, yada yada. That is not a revelation and certainly something you need to realize going into a draft.

 

However, simply pointing that out is precisely what I warned you against doing. That is, regurgitating dogmatic RB/RB pap. You haven't explained why Brady is not a worthy consideration mid 1st round, you've simply explained why RBs in general are move valuable than QBs.

 

Here's a crazy notion. Let's just say that we don't actually know who's going to be ranked 1-12 at QB come seasons end and who's going to be ranked 1-24 for RBs. So, you can skew the order of drafting players towards picking RBs over other positions but not to the exclusion of taking other positions highly at all. I mean, there's got to be a point, right? That point should come before you take a running back that you don't really feel all that confidently about over a QB or WR that you do.

 

Thing is, one could make a very compelling argument that happens after LT, SJax, AP, Westbrook, and Addai are off the board. Who behind them is such a lock that you just have to have a piece of them over a QB who just threw 50 TDs and was no slouch prior to that?

 

Grant? Who's got all of a good 2nd half of a season and no Brett Favre?

Gore? Who should be downgraded by the, "Don't take a RB on a really crappy offense in the 1st round rule of drafting"

LJ? Who's offense around him is about as compelling as Gores?

MJD? Who last year was hardly the model of consistency?

MB3? Who's team just drafted a RB in the 1st round?

 

I mean, just because you have to have RBs, doesn't mean that you have to take guys you're not excited about early. Of course, every year guys do just that. Thing is, just like the guy who didn't, they're combing the waiver wire to find RBs along with the guy who waited. The difference being is that they guy who waited has a stud at another position he took in the 1st round over that year's Lamont Jordan or William Green or Frank Gore or what have you.

 

So, that leaves WRs. Sure, TO or Moss could go there. Of course, considering NEs game plan, I don't see Moss going off without Brady doing the same so that's a wash.

 

So, my point still remains, while you can make an argument for taking somebody else there (and I would personally take Addai), it's not a joke of a pick. Especially when you consider that these guys who do early mocks are trying to be provocative. The point they're making here is that this year, more than others recently, there's a good argument for the 1st QB to come off the board in the middle of the 1st.

[Bronco Billy]

Dude, I understand the whole bit about the top QB not being that much better than the 12th bit. Whereas the top RB is way better than the 24th, yada yada. That is not a revelation and certainly something you need to realize going into a draft.

 

However, simply pointing that out is precisely what I warned you against doing. That is, regurgitating dogmatic RB/RB pap.

 

Please explain to me how you think you understand this when you make a statement like, "regurgitating dogmatic RB/RB pap". What I posted is exactly opposite of that, but I don't think you realize it.

 

And since you list the top RBs and then state that the grouping afterwards is in flux, then please explain to me how you know that Brady is going to be the #1 QB in FF next year. Personally, if you're going to pick the QB most likely to be the top FF QB, you ought to be looking more at Manning than Brady. He's outscored Brady cumulatively in this system over the past 4 years.

 

If you pick the wrong #1 QB, you've made a significant mistake, probably worse than making the same mistake at RB by picking one that finishes a few spots down the list.

Edited May 29, 2008 by Bronco Billy

[CKO KBox Joe]

Great thread!!! Can't wait to draft!!

[detlef]

Please explain to me how you think you understand this when you make a statement like, "regurgitating dogmatic RB/RB pap". What I posted is exactly opposite of that, but I don't think you realize it.

 

And since you list the top RBs and then state that the grouping afterwards is in flux, then please explain to me how you know that Brady is going to be the #1 QB in FF next year. Personally, if you're going to pick the QB most likely to be the top FF QB, you ought to be looking more at Manning than Brady. He's outscored Brady cumulatively in this system over the past 4 years.

 

If you pick the wrong #1 QB, you've made a significant mistake, probably worse than making the same mistake at RB by picking one that finishes a few spots down the list.

Well, mostly I referred to your answer as dogmatic RB/RB pap because, like you, I'm inclined to argue. Of course, my initial point was that I was not looking for a lecture on positional value because I understand the notion. And you have to admit that the whole value game means RB/RB for more people than it doesn't.

 

Here's the rub, if you guess Brady and it ends up being Manning, than you're likely still sitting with a top 3 QB. On the other hand, if you pick some RB just because you're supposed to take RBs for the 12 picks and it just so happens that there's only 5 RBs who are in positions that point to a predictable level of success, you're settling for somebody who's only marginally more likely to do well over the field rather than taking a guy at another position who's nearly a lock to be a solid starter on your team.

 

So, every year there comes a point in the draft where it doesn't make sense to pick a RB even though RBs are, in general, the most important position in FF. Some years there's 10 RBs who seem to be in a position where you can confidently predict success. This year it doesn't seem to be that way. So, putting your head down and saying, "You must never take a QB in the middle of the 1st", does seem to be rather dogmatic.

 

You still haven't mentioned the significant amount of players who should go before Brady to explain why 1.5 is such a horrible pick.

Edited May 29, 2008 by detlef

[MonkeyOne]

Good explanation BB.

[keggerz]

 

 

 

I give up, why is Bush mid-2d so hard to get? OK he racks up the catches, but even in PPR you need a guy who gives you consistent rush yds. A 3.7 YPC and maybe 10-12 rushes per game doesn't exactly shout out 1st rounder.

Well last yr pre-injury Bush was averaging 14.358 points per game(PPG) which was good for 10th best at RB and in 2006 he averaged 14.037 PPG which was good for 12th overall at RB....short of having Bush hate it is pretty easy to see he is a 1st round value in 1pt PPR leagues.

 

So, Bronco, are you going to back up your assertion that taking Brady in the mid 1st round is so unbelievably stupid that it warranted your comments? I mean, short of just regurgitating some dogmatic RB/RB auto draft pap?

 

Like I said in my 1st post here, I certainly take Addai ahead of him but really couldn't find a compelling argument why anyone else taken behind were absolutely better picks. And keep in mind, I do not make a habit of taking QBs early.

 

This is not to say that one couldn't make an argument for taking somebody else there. However, I've made plenty of money off guys who are so hell bent on taking RBs early that they end up taking guys who are iffy prospects at RB over virtual locks at other positions.

I am also taking, Portis, Bush, Lynch & Gore(no particular order) over Brady...at that point I am probably looking at a few different WRs before brady too.

 

I wont profess RB/RB love as I have MANY times used WR/WR as well as RB/WR & WR/RB and this yr for the first time ever even went RB/QB(completely due to scoring system and TDs are only worth 4pts) so I guess that should make it easier for me to say taking a QB in the 1st round is just not a prudent thing to do. The reasons of value have been shown so I wont regurgitate any of that.

 

oh and quick tell me how many times Brady has passed for 30+ TDs and more then 4000 yards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

answers:

1 time has he eclipsed 30+ TD passes and that was last yr

twice he has eclipsed 4000+ yards passing ...last year (4806) and in 2005 (4110)

Edited May 29, 2008 by keggerz

[Caveman_Nick]

Well, mostly I referred to your answer as dogmatic RB/RB pap because, like you, I'm inclined to argue. Of course, my initial point was that I was not looking for a lecture on positional value because I understand the notion. And you have to admit that the whole value game means RB/RB for more people than it doesn't.

 

Here's the rub, if you guess Brady and it ends up being Manning, than you're likely still sitting with a top 3 QB. On the other hand, if you pick some RB just because you're supposed to take RBs for the 12 picks and it just so happens that there's only 5 RBs who are in positions that point to a predictable level of success, you're settling for somebody who's only marginally more likely to do well over the field rather than taking a guy at another position who's nearly a lock to be a solid starter on your team.

 

So, every year there comes a point in the draft where it doesn't make sense to pick a RB even though RBs are, in general, the most important position in FF. Some years there's 10 RBs who seem to be in a position where you can confidently predict success. This year it doesn't seem to be that way. So, putting your head down and saying, "You must never take a QB in the middle of the 1st", does seem to be rather dogmatic.

 

You still haven't mentioned the significant amount of players who should go before Brady to explain why 1.5 is such a horrible pick.

 

If I understand what you are saying correctly, you are trying to make a reference to what I like to call "Bust Factor", and saying something like "I know Brady/Manning are money picks, so why take the risk of bust factor with (pick a running back) when I can have a guy that I know will dominate his position?"

 

To a certain extent I think this makes some sense. Bust factor is something that I have been dealing with on a "gut feel" basis the last several years. Last year that "gut feel" was something akin to throwing up. I had at least 2 leagues in which I would have been better off drafting Brady in round one than drafting Shaun Alexander or Larry Johnson, or whoever I drafted.

 

The thing is this: At some point you have to deal with some kind of scoring projections, and in dealing with those scoring projections you are going to have to deal with making mistakes. Unless you can come up with a way to quantify bust factor, it is always going to be a risk to make certain choices. Part of the whole thing with making projections IMO is taking that bust factor into account. And I would offer the opinion that when comparing RBs to QBs, not only is the value scale from 1-24 more dramatic than from 1-12 on the QBs, the "bust factor" is also significantly more dramatic. And this ties right back into value because the 12 QBs chosen have inherently less "value" because as a group they have inherently more scoring and are sitting in a tighter group. The #24 RB is monumentally harder to predict than it is to predict who will be a top 12-15 QB.

 

So that's an argument for AND against. You should take one sooner instead of taking a bust risk because you have a much better level of confidence that you will be right, OR you take the RBs first because the bust factor increases significantly higher the lower you go in the pack. You could always plan to blanket a team's RBs later, spending 4th, 5th, and 12th round picks on players like Cedric Benson, Matt Forte, and Adrian Peterson, but then you also have to ask if the risk factor you avoided at QB was worth spending those extra picks to minimize a now risky RB situation.

[keggerz]

If I understand what you are saying correctly, you are trying to make a reference to what I like to call "Bust Factor", and saying something like "I know Brady/Manning are money picks, so why take the risk of bust factor with (pick a running back) when I can have a guy that I know will dominate his position?"

If someone is going to go by what you call the "Bust Factor" then the pick should really be Manning if you are gonna take a QB that early.

[Caveman_Nick]

If someone is going to go by what you call the "Bust Factor" then the pick should really be Manning if you are gonna take a QB that early.

 

From a consistency standpoint considering the last 5 years I agree completely. From the standpoint that you recognize that Brady has been one of the top QBs even without any WRs to throw to and that he has virtually the same cast to throw to this year as last year, I disagree.

 

I guess it depends on your approach and the POV you wish to take.

Edited May 30, 2008 by Caveman_Nick

[detlef]

Well, first off, I am not trying to make an argument that Brady is absolutely the guy you need to take at 1.6 (again, since I would absolutely take Addai and the other 4 guys taken 1-4 before him). My point is simply that it is not the horrible pick that BB said it is. That, at some point, you need to start taking the best player out there and not be hamstrung some need to load up on RBs.

 

A good drafter takes advantage of two things: People not giving RBs the attention they deserve and people fixating on the position to the extent that they take marginal RB talent when elite talent exists at other positions.

 

Everyone goes on and on about how the depth at QB. Well, those of us who passed on the top tier QBs last year and got somebody who's "just about as good but doesn't have the flashy name" by grabbing Bulger and Kitna a few rounds later needed to get lucky with our QB2 or we were hosed. I was the guy who got Bulger, fortunately for me, Matt Leinart was gone so I took my second choice for QB2 with Big Ben and it worked out. However, I seem to recall that pretty much the rest of the guys that were out there when I grabbed Big Ben didn't end up doing jack, so I really did get lucky.

 

Now, for the most part, I've made my fantasy living by avoiding the QB position and would, quite frankly rather not be in the second half of the 1st round this year. It looks like things get pretty muddy right around there and not a whole lot muddier than they're going to be when you get into the low 20s. I mean, all those RBs people are listing up there do no more for me than Brandon Jacobs and it seems as if either some version of those guys plus him are going to be around there. As for the WRs, you miss out on Moss and likely TO, but some version of Larry Fitz. R Wayne, Steve Smith, etc. (forgive me as I don't bother doing mocks until much later in the summer) will be there as well. I would take one of those top 5 plus sloppy seconds on that batch with the outside chance of one of them making it back around for early 3rd over the best two of what RBs and WRs everyone is saying are such better picks than Brady.

 

So, my point is, quite very simply, that after the 1st 5, it really just comes down to who you like. And if the notion of being able to put Brady, who's got the same weapons as last year and has a coach who doesn't take his foot off the gas, on a team with a bitter taste in their mouth about how last year ended up, who'd love nothing more than to throttle the league next year, then it seems like a sensible enough pick.

 

Maybe the pick I'd make, maybe not. However, hardly a stupid pick, especially prior to June 1.

[Bring Back Pat!!!]

First, in that spot, I take Addai.

 

And there's a flaw in BBs analysis of his numbers. We should be looking at the difference of the RB's we have a chance to draft, not the RB class as a whole...

 

I don't think the Brady pick is that bad if you look at BB's numbers closer, because the comparison should be between the RB5 spot and the, say RB11 spot (a guess as to what would be available at the 2.08), since the first four picks of the draft were RBs that we can't have. The difference between those spots is 84 points using BBs info. Now, if you look at the difference between the QB1 spot and say, the QB4 spot (assuming you still want a QB fairly early b/c of the scoring system) the difference is only 68 points. Now, this is where personal rankings and projections come in, because I for one think the difference between QB2 and QB3 this year is going to be bigger than that chart shows, and therefore even bigger than what 1-4 shows, making the Brady pick easily explainable, imho.

[Sturphy]

Big Country = the man when it comes to explaining value. BC does an outstanding job

Amen.

[MikesVikes]

Brady was the 16th overall scorer in a PPR league in 2006. Manning, Brees, Bulger, Vick, Palmer, and Kitna would've done better for you of course.

 

In 2005, he was the 8th top scorer but two other QBs would be 1st rounders if you're looking for the top 12 scoring players.

 

I'm thinking that if you picked Manning as a 1st rounder the year after he broke records, you might have been disappointed.

Edited May 30, 2008 by MikesVikes