Unconvential Roster

[notamomo]

Have the 4th pick in a redraft. Roster is:

QB

RB

WR

WR

RB/WR Flex

TE, K, DST

 

Scoring is:

6 pts all TDs, 1pt per 10yds Rush/Receive, 1 pt per 25 yds passing

bonus point PPR each reception after 6 receptions

bonus point for TDs longer than 40, 60(+2), 80(+4) yds

 

So...with the premium on receivers ad confident that AJ is there at #4, I'm seriously considering taking him. In the second, I'm probably looking at Jennings, Colston, or Fitz. Not confidence-inspiring WR1s in this format. (2RBs and 2WRs OR 1RB and 3WRs)

 

I know there's a lot of talk about where AJ should go. Is #4 too high with Ray Rice and Gore available? Thanks for any input.

 

PS- I won the league with AJ (and CJ) last year....

[ts]

Do you project (for example) AJ + CedBen or S. Greene or R. Matthews (or whatever RB you expect to be available in round 2) to outscore (for example) Gore + Colston in your league's format? Maybe RBs better than those I've listed as round 2 examples will still be on the board if you expect a lot of owners to be drafting WRs early, but I still think the question to be answered here is "where do you expect to see the larger dropoff in value/production, RB or WR"?

 

If you expect the difference between AJ & whatever WR you'd get in round 2 if you go RB in round 1 to be significantly greater that the scoring difference in the players available if you reverse the picks - meaning take AJ at 1.4 thinking that the difference in RB value will be less significant between (say) Gore and who is on the RB board in the 2nd round, then no reason not to at least consider AJ in round 1 ... not sure I would adopt that strategy myself, but I can at least understand the thinking behind it ... so to sum up, assuming that these Huddle FF point projections end up being 100% accurate & using the players below as examples for this exercise:

 

AJ=266 points, Colston=211 points, Gore=287 points, CedBen=203 points.

 

AJ (rd1) + CedBen (rd2) = 469 FF points

Gore (rd1) + Colston (rd2) = 498 FF points

 

Again, your mileage will vary depending on your knowledge of your league owner drafting tendencies, true value placed on WRs in the "premium WR" scoring scheme you have described, expected injury risk for the players involved, etc ... but food for thought either way.

Edited August 9, 2010 by ts

[notamomo]

Great feedback ts.

 

I’m actually thinking something like AJ+ Colston/Jennings, then grabbing RB1 in the 3rd. The thinking is that picks 1-3 will all take RBs in the first and are less likely to take an RB in 2nd and 3rd (after me). That would leave at least one of the top 3RB options available to me in the 2nd STILL available for me in the 3rd.

 

The logic is: Virtually no dropoff at RB for me from 2nd to 3rd round so better to go WR, WR.

 

Plan B: If a value RB (Grant, Mendenhall) drops to me in 2nd, I can still grab him.

 

I think the logic is sound, but still need to talk myself into AJ at 4. Sounding better and better to me. How about you?

 

FWIW- this is my local and drafting is a little nuts. At least 5 QBs (maybe more)will be taken before I pick in the 3rd.

[ts]

... I'm actually thinking something like AJ+ Colston/Jennings, then grabbing RB1 in the 3rd ...

 

... I think the logic is sound ...

 

The logic makes some sense, but I think the exercise I proposed above is still as valid a means for you to prove or disprove to yourself if the plan will actually work out - just expand my "two round" scenario into a "three round" scenario, and repeat the exercise for several combinations of players that you think may be available to you when it is your turn to choose in each of the 1st three rounds, and you will likely be closer to your answer. While thinking that the dropoff at RB between rounds 2 & 3 may be minimal could well be correct, I still think you need to consider the overall picture of the combined value of the 1st three players you select ... meaning that if the WR dropoff is "smaller" prompting you to go WR-WR-RB, the plan may still be skewed if the "minimal" dropoff between RB in 2 vs 3 still ends up being greater in total than the overall production you might gain by going RB-WR-WR or WR-RB-WR.

Edited August 9, 2010 by ts

[delusions of grandeur]

Great feedback ts.

 

I’m actually thinking something like AJ+ Colston/Jennings, then grabbing RB1 in the 3rd. The thinking is that picks 1-3 will all take RBs in the first and are less likely to take an RB in 2nd and 3rd (after me). That would leave at least one of the top 3RB options available to me in the 2nd STILL available for me in the 3rd.

 

The logic is: Virtually no dropoff at RB for me from 2nd to 3rd round so better to go WR, WR.

 

Plan B: If a value RB (Grant, Mendenhall) drops to me in 2nd, I can still grab him.

 

I think the logic is sound, but still need to talk myself into AJ at 4. Sounding better and better to me. How about you?

 

FWIW- this is my local and drafting is a little nuts. At least 5 QBs (maybe more)will be taken before I pick in the 3rd.

 

Sounds like you have a well-thought out and flexible plan. I might lean towards AJ due to the 6+ receptions needed for the PPR bonus. Even with as many receptions that Rice had, he only had 4 regular season games with 6+ (barely, they were 7, 10, 8, 7). That's a very marginal bump for RBs if Ray Rice only got you 7 extra points over the course of the season... In contrast, AJ had 9 games with 6+ receptions, resulting in 21 additional points.

 

Only thing going against AJ is that the bonus is not much larger than you get with other guys who get around 100 catches (see Fitz, Steve Smith North), but with AJ's yardage and TD's, it only makes him more of a clearcut favorite... But because the bonus is so marginal between top WRs and RBs at their respective positons, it still really boils down to who you think has the better shot of being at the top of the list at their position by year's end. I could really make an argument for both in this format.