Fantasy Football Draft Tonight

Dave-O wrote:

healdgator wrote:
I am happy to have people continue to blow top picks on QBs while I ride CJ and JC to yet another title, while the stiffs running Fred Jackson and Shonn Greene out there with Phillip Rivers continue to wonder why I win our league every year.

Yes, because comparing a keeper league where you have CJ and Charles is clearly analogous to a re-draft league.

Keeper vs. re-draft is irrelevant. We have 2 keepers this year. I traded Brady last year b/c I knew I wouldn't keep him. That's the same thing as drafting 2 RBs ahead of Brady (the #1 or 2 QB in the league, arguably). Granted, I have 2 of the top 3 RBs, but my plan would have been the same for about 10 RBs. You cannot win if you are forced to start the #22 RB. You can if you start the #11 QB.

Dave-O wrote:

Chris M wrote:The average draft position for Vick is #9. The average draft position for Cutler is #110.



The average draft position for someone you could take instead of Vick like Rashard Mendenhall is #10.



The RBs available down at average draft position #110 are guys like Michael Bush and LDT.



Vick is projected to score 360-380 points in 2011 and Bush/LDT are projected to score 80-100 points



Cutler is projected to score 260-270 and Rashard Mendehall 220-235



Cutler/Mendehall 480-505 > Vick and (Bush or LDT) 440-480



Now that is just an example and I'm sure we could find RB/QB pairings which make the case better for my advice (wait on QBs) or for Dave's case (take Vick early) but my view is that when you take anything but a WR/RB in the first 4 rounds, you are making a conscious choice to have to start someone at RB or WR that you draft late or relying on finding gold on the waiver wire. My approach has been to draft 2 QBs for a 1 QB league late and then play the matchups. I want STARTING RBs filling all of my RB slots and if the cost of doing that is me having to figure out which one of Stafford/Bradford/Cassell/Cutler should be started in a given week, I'm OK with that. You'll never see one of my teams drafting a guy like Danny Woodhead or James Stewart and just plugging them into the starting lineup hoping they score enough points to warrant being a starter.

You're entire anlogy is void because I'm not advocating waiting until round 10 for the LDT/Bush types. I'm saying that you draft your 2 RBs in round 2-3-4 because the difference in the top 20 or isnt that drastic. Your RB is still filled by pick 48 at the worst, so guys like Forte, DeAngelo, Bradshaw, Moreono, Blount, etc.

Again, my entire argument is that the points you "lose" between Mendenhall and Forte/DeAngelo is less than the points you lose between Vick/Rodgers and Cutler/Eli.

All that said, I would have taken Arian #8 if Vick and Rodgers were gone as well.

You may have filled your RB void at pick 48, but you aren't getting even close to Forte, Williams or Blount at that point. Those guys are all gone in the first round or very early second and guys you don't want to have to rely on (like Moreno and Bradshaw) are going to go very shortly after that.

healdgator wrote:
Keeper vs. re-draft is irrelevant. We have 2 keepers this year. I traded Brady last year b/c I knew I wouldn't keep him. That's the same thing as drafting 2 RBs ahead of Brady (the #1 or 2 QB in the league, arguably). Granted, I have 2 of the top 3 RBs, but my plan would have been the same for about 10 RBs. You cannot win if you are forced to start the #22 RB. You can if you start the #11 QB.

Disgaree completely. I won last year starting McCoy and Fred Jackson/Bount. McCoy was ranked, what, 15 heading into the season? And Jackson supposedly wasn't starting?

The rest of my team:

QB: Vick
WR: Megatron and Bowe
TE: Witten

In fact, the most common player amongst teams that won their league last year, at 21%, was Michael Vick. Not Arian, AP, Charles, Rice or any other RB.

Not to mention, do some research as to the number of pre-season top 10's at each position compared to who actually finishes in the top 10. RBs have the lowest percentage; QBs the highest. In other words, the RB is the most unpredictable and volatile while QB is the safest and most stable.

healdgator wrote:
You may have filled your RB void at pick 48, but you aren't getting even close to Forte, Williams or Blount at that point. Those guys are all gone in the first round or very early second and guys you don't want to have to rely on (like Moreno and Bradshaw) are going to go very shortly after that.

Right now, the average draft position for all leagues puts these RBs in the 3rd - 6th rounds:

Peyton Hillis RB 25.6
LeGarrette Blount RB TB 27.2
Felix Jones RB - 30.6
Shonn Greene RB NYJ 33.6
Ahmad Bradshaw RB NYG 35.1
Jahvid Best RB DET 38.1
Knowshon Moreno RB DEN 46.1
Ryan Mathews RB SD 46.9
Mark Ingram RB NO 47.4
DeAngelo Williams RB CAR 49.8
Beanie Wells RB ARI 52.6
Tim Hightower RB WAS 55.8
Ryan Grant RB GB 58.0
Cedric Benson RB CIN 64.9

You can absolutely win a title with 2 from that group as your starting RB. The key to doing so is finding the right one, which as I said above, is very difficult with RBs. Its too volatile and different from year to year.

Here, I'll make a side bet with you: I will wager that 2 from the above listed group finish the season in the top 12 of all RBs. Deal?

Dave-O wrote:

In fact, the most common player amongst teams that won their league last year, at 21%, was Michael Vick. Not Arian, AP, Charles, Rice or any other RB.

Like I said, you have to hit the lottery with a high risk pick or a late round throw away pick. Vick wasn't even the starter at the beginning of last season, so you probably had some high round picks that panned out. Who was originally your QB last year and where did you pick him? I'm not entirely disagreeing with you, but Vick from last year is a bad example to use. Manning or Brady killing people that took them 1st after their huge years is a more likely outcome.

The crux of this debate is whether or not you should take a QB in the first 5 rounds. I say NO and that you should fill your WR/RB starting slots first before looking at QB. So here's the ADP of QBs:

6	Aaron Rodgers	GB	QB 1	9	4	10	6	6	6
9	Michael Vick	PHI	QB 2	26	7	6	9	7	7
15	Tom Brady	NE	QB 3	22	11	22	18	10	15
19	Drew Brees	NO	QB 4	24	14	30	16	15	14
24	Philip Rivers	SD	QB 5	31	17	26	24	20	19
35)	Tony Romo	DAL	QB 6	33	34	47	39	33	39
51	Matt Schaub	HOU	QB 7	74	43	63	44	38	43
54	Matt Ryan	ATL	QB 8	73	40	65	52	36	57
58	Ben Roethlisberger	PIT	QB 9	71	50	70	60	56	50
61	Peyton Manning	IND	QB 10	68	59	71	62	48	58
75	Josh Freeman	TB	QB 11	78	72	89	70	72	69
79	Matthew Stafford	DET	QB 12	75	70	78	84	81	95
83	Eli Manning	NYG	QB 13	82	80	103	75	78	80

So, my contention is that by going all RB and WR through the first 5 rounds (60 picks), you are going to likely be looking at a QB from Schaub on down in that list.



And my further conention is that going with Schaub on down (and I like going with 2 of them and playing matchups) PLUS the RB/WR you took in rounds 1-5 is BETTER than taking a QB higher on the list than Schaub but having not taken one of the RB/WRs that went in the first 60 picks.



Exceptions will abound but as a general strategy, I like my chances with a clear cut starter at QB with upside like Stafford or Freeman versus having to draft a starting RB/WR after round 5 and hope that a guy in a playing time questionable situation like Reggie Bush, Tim Hightower or Ryan Grant is worth it as a starter all year.

mul21 wrote:

Dave-O wrote:

In fact, the most common player amongst teams that won their league last year, at 21%, was Michael Vick. Not Arian, AP, Charles, Rice or any other RB.

Like I said, you have to hit the lottery with a high risk pick or a late round throw away pick. Vick wasn't even the starter at the beginning of last season, so you probably had some high round picks that panned out. Who was originally your QB last year and where did you pick him? I'm not entirely disagreeing with you, but Vick from last year is a bad example to use. Manning or Brady killing people that took them 1st after their huge years is a more likely outcome.

Let me answer that in two ways, because you're going to try to use my draft to prove your point not to pick a QB early. My draft went:

1. Moss
2. Calvin
3. McCoy
4. Forte
5. Bowe
6. Witten

I actually left the draft with no QB. I had two guys targeted I wanted late, and since everyone else had 2 QBs already, I thought I could just keep waiting. My drunk friends picked up on what I was doing and started drafting a 3rd QB to try and screw me. So I left with no QB. Everyone thought it was hilarious.

Since I had the 12th pick, I had the #1 waiver priority, which means I had Vick fall into my lap. Completely lucky; I'll be the first to admit that.

BUUUT, I also got ZERO production from my first pick. Its not like I spent an early pick on a RB. In essence, replace Moss with Vick and my draft is the exact same - i.e. I won without overpaying for an "elite" running back.

Chris M wrote:
Exceptions will abound but as a general strategy, I like my chances with a clear cut starter at QB with upside like Stafford or Freeman versus having to draft a starting RB/WR after round 5 and hope that a guy in a playing time questionable situation like Reggie Bush, Tim Hightower or Ryan Grant is worth it as a starter all year.

But you're operating under a false assumption that drafting a top QB dooms you to be stuck with the likes of Reggie Bush! That's simply not true. Its a straw man.

Dave-O wrote:

healdgator wrote:
Keeper vs. re-draft is irrelevant. We have 2 keepers this year. I traded Brady last year b/c I knew I wouldn't keep him. That's the same thing as drafting 2 RBs ahead of Brady (the #1 or 2 QB in the league, arguably). Granted, I have 2 of the top 3 RBs, but my plan would have been the same for about 10 RBs. You cannot win if you are forced to start the #22 RB. You can if you start the #11 QB.

Disgaree completely. I won last year starting McCoy and Fred Jackson/Bount. McCoy was ranked, what, 15 heading into the season? And Jackson supposedly wasn't starting?

The rest of my team:

QB: Vick
WR: Megatron and Bowe
TE: Witten

In fact, the most common player amongst teams that won their league last year, at 21%, was Michael Vick. Not Arian, AP, Charles, Rice or any other RB.

Not to mention, do some research as to the number of pre-season top 10's at each position compared to who actually finishes in the top 10. RBs have the lowest percentage; QBs the highest. In other words, the RB is the most unpredictable and volatile while QB is the safest and most stable.

Every year you have to hit on some players. The draft is actually overrated in FF. In the 3 years I have won in the last 6, my team has looked pretty dramatically different than it did when the year started. That doesn't mean you don't draft the best team you can project. If you knew which players were going to have breakout years, it would be easy (like when I drafted CJ before his rookie season even though he wasn't on the draft board).

As to your point about QBs being the most predictable, you rode a QB who wasn't even on the draft board last year to a title. How does that support your point? He didn't even play in 4 of the games last season, and you are going to pick him over a top RB. More power to you. The instability of the RB position just makes it that much more important to draft. CJ had a lousy season last year and JC was underused by Todd Haley. 2 keepers, neither had huge seasons, and I still won. It is unlikely that both finish in the top 3 this year, even though they are projected there. It is also unlikely that either guy falls out of the top 15. So I have 2 consistent scorers as opposed to 1. Except that I have a consistent scorer at QB too b/c there are 10 or 11 QBs who are going to score for you every single week.

BTW, you are screwed on Bowe this year if you still have him. 2 years ago I drafted him high and he was a complete bust. Last year, I passed him over b/c I wasn't making that mistake again. He was huge. This year, he was my second receiver drafted. So he's going to suck. I just need him to be big for a couple of weeks early so I can move him.

Fantasy Football is all about opportunity. If your guys aren't on the field, they can't score points. You can get a QB that is going to be on the field at any point in the draft (unless your like Dave and not draft one). You can't do that with any other position (not counting kickers).

Anyway, you can argue till the cows come home about the best strategy in FF. I think the most important thing is to have a solid strategy going into your draft and then execute it. My worst teams in FFL have been when I tried to react to what other people were doing and changed strategy mid-draft.


Oh yeah. And we're all dorks.

Dave-O wrote:

mul21 wrote:

Dave-O wrote:

In fact, the most common player amongst teams that won their league last year, at 21%, was Michael Vick. Not Arian, AP, Charles, Rice or any other RB.

Like I said, you have to hit the lottery with a high risk pick or a late round throw away pick. Vick wasn't even the starter at the beginning of last season, so you probably had some high round picks that panned out. Who was originally your QB last year and where did you pick him? I'm not entirely disagreeing with you, but Vick from last year is a bad example to use. Manning or Brady killing people that took them 1st after their huge years is a more likely outcome.

Let me answer that in two ways, because you're going to try to use my draft to prove your point not to pick a QB early. My draft went:

1. Moss
2. Calvin
3. McCoy
4. Forte
5. Bowe
6. Witten

I actually left the draft with no QB. I had two guys targeted I wanted late, and since everyone else had 2 QBs already, I thought I could just keep waiting. My drunk friends picked up on what I was doing and started drafting a 3rd QB to try and screw me. So I left with no QB. Everyone thought it was hilarious.

Since I had the 12th pick, I had the #1 waiver priority, which means I had Vick fall into my lap. Completely lucky; I'll be the first to admit that.

BUUUT, I also got ZERO production from my first pick. Its not like I spent an early pick on a RB. In essence, replace Moss with Vick and my draft is the exact same - i.e. I won without overpaying for an "elite" running back.

Or replace Moss with any top RB and you could have locked down a QB that you wanted. Your "strategy" completely falls apart if the brittle QB behind the porous offensive line is out for 6 weeks instead of 3. There have basically been 2 locks in FF - Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. Brady was out for a whole season 1 year and Manning may be this year. Rodgers is probably close to a lock at this point, nobody else. For most of the season, Brees, Rivers, and Schaub (frequent FF darlings) were no better than Flacco and Freeman.

Dave-O wrote:

Chris M wrote:
Exceptions will abound but as a general strategy, I like my chances with a clear cut starter at QB with upside like Stafford or Freeman versus having to draft a starting RB/WR after round 5 and hope that a guy in a playing time questionable situation like Reggie Bush, Tim Hightower or Ryan Grant is worth it as a starter all year.

But you're operating under a false assumption that drafting a top QB dooms you to be stuck with the likes of Reggie Bush! That's simply not true. Its a straw man.

I like the phrase "false dichotomy". I'm never sure of its perfect meaning but if you throw it out there in a debate, people will definitely think you know what you are talking about...



I'm not saying you will be automatically doomed to the likes of Reggie Bush as a starter but it is true that if you draft a QB in rounds 1-5, you will be drafting a RB or WR in round 6 or later and that guy starts for you week 1. Obviously we've been using 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR for all this debating. So if you take a QB anywhere in those first 5 rounds, you are going to be drafting a starter at the RB/WR slot after pick 60 and that looks very ugly to me. Sure there are some people down there who may pay off big (you and I both like Kenny Britt) but I'm not comfortable with NEEDING a starter at RB/WR from those rounds and yet I can stomach having a guy like Stafford or Ben or Schaub start for me because I know that, absent injury, those guys will be in there slinging it as starters for their real life NFL teams all year. A RB taken after round 5? YIKES. Much better chance than not that the RB ends up having little startable value. I like taking fliers on roster fillers and bench spot RBs with upside in those middle to late rounds but I want my 2 RB and 3 WR starters to have as little doubt about their status as possible so I skip QB early and go with only RB/WR in the first 5 rounds.

I go for WRs last. They are a complete crapshoot. I'm never in a position to draft Andre, Calvin or Fitzgerald anyway. I can pick up WRs to survive the season. RBs are gold. Nobody trades a good RB.

B/c of my extra 2nd round draft pick, I was a pick ahead of every all draft this year. I have 4 #1 WRs on my roster. It's a lock that at least 2 of them will be busts. Just the way it goes.

Also, people always wait too long to draft their defense. I'll take my locked in points for the Steelers D over some gamble at WR any day.

I always like to have at least one QB/WR combo on my team. This year I took Josh Freeman/Mike Williams. Some possible later round pickups to consider are Mike Tolbert, a classic TD poacher, Detroit Lions Defense, Darren Sproles

I got mauled week 1.

I have got a good chance of pulling out a victory this week. Thanks in part to the blocked punt returned for a touchdown by the Jets Def/ST.