I think using this strategy is dangerous and a mistake IMO.
Just like guns. Guns don't kill people...
- Almost all WRs, even the top4-5 have streaks where they disappear. Building your team around WRs in the 1st 3-4 rounds is like building a house of cards. It's no different than the Lions picking WRs in the 1st round 3 years in a row or whatever they did.
It's very different. This paragraph is more of a rhetorical argument. Comparing this approach to the Lions of the Millen era is in my opinion poor hyperbole.In fact, this argument about disappearing WRs isn't backed up with any attempt to justify it with past history. Everything mentioned here isn't fact it's questions posed as if they were fact when in fact, they are anecdotal at best. In contrast, I have studied consistency at every position. What I have discovered, which you can find in the link I just embedded, is that your top 10-12 receivers have maybe 2-3 bad games per year. Not streaks of games where they disappear. And I define "disappear," as not earning fantasy points that would place them within the average points of the top 36 fantasy scorers at the position for that year. Also from this study...One thing that stands out immediately is that an average of seven of the top 12 receivers from 2006-2008 had a teammate in the top 36 WRs or a top 12 TEs. This is a big sign that you're looking for receivers from prolific passing offenses. So I'm not sure why MOP is using Detroit's offense as an example. I guess he's equating top rookie draft picks from a really bad judge of talent to equate to proven wide receivers in the league that you put on your roster. With all due respect MOP, it's not a good argument if you ask me.
There are two arguments (from this piece) in favor of drafting the very best receivers with one of your first two picks off the board in 2 RB-3 WR fantasy lineups. From 2006-2008 there were four receivers with three years in the Crank Top 12. In contrast, there was only one back that accomplished the same feat. At the same time, there are four backs with two years in the Crank Top 12 and only one receiver with the same feat. This only gives receivers a 6-5 edge in continuity, but when you compare how often these players reach Crank tiers the advantage becomes clearer. From 2006-2008, in a comparison of players with at least a 40 percent Elite score, the edge goes to the receivers 22-11. Receivers also hold a 13-2 score when measuring the Elite score at 50 percent. This helps validate the idea that if you are picking past the fifth spot in a 12-team league that considering one of the top receivers with your first pick is a sound strategy.
Although there are more RBs than WRs with performances in the No. 1 (top 12) and No. 2 (top 24) tiers, remember there are an extra twelve starting receivers to consider. If you grab one of the elite receivers, and still get two quality starting backs, you're likely to hold a points edge each week due to the fact you will still likely get a quality No. 3 receiver. In fact if you look at Detroit, they have weapons but what they lack is an OL, a good one anyways. You build from the inside out. Most of these WRs are only going to get 5-6 receptions a game on avg tops so they are limited to begin with. What if the weather is bad? Anyone else notice that teams tend to run the ball more late in the season when it's freezing outside? Ever had a WR heavy team that just disappears in the playoff weeks when the weather turns on everyone?
Let's take a peek at the dreaded weather issue from weeks 13-16, shall we? I don't know where you live MOP, but I'm presuming you've spent some time in South Florida. I'm just playing around with you here when I say this, but most South Floridians think anything below 75 degrees F is the "weather turning."
Here are players scoring at least double digits in week 16 last year (non PPR). When I list a team its potentially a cold weather game. I don't have time to dig into it to be certain. There were a total of 22 here are some of them 13 with at least 15 points: Johnny Knox vs. NYJ; Brandon Marshall; Roddy White; Percy Harvin vs. Phi; Santonio Holmes vs. CHI; Mike Williams (TB) vs. SEA; Mike Thomas vs. WAS; Greg Jennings vs. NYG; Kenny Britt vs. KC; Brandon Lloyd; Derrick Mason vs. CLE; Mike Wallace vs. CAR; Miles Austin; Michael Crabtree; Jordy Nelson; Mario Manningham vs. GB; Dwayne Bowe vs. TEN; Robert Meachem
Week 15 (some of the 27 with at least 10 points and 10 with at least 15 points): Braylon Edwards vs. PIT; Mike Wallace vs. NYJ;Andre Johnson vs. TEN; Roddy White; Larry Fitzgerald; Kenny Britt; Steve Johnson; Percy Harvin vs. CHI; Johnny Knox vs. MIN (if in CHI); Brandon Lloyd; Calvin Johnson; James Jones vs. NE; Mike Williams (TB); Brandon Marshall vs. BUF; Jacoby Ford vs. DEN; Jeremy Maclin vs. NYG; Santana Moss;Austin Collie; Mario Manningham vs. PHI; Vincent Jackson
Week 14 (22 receivers with at least 10 points and 7 with at least 15 points): Brandon Marshall; Roddy White; Reggie Wayne;Hines Ward vs. CIN; Wes Welker vs. CHI; Lance Moore; Santana Moss; Marques Colston; Malcolm Floyd vs. KC; Derrick Mason; Deion Branch vs. CHI; Pierre Garcon; Andre Johnson vs. BAltimore; DesEaon Jackson
Week 13 (16 receivers with at least 10 points and 7 with at least 15 points: Reggie Wayne; Greg Jennings; Sidney Rice (BUF); Anquan Boldin; Robert Meachem; Andre Johnson; Wes Welker; Donald Driver; Mike Williams (TB; Pierre Garcon; CAlvin Johnson (CHI); Marques Colston; Deion Branch(NYJ); Terrell Owens; Earl Bennett
- If you are not a savvy drafter, if you can't be ready to draft right now on a moment's notice inside of a couple minutes just off the top of your head, I would say this strategy is going to be very dangerous for you.
Not sure about that. I literally have 100s of emails from the past 3-4 years from people who tried this strategy and it worked out very well for them (playoffs, points titles, best record money; and championships). I agree that this strategy isn't for everyone. No strategy is but to say this one is particularly more foolish and compare it to the Lions of the Millen era is heavy handed. If Matt gets into the 5th or 6th round and all the RB1/RB2 types are gone, maybe with his skill set he can still maneuver through and come out alright but I sure wouldn't recommend it to anyone I am working with.
There is a reason I write a weekly RB thread and not a WR thread. Wide Receivers are unpredictable outside of a few elite guys.
I think you're also a little too WR vs. RB based with your argument here, which is limiting your perspective as to why this strategy often works. Grabbing 3 strong receivers, plus either a strong TE or QB often gives you a strong advantage that buffers any inconsistency you get from any player, not just WRs who tend to be more consistent than characterized them. You're also presuming throughout this thread that you won't find at least one solid, if not very strong RB1 to pair with a team that doesn't take and RB within the first 4-5 rounds. That's not a great assumption if I tried to predict what a WR would do every week I wouldn't have a thread. Someone tried to do one for awhile and it did not work IIRC. You are playing games or taking a risk to try and prove your smarter than the rest of your league.
Or you've done the research, concluded that you can build a better team being a round or two ahead of the competition at getting the best pickings at 4-5 positions (WR1-WR2 and two of WR3-TE1-QB1) and still find a solid starting RB afterwards makes more sense than getting middle of the pack at 4-5 positions, but having 1 strong RB because you're following the ADP crowd.
In a best ball format I could maybe understand this theory a little better because you don't have to worry about match ups as much but in a league where you have to fill out your roster and you must start at least 2 RBs a week, I just cannot say enough how fatal I think this could be to your team. You can always find WRs later on in the sweet spot rounds, you cannot find bell cows later on in the draft.
I have extremely strong doubts you've even read my articles for the past three years otherwise, you'd find a pretty significant list every year that states otherwise. I'm not saying you go RB/RB, but I do think that grabbing 2-3 of the top12-15 RBs on FBG current rankings is a better plan than taking 2 WRs, a QB, and a TE. I love the top6 QBs but I would rather someone go RB-QB-RB, then go WR/WR/WR the next 3 rounds where you would have a roster something like this....
1st-RB Shady McCoy
2nd-QB A.Rodgers/Brady...either one
3rd-RB A.Bradshaw
4th-WR M.Williams
5th-WR M.Manningham
6th.WR S.Moss
7th-RB J.Addai
8th-TE Pick one
vs
1st-WR H.Nicks
2nd-WR G.Jennings
3rd-QB D.Brees
4th-TE Vernon Davis
5th-RB C.Wells
6th RB M.Lynch
7th-RB R.Bush
8th-WR L.Moore
To me the winner is clear but I guess others see it differently.
I think these team comparisons prove my point that you haven't really read a lot. You've just been on the message boards reading what other people are writing about the concept, but not taking the time to really dig into it. Granted, this is a possible team here. However, i don't need to go into what you've done. There are posters who already commented here have pointed out the flaws of this comparison.Heck, in my local league the two teams that where the highest scoring, best records, and went to the championship were upside down teams (mine and my friend who beat me in week 16). The 1st team has a strong RB1, solid RB2, and a good RB3 in Addai. Top QB, and then a nice blend at WR, remember they are inconsistent so you never really know when they will actually go off. In the 8th round you can still find plenty of quality TEs. The 2nd team has a nice 1-2 punch at WR, the QB is good but not not superior to the 1st team, and then you look at RB and you have to wheel out some combo of Well/Lynch/Bush...no thanks. I find the whole exercise disturbing because people are taking a classroom theory of sorts and using it like it's LAW.
People are simply excited about it. If they view it as a LAW then they are as misguided as they would be to listen to you why it's not. It's just another viable strategy that has worked well for many others. If it didn't, I wouldn't have had fantasy publications continue to ask me to write about it year after year because the received positive feedback from readers who used successfully it in local leagues as well as higher stakes contests. If you don't know talent or have poor decisions with how to determine value on some level then you're going to mess up just about any strategy.I appreciate the debate though. Nothing wrong with questioning. I just really do wonder if you read the pieces or you reacted to the fact that you have some folks who might be overzealous about it. Certainly I've seen emails this year from people who are trying to adopt it like it's a baking recipe where they want to follow steps in some unwavering, inflexible way. That's a mistake. But that's no different than any way that people who want to be blind followers act with any new concept. I guarantee you that there will be more failures with the Upside Down Strategy this year. However that's because you're going to have more people trying it. If I were in a league where I saw half the people using it then I'd probably go a different route. The basic philosophy behind this approach - as with any - is to know your league and zig where they zag. I think this theory has a long way to go to be proven and I don't want to be one of the guinea pigs this year. On the flip side I would love drafting in a 12 teamer where 1-2 people are using this theory.
That's a great point. Especially if you're picking 2-3 spots from the turn, going WR-RB early lets you control those 2 or 3 guys in between your picks. Not only can you use their roster as an indicator of what you can wait on, but you can also deny them the best available player, regardless of position.
eyton Hillis (#2)BenJarvus Green-Ellis (#15)Mike Tolbert (#19) -- injury factor hereFred Jackson (#21)LeGarrette Blount (#24)In extremely shallow leagues, even players like Darren McFadden (remember the Michael Bush hype and McFadden's hamstring problems?) and Tomlinson could possibly have been free agents, although I would more expect they would have been swing for the fence type last RB picks.So that's 8-12 RBs who were at the very least available in the 6th round or so or could be had as free agents who all ended up as at least RB2 for 12-team leagues. Four RB1s (Foster, Hillis, McFadden, Forte) are part of that group!Possibly 2010 was an anomaly, and I know leagues vary greatly in draft strategy and roster size, but when these situations are favorable, it's more surprising when these types of players are NOT available later in drafts and as free agents than when they ARE there for the taking.
