I'm in round 5 of a mock draft, with the #9 spot. I have 2 rb, 1wr, 1te and the "best value" window shows these need factors:
QB - 1.0
RB - 0.9
WR - 1.0
TE - 0.6
PK - 1.0

But the team right below me has 1 qb, 2 rb, 1 wr and has these need factors:
QB - 0.6
RB - 0.6
WR - 1.0
TE - 1.0
PK - 1.0

So why does the need factor for him differ from mine?

This is a great question Kamikaze. I have run across situations like this as well. I wonder if we will get an answer. I'll chime in with everyone else. I love the DD and think that Bruce has done a great job on it. However, issues like this one seriously bring into question the whole validity of the program. Just would like to hear some feedback on this situation.

Agreed. There is a whole Black Box phenomena at play here. At a certain level, you just have to trust that the "secret formula" makes sense. Wish it could be explained a bit more clearly.

Let me take a swing at this.

you start 1 QB, 2RB, 2Wr, 1TE, 1 K and 1 D. Please correct if wrong. I am assuming you are looking ahead 24 picks.

Looking at your team, you NEED a QB and a WR more than you need any other position. Since RB is higher valued than the other positions and more are probably expected to be taken than TE in the next 24 picks, that is why RB is .9 and TE is .6. This makes sense to me.

For the other team, use the same logic. He needs a WR and a TE and hence they get a 1. I am guessing that the projected drop off in RBs takes a bigger hit (for fantasy points) in the next 24 picks, or there are estimated to be more available and hence the .6 for RBs.

Remeber, this is a tool that estimates what will be taken and how that affects your roster requirements. It is not the Holy Grail of FF drafts. If you feel that RB should be weighted more than what it shows, then go ahead and bump it up a little and use the new best value pick.

I am waiting for FBGs to chime in to see if I am close.

Quad

Thanks for the effort quadcity, but your explanation really makes little sense to me. Your reasoning for why the RB's need varies from TE, etc, makes sense, BUT in this scenario the # for RB's should be the same for both teams. If not, I would certainly need a better explanation of why the RB's Need vary from these two teams. Can anyone from FBG comment on this?

His need at RB is less because he still needs a TE. Does that make sense? I am sure that RB is also weighted heavier in the formula than TE.

I would like the FBS to clear this up though.

Quad

No that still doesn't make sense because the need factor of any position is supposed to be a direct result of how many players were drafted at that position only. The fact that one owner drafted a TE and the other didn't should not effect the need at RB. Both owners have two RB's with same requirements so the need should be the same, at least as I understand it. I'm sorry to say that it looks like no one from FBG's plans to comment on this as the original post was 8/16.

That is where your logic is failing you. The postion need is not determined only by the amount of players at that position, but by your total roster requirements. As a team, he needs a TE more than he needs a RB even though he still needs a backup RB.

You should think of 2 "needs". The master need is the team need and is not displayed as one tangible nunber, and it is used to determine the "postition" need which is displayed and more useful for drafting.

If the FBgs do chime in, I am guessing that is what they say.

Quad

I understand what your getting at now quadcity..thanks.