People here overvalue value (1 Viewer)

[sholditch]

I don't care when you get a receiver who gets you 450 yards a year (28 ypg), even in the 100th round, if you have to start dude more than once it's hurting your team. And if you don't have to start them all year, they do nothing for you anyway.

You should spend your time analyzing what big-time, starting players are going to do, where the possible fluctuations are in that group, not what player is going to move from 75 at their position to 60.

Anyone feel me on this? I hear people talking about players representing "real value" purely based on low ADPs, when the chances are better than good that this player will do nothing for your team. Unless you're starting 6WRs and 5RBs, where is the value?

 

[MJD_Mafia]

Dynasty value...

 

[GloryDaze]

Thanks for sharing your feelings.

I will now focus 100% of my time to predicting numbers for Chris Johnson.

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

Thanks for sharing your feelings.I will now focus 100% of my time to predicting numbers for Chris Johnson.

No use spending time talking about which wr or rb can contribute during bye weeks / injuries. The draft is won or lost in the first 3 rounds only.

 

[Todem]

Dynasty value...

Even dynasty value....can get over analyzed big time. I percieve value as guys that can be drafted in the 5th-8th rounds and end up giving you 1st -2nd round production. I also percieve value as guys taken in the 8,9 and 10th rounds who give you 4th,5th,6th round production. After round 10 for the most part....it's a crap shoot. Guys taken in round 10 and beyond for the most part belong there.Dynasty value however can be found in many ways. The intial draft, the rookie and free agent drafts, and trades, It is a whole other ballgame and it's the only format I play in as well. But even there guys get over valued for their percieved value when all they rally bring to the table is a bye week fill in or unrealized production.It's a tough game.

 

[radballs]

I'll pass this along to all the members of our 6 team, start 1 QB, 1 RB, 2 WR league as soon as I can.

 

[Black]

I believe the argument is that the big performers are somewhat more predictable. The early rounds of the draft often go the same. Where you can make a big difference at draft time is in the middle to late rounds, where you grab, (say it all together) value players.

You don't draft 'just' for value's sake, but you need to make some decisions about what players you are pretty sure you can get and you are pretty sure you can contribute to your team. Then, you can push harder for the players you need to fill out your team in earlier rounds (or by reaching).

It helps to have 'target' players that won't be a waste of your later round picks. Once I have those, I know how I hope my earlier rounds will go.

 

[David Yudkin]

I generally don't see too much redraft talk about snagging what should be a WR in the 60s as the 90th WR off the board. Maybe there is and I missed it (or ignored it). Not much to talk about, and as mentioned, short of a 16 team league that starts 5 WRs, not really relevant.

Most of what I have seen is talk about top and mid round talent that falls and getting value by grabbing guys a few rounds later than they should. But talk about 16th round picks as great values generally hasn't really gotten much play . . .

 

[sholditch]

Obviously dynasty is a different game altogether when it comes to this.

 

[Todem]

Thanks for sharing your feelings.I will now focus 100% of my time to predicting numbers for Chris Johnson.

No use spending time talking about which wr or rb can contribute during bye weeks / injuries. The draft is won or lost in the first 3 rounds only.

We can talk about 30 WR's who can give bye week production. That is pretty wide. And usually it all changes as the season rolls on and you have to discuss week to week. To talk about bye fill ins before the season....it's tough to call that.

 

[sholditch]

I generally don't see too much redraft talk about snagging what should be a WR in the 60s as the 90th WR off the board. Maybe there is and I missed it (or ignored it). Not much to talk about, and as mentioned, short of a 16 team league that starts 5 WRs, not really relevant.Most of what I have seen is talk about top and mid round talent that falls and getting value by grabbing guys a few rounds later than they should. But talk about 16th round picks as great values generally hasn't really gotten much play . . .

After you announced Welker is going to be ready for camp someone said that Edelman is the real value. That's what I'm talking about.

 

[Steed]

That was part of my arguement in the Torry Holt and David Garrard threads. If you draft a WR 75 and he ends up 68, congrats on that but he did little to help your team. Same with grabbing the 20th QB and he ends up 14. The real value is when you uncover a Miles Austin in the last round and he ends up WR #5 or Jamaal Charles and he's the #2 RB for the second half of the season, that obviously helps you.

 

[radballs]

Unless you're starting 6WRs and 5RBs, where is the value?

Almost all of my leagues are at least 12 teams with 20 rounds being drafted. With a flex, that means you're generally starting 4 WRs in 1 ppr leagues. Start factoring in injuries and bye weeks and you'll now see how important your WR6 becomes.

 

[ATC1]

I generally don't see too much redraft talk about snagging what should be a WR in the 60s as the 90th WR off the board. Maybe there is and I missed it (or ignored it). Not much to talk about, and as mentioned, short of a 16 team league that starts 5 WRs, not really relevant.Most of what I have seen is talk about top and mid round talent that falls and getting value by grabbing guys a few rounds later than they should. But talk about 16th round picks as great values generally hasn't really gotten much play . . .

After you announced Welker is going to be ready for camp someone said that Edelman is the real value. That's what I'm talking about.

I'd take an even later shot at Edleman now. Because of the news Welker's value will rise and Edleman's will decrease. However, given the fact that Welker is an injury risk I can grab that guy that will get 30/500 or i can get a potential starter solid WR2 if Welker goes down.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Agree with the basic sentiment of the OP. If you can get a guy that you really like later than his normal ADP, great. But getting to a 90th pick in your draft and taking a guy who slid a round instead of a guy you really like this year is a bad idea. You don't get fantasy points for value.

 

[Jason Wood]

I don't know offhand of too many people proclaiming a 450-yard receiver as "value" other than perhaps discussions in dynasty leagues or deep best ball leagues; which tend to be the kinds of niche conversations we hardcore folks foster but obviously are of little value/interest to the majority of our subscribers.

 

[GloryDaze]

It's talk about the Edelmans of the world that I enjoy the most. I really don't need to discuss the merits of MJD and Ray Rice swapping their respective draft positions.

 

[sholditch]

That was part of my arguement in the Torry Holt and David Garrard threads. If you draft a WR 75 and he ends up 68, congrats on that but he did little to help your team. Same with grabbing the 20th QB and he ends up 14. The real value is when you uncover a Miles Austin in the last round and he ends up WR #5 or Jamaal Charles and he's the #2 RB for the second half of the season, that obviously helps you.

Exactly.

 

[Mr. Fusion]

This is actually a pretty good discussion point. Drafting an RB5 in the last round is "value" but still a bench player that you may end up dropping for a bye week kicker.

After my starting lineup, I tend to draft players that present solid upside rather than simply value. If the "perfect storm" hits, is it possible that they would crack my starting lineup for good? I've hit a few homeruns with Portis his rookie year and De'Angelo Williams his breakout year but I've had my share of duds as well. That's why I won't draft guys who I believe have seen their statistical peak already unless they are projected to produce enough to be a fantasy starter at their floor.

 

[gandalas]

Dynasty value...

After round 10 for the most part....it's a crap shoot. Guys taken in round 10 and beyond for the most part belong there.

I will make sure and mention that to my 23rd round selection of Brandon Marshall in 2007 in my initial Dynasty draft.

 

[ATC1]

Agree with the basic sentiment of the OP. If you can get a guy that you really like later than his normal ADP, great. But getting to a 90th pick in your draft and taking a guy who slid a round instead of a guy you really like this year is a bad idea. You don't get fantasy points for value.

 

[radballs]

I generally don't see too much redraft talk about snagging what should be a WR in the 60s as the 90th WR off the board. Maybe there is and I missed it (or ignored it). Not much to talk about, and as mentioned, short of a 16 team league that starts 5 WRs, not really relevant.Most of what I have seen is talk about top and mid round talent that falls and getting value by grabbing guys a few rounds later than they should. But talk about 16th round picks as great values generally hasn't really gotten much play . . .

After you announced Welker is going to be ready for camp someone said that Edelman is the real value. That's what I'm talking about.

That was me who made that comment a few months ago. It currently looks like Welker may be ahead of schedule. That said, with an aging Randy Moss, if Edelman becomes the number 2 catching passes from Tom Brady you're looking at a huge sleeper here. Could be a guy going from WR70 to WR25, at least on a per game basis until Welker is actually playing. Definitely worth discussing imo. Sorry that you don't have time for that.

 

[sholditch]

talking redraft here. Obviously in Dynasty mining the deep end can reap greater rewards.

 

[dagwood]

Obviously dynasty is a different game altogether when it comes to this.

The draft is won in the middle rounds (and possibly lost in the early rounds).For example, if you were fortunate enough to pick up Matt Forte as a rookie in the 5th or 6th round, he may have helped lead your team to a championship that year over say a team that picked Jonathon Stewart about 20 picks ahead of him.I am just saying.

 

[sholditch]

OK, obviously left this way too general with OP. If you can get Josh Morgan in the 20th round of a 20-round draft and it's redraft and you start 3 wide, does that represent actual value to your team?

 

[GloryDaze]

OK, obviously left this way too general with OP. If you can get Josh Morgan in the 20th round of a 20-round draft and it's redraft and you start 3 wide, does that represent actual value to your team?

It's quite possible that could be actual value to your team.

 

[ATC1]

OK, obviously left this way too general with OP. If you can get Josh Morgan in the 20th round of a 20-round draft and it's redraft and you start 3 wide, does that represent actual value to your team?

If I feel he has the best shot at ending higher up in the WR rankings then the rest of the WRs remaining. Yeah.

 

[David Yudkin]

I generally don't see too much redraft talk about snagging what should be a WR in the 60s as the 90th WR off the board. Maybe there is and I missed it (or ignored it). Not much to talk about, and as mentioned, short of a 16 team league that starts 5 WRs, not really relevant.Most of what I have seen is talk about top and mid round talent that falls and getting value by grabbing guys a few rounds later than they should. But talk about 16th round picks as great values generally hasn't really gotten much play . . .

After you announced Welker is going to be ready for camp someone said that Edelman is the real value. That's what I'm talking about.

That was me who made that comment a few months ago. It currently looks like Welker may be ahead of schedule. That said, with an aging Randy Moss, if Edelman becomes the number 2 catching passes from Tom Brady you're looking at a huge sleeper here. Could be a guy going from WR70 to WR25, at least on a per game basis until Welker is actually playing. Definitely worth discussing imo. Sorry that you don't have time for that.

The issue with Edelman from what I have heard is that Holt and Tate are fighting for time on the outside and Holt doesn't really have the legs that he used to. So at some point Holt will be ANOTHER slot option, meaning that Welker/Holt/Edelman will all be playing the same position.I find it interesting that through no fault of his own, Edelman has been falling on the depth chart. Things were looking great for him in January. He's been sliding ever since and now he almost looks like a fantasy after thought. In huge leagues, he probably is still a bench option, but I would be hard pressed to roster him in smaller leagues unless it comes out that Welker is struggling and/or Holt gets released.

 

[sholditch]

I completely disagree. Let's say he is taken as the WR100 (out of 240 picks) and he ends up WR80 (+20), you're in a 12-team starting 3WR (36 total starters) and you have spaced out your byes to where you only need to start one backup, chances are he won't be a better play than your backup. Even if you have to start 2 or even 3 backups one week, you're likely going to lose that week anyway by trotting out three subpar players, so the one week you use him you lose.

How does not playing or contributing to a loss provide value. I use Morgan because he has been in the league some years and we can reasonably expect that he's not going to explode into a viable starter. Rookies can always surprise but the ones most likely to get taken with the other 2 and 3s at their positions based on people's thoughts they could produce like a 1.

 

[radballs]

OK, obviously left this way too general with OP. If you can get Josh Morgan in the 20th round of a 20-round draft and it's redraft and you start 3 wide, does that represent actual value to your team?

Depends on how he works out. I take tons of WR2s with potential upside. The WR2 in San Francisco has a decent chance of becoming startable in many leagues.

 

[ATC1]

I completely disagree. Let's say he is taken as the WR100 (out of 240 picks) and he ends up WR80 (+20), you're in a 12-team starting 3WR (36 total starters) and you have spaced out your byes to where you only need to start one backup, chances are he won't be a better play than your backup. Even if you have to start 2 or even 3 backups one week, you're likely going to lose that week anyway by trotting out three subpar players, so the one week you use him you lose.How does not playing or contributing to a loss provide value. I use Morgan because he has been in the league some years and we can reasonably expect that he's not going to explode into a viable starter. Rookies can always surprise but the ones most likely to get taken with the other 2 and 3s at their positions based on people's thoughts they could produce like a 1.

Who are you disagreeing with? Please use quotes.

 

[sholditch]

OK, obviously left this way too general with OP. If you can get Josh Morgan in the 20th round of a 20-round draft and it's redraft and you start 3 wide, does that represent actual value to your team?

It's quite possible that could be actual value to your team.

OK, obviously left this way too general with OP. If you can get Josh Morgan in the 20th round of a 20-round draft and it's redraft and you start 3 wide, does that represent actual value to your team?

If I feel he has the best shot at ending higher up in the WR rankings then the rest of the WRs remaining. Yeah.

these

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I do agree with the "value" thing being overdone to an extent.

In one of my dynasty leagues I have Andre Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, and Calvin Johnson. I'm pretty well set at wide receiver, but could use some help at running back. So when my pick came up at 1.07 in the rookie draft, you'd think I would go running back, right? Well, this draft was fairly RB heavy early on (Tate and Hardesty went 1.05 and 1.06), so I ended up taking Demaryius Thomas at 1.07, over guys like Gerhart or Starks. Why? Because he was better "value".

But I'm not big on Demaryius Thomas, I just don't think he's going to be that good. I betrayed my gut (and my need for help at RB) to get better "value". But what does that value actually get me when I set my lineup for week 1 this year? Nothing. There's trade value, but I couldn't even move the 1.07 pick so why would I be any more likely to be able to move the guy I drafted there? Maybe in a few years Thomas will be a stud and at that point his "value" will have translated into actual tangible points in the way of a trade for a running back, but like I said above I don't think Thomas will be a star in the pros.

This comes into play early in drafts too. If you think Ryan Matthews (or let's say someone that you know will be an early 2nd rounder, but won't make it back to the end of the second round) will be better than Frank Gore and Steven Jackson this year, do you draft him 5th overall? Obviously, the perfect scenario would be trading down, but that isn't an option in many drafts. So now, do you trust your gut and draft a guy earlier than he's supposed to go, or do you just draft Gore/Sjax because everyone says that their "value" is as a 2nd tier running back whereas Matthews' is not? I think most FF'ers would do the latter, even if they thought that Matthews would have the better season.

Many people choose "value" over their own beliefs as to how a player will turn out.

 

[sholditch]

OK, obviously left this way too general with OP. If you can get Josh Morgan in the 20th round of a 20-round draft and it's redraft and you start 3 wide, does that represent actual value to your team?

Depends on how he works out. I take tons of WR2s with potential upside. The WR2 in San Francisco has a decent chance of becoming startable in many leagues.

We're using a hypothetical where he outperforms his draft position but not enough to be a starter. Also, he's been their WR2 for a while and hasn't been startable yet.

 

[ATC1]

OK, obviously left this way too general with OP. If you can get Josh Morgan in the 20th round of a 20-round draft and it's redraft and you start 3 wide, does that represent actual value to your team?

If I feel he has the best shot at ending higher up in the WR rankings then the rest of the WRs remaining. Yeah.

these

I'm taking the guy who I feel has the highest ceiling at this spot in the draft. Who else would you take?

 

[radballs]

The bottom line is that there are a multitude of different formats and lineup requirements across all people who participate in FF. I understand your point when you're referring to 8 to 10 team leagues with 16 roster spots.

There's just a ton of people who also play in leagues that are much larger, so discussing the pros and cons of Michael Jenkins vs. Josh Morgan vs. Julian Edelman can really become relevant.

 

[sholditch]

I do agree with the "value" thing being overdone to an extent.In one of my dynasty leagues I have Andre Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, and Calvin Johnson. I'm pretty well set at wide receiver, but could use some help at running back. So when my pick came up at 1.07 in the rookie draft, you'd think I would go running back, right? Well, this draft was fairly RB heavy early on (Tate and Hardesty went 1.05 and 1.06), so I ended up taking Demaryius Thomas at 1.07, over guys like Gerhart or Starks. Why? Because he was better "value".But I'm not big on Demaryius Thomas, I just don't think he's going to be that good. I betrayed my gut (and my need for help at RB) to get better "value". But what does that value actually get me when I set my lineup for week 1 this year? Nothing. There's trade value, but I couldn't even move the 1.07 pick so why would I be any more likely to be able to move the guy I drafted there? Maybe in a few years Thomas will be a stud and at that point his "value" will have translated into actual tangible points in the way of a trade for a running back, but like I said above I don't think Thomas will be a star in the pros.This comes into play early in drafts too. If you think Ryan Matthews (or let's say someone that you know will be an early 2nd rounder, but won't make it back to the end of the second round) will be better than Frank Gore and Steven Jackson this year, do you draft him 5th overall? Obviously, the perfect scenario would be trading down, but that isn't an option in many drafts. So now, do you trust your gut and draft a guy earlier than he's supposed to go, or do you just draft Gore/Sjax because everyone says that their "value" is as a 2nd tier running back whereas Matthews' is not? I think most FF'ers would do the latter, even if they thought that Matthews would have the better season.Many people choose "value" over their own beliefs as to how a player will turn out.

This is what I am trying to get at. Thanks for explaining it better than I have.That said, I have gotten burned both ways. In my 2QB dynasty league I took Leinart over Cutler at #1 because I couldn't trade down and Leinart was the better value based on his ADP. But I had suspicions that Cutler would be the guy to have.Two years later I was convinced that McFadden was going to set the world on fire and took him at 2nd overall, and I got burned. So there's definitely a balance there between your gut and what others think. The lessons I have learned is really examine your gut feelings. I thought Cutler would be better because both Steve Young and Jaws said he would be, two guys that played the position in the NFL. They knew more than me, and knew better than a lot of fantasy boards out there (I think this was prior to discovering FBG). With McFadden, hell, I just loved the kid. I didn't even mind seeing him beat the snot out of my teams in the SEC because he was so electrifying to watch. There I let personal feelings make me blind to good advice people tried to give me. Now I am trying to learn from both and balance staying true to my views while simultaneously accepting the possibility that I could just be dead wrong.

 

[sholditch]

OK, obviously left this way too general with OP. If you can get Josh Morgan in the 20th round of a 20-round draft and it's redraft and you start 3 wide, does that represent actual value to your team?

If I feel he has the best shot at ending higher up in the WR rankings then the rest of the WRs remaining. Yeah.

these

I'm taking the guy who I feel has the highest ceiling at this spot in the draft. Who else would you take?

You'd be taking a very risky flier at a position you have likely covered and then some. I think the argument could be made that taking a 2nd kicker on a good offense or even a 3rd TE or a 3rd DST could actually give your team more value because they have a much better shot at actually starting for your team.

 

[Christo]

I don't care when you get a receiver who gets you 450 yards a year (28 ypg), even in the 100th round, if you have to start dude more than once it's hurting your team. And if you don't have to start them all year, they do nothing for you anyway.

You should spend your time analyzing what big-time, starting players are going to do, where the possible fluctuations are in that group, not what player is going to move from 75 at their position to 60.

Anyone feel me on this? I hear people talking about players representing "real value" purely based on low ADPs, when the chances are better than good that this player will do nothing for your team. Unless you're starting 6WRs and 5RBs, where is the value?

Nope. The big time players are the ones I don't spend much time evaluating because it's done to death.

 

[radballs]

This comes into play early in drafts too. If you think Ryan Matthews (or let's say someone that you know will be an early 2nd rounder, but won't make it back to the end of the second round) will be better than Frank Gore and Steven Jackson this year, do you draft him 5th overall? Obviously, the perfect scenario would be trading down, but that isn't an option in many drafts. So now, do you trust your gut and draft a guy earlier than he's supposed to go, or do you just draft Gore/Sjax because everyone says that their "value" is as a 2nd tier running back whereas Matthews' is not? I think most FF'ers would do the latter, even if they thought that Matthews would have the better season.Many people choose "value" over their own beliefs as to how a player will turn out.

Many people choose "value and ADP rankings" in order to get BOTH players. In other words, sometimes the big payoff comes when there might be a player you're really high on (Matthews in your example) but if you let him go, you're team is much better if you can get the other player first and then still snag the guy you really wanted.

 

[sholditch]

I just want to thank everyone for avoiding the flame temptation and creating a really good discussion. Lots of points in here have made me rethink my statement while others have reinforced it. But there is definitely "value" in re-examining your thinking.

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

I do agree with the "value" thing being overdone to an extent.In one of my dynasty leagues I have Andre Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, and Calvin Johnson. I'm pretty well set at wide receiver, but could use some help at running back. So when my pick came up at 1.07 in the rookie draft, you'd think I would go running back, right? Well, this draft was fairly RB heavy early on (Tate and Hardesty went 1.05 and 1.06), so I ended up taking Demaryius Thomas at 1.07, over guys like Gerhart or Starks. Why? Because he was better "value".But I'm not big on Demaryius Thomas, I just don't think he's going to be that good. I betrayed my gut (and my need for help at RB) to get better "value". But what does that value actually get me when I set my lineup for week 1 this year? Nothing. There's trade value, but I couldn't even move the 1.07 pick so why would I be any more likely to be able to move the guy I drafted there? Maybe in a few years Thomas will be a stud and at that point his "value" will have translated into actual tangible points in the way of a trade for a running back, but like I said above I don't think Thomas will be a star in the pros.This comes into play early in drafts too. If you think Ryan Matthews (or let's say someone that you know will be an early 2nd rounder, but won't make it back to the end of the second round) will be better than Frank Gore and Steven Jackson this year, do you draft him 5th overall? Obviously, the perfect scenario would be trading down, but that isn't an option in many drafts. So now, do you trust your gut and draft a guy earlier than he's supposed to go, or do you just draft Gore/Sjax because everyone says that their "value" is as a 2nd tier running back whereas Matthews' is not? I think most FF'ers would do the latter, even if they thought that Matthews would have the better season.Many people choose "value" over their own beliefs as to how a player will turn out.

I don't think we agree on what "value" drafting is.

 

[Doug Drinen]

This thread prompted me to look up a stat that just floored me.

Let's say you play in a 12-team league and you start 3 WRs, so 36 WRs are contributors in a given week. Take a guess at how many different WRs finished in the weekly top 36 in some week last year:

122! That's about twice as many as will get drafted in many leagues. They are listed below, and you'll note a whopping 66 guys who finished among the top 36 WRs four or more times.

+---------------------+------+-----------------+------------------+| player | year | times_in_top_36 | best_weekly_rank |+---------------------+------+-----------------+------------------+| Steve Smith | 2009 | 14 | 1 || Larry Fitzgerald | 2009 | 14 | 1 || Andre Johnson | 2009 | 13 | 1 || Marques Colston | 2009 | 12 | 2 || Randy Moss | 2009 | 12 | 1 || Wes Welker | 2009 | 11 | 2 || Sidney Rice | 2009 | 11 | 1 || Vincent Jackson | 2009 | 11 | 1 || Santonio Holmes | 2009 | 11 | 3 || DeSean Jackson | 2009 | 11 | 2 || Miles Austin | 2009 | 11 | 1 || Chad Ochocinco | 2009 | 10 | 3 || Donald Driver | 2009 | 10 | 3 || Reggie Wayne | 2009 | 10 | 1 || Roddy White | 2009 | 10 | 1 || Derrick Mason | 2009 | 10 | 4 || Brandon Marshall | 2009 | 9 | 1 || Terrell Owens | 2009 | 9 | 1 || Calvin Johnson | 2009 | 9 | 2 || Steve Smith | 2009 | 9 | 2 || Hines Ward | 2009 | 9 | 4 || Robert Meachem | 2009 | 9 | 6 || Anquan Boldin | 2009 | 9 | 3 || Mike Sims-Walker | 2009 | 8 | 2 || Austin Collie | 2009 | 8 | 6 || Mike Wallace | 2009 | 8 | 4 || Greg Jennings | 2009 | 8 | 4 || Nate Washington | 2009 | 8 | 12 || Jerricho Cotchery | 2009 | 8 | 6 || Pierre Garcon | 2009 | 8 | 9 || Jacoby Jones | 2009 | 8 | 6 || Roy Williams | 2009 | 8 | 8 || Percy Harvin | 2009 | 8 | 1 || Mario Manningham | 2009 | 7 | 3 || Lee Evans | 2009 | 7 | 6 || Chris Chambers | 2009 | 7 | 4 || Dwayne Bowe | 2009 | 7 | 13 || Nate Burleson | 2009 | 7 | 5 || Hakeem Nicks | 2009 | 7 | 4 || Steve Breaston | 2009 | 7 | 10 || Laveranues Coles | 2009 | 7 | 20 || Devin Hester | 2009 | 7 | 6 || Johnny Knox | 2009 | 6 | 7 || Braylon Edwards | 2009 | 6 | 8 || Brian Hartline | 2009 | 6 | 14 || Kenny Britt | 2009 | 6 | 4 || Devery Henderson | 2009 | 6 | 5 || Santana Moss | 2009 | 6 | 1 || Antonio Bryant | 2009 | 6 | 8 || Michael Jenkins | 2009 | 5 | 8 || Jason Avant | 2009 | 5 | 9 || Mohamed Massaquoi | 2009 | 5 | 5 || James Jones | 2009 | 5 | 8 || Bernard Berrian | 2009 | 5 | 8 || Earl Bennett | 2009 | 5 | 20 || Patrick Crayton | 2009 | 5 | 2 || Jeremy Maclin | 2009 | 5 | 3 || T.J. Houshmandzadeh | 2009 | 5 | 7 || Josh Morgan | 2009 | 5 | 19 || Donnie Avery | 2009 | 4 | 5 || Kevin Walter | 2009 | 4 | 7 || Brandon Stokley | 2009 | 4 | 8 || Malcom Floyd | 2009 | 4 | 8 || Jabar Gaffney | 2009 | 4 | 2 || Louis Murphy | 2009 | 4 | 1 || Bobby Wade | 2009 | 4 | 26 || Davone Bess | 2009 | 3 | 7 || Andre Caldwell | 2009 | 3 | 18 || Julian Edelman | 2009 | 3 | 20 || Justin Gage | 2009 | 3 | 12 || Deion Branch | 2009 | 3 | 16 || Kelley Washington | 2009 | 3 | 16 || Bryant Johnson | 2009 | 3 | 11 || Devin Aromashodu | 2009 | 3 | 3 || Michael Crabtree | 2009 | 3 | 11 || Mark Bradley | 2009 | 3 | 13 || Chaz Schilens | 2009 | 3 | 22 || Muhsin Muhammad | 2009 | 3 | 16 || Ted Ginn | 2009 | 3 | 17 || Josh Cribbs | 2009 | 3 | 17 || Mark Clayton | 2009 | 3 | 10 || Sam Aiken | 2009 | 3 | 15 || Torry Holt | 2009 | 3 | 21 || David Clowney | 2009 | 2 | 10 || Chansi Stuckey | 2009 | 2 | 15 || Mike Thomas | 2009 | 2 | 30 || Eddie Royal | 2009 | 2 | 25 || Laurent Robinson | 2009 | 2 | 19 || Michael Clayton | 2009 | 2 | 25 || Maurice Stovall | 2009 | 2 | 19 || Jordy Nelson | 2009 | 2 | 17 || Greg Camarillo | 2009 | 2 | 15 || Sam Hurd | 2009 | 2 | 15 || Brandon Gibson | 2009 | 2 | 18 || Sammie Stroughter | 2009 | 2 | 26 || Devin Thomas | 2009 | 2 | 2 || Chris Henry | 2009 | 2 | 24 || Domenik Hixon | 2009 | 1 | 12 || Sinorice Moss | 2009 | 1 | 31 || Lance Moore | 2009 | 1 | 9 || Dwayne Jarrett | 2009 | 1 | 9 || Derek Hagan | 2009 | 1 | 34 || Darrius Heyward-Bey | 2009 | 1 | 28 || Lance Long | 2009 | 1 | 32 || Eric Weems | 2009 | 1 | 23 || Brad Smith | 2009 | 1 | 5 || David Anderson | 2009 | 1 | 36 || Legedu Naanee | 2009 | 1 | 16 || Keenan Burton | 2009 | 1 | 33 || Antwaan Randle El | 2009 | 1 | 23 || Early Doucet | 2009 | 1 | 21 || Nate Hughes | 2009 | 1 | 32 || Jerheme Urban | 2009 | 1 | 34 || Dennis Northcutt | 2009 | 1 | 14 || Johnnie Lee Higgins | 2009 | 1 | 36 || Josh Reed | 2009 | 1 | 28 || Greg Lewis | 2009 | 1 | 23 || Marty Booker | 2009 | 1 | 12 || Malcolm Kelly | 2009 | 1 | 16 || Demetrius Williams | 2009 | 1 | 16 || Jason Hill | 2009 | 1 | 6 || Brandon Lloyd | 2009 | 1 | 23 |+---------------------+------+-----------------+------------------+*** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***");document.close();You might say, who cares?! Just because Sam Aiken had an 81-yard TD catch in some game doesn't mean he was worth owning. He was never startable.

That's a valid point.

So let's look at the number of players who were, in some week during the season, ranked among Dodds' weekly top 36 WRs in his weekly projections. These are the guys who were, by definition, startable at some point during the season.

How many of those guys do you think there were?

81

That's a lot!



*** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***");document.close();

 

[GloryDaze]

OK, obviously left this way too general with OP. If you can get Josh Morgan in the 20th round of a 20-round draft and it's redraft and you start 3 wide, does that represent actual value to your team?

Depends on how he works out. I take tons of WR2s with potential upside. The WR2 in San Francisco has a decent chance of becoming startable in many leagues.

We're using a hypothetical where he outperforms his draft position but not enough to be a starter. Also, he's been their WR2 for a while and hasn't been startable yet.

Assuming you know for certainty that he's never going to start for you, then yes, it's not the best value for your team. Unfortunately, all sorts of crazy things happen every year.Yeah, if I know for sure Morgan is going to have 350 yards and 1 TD, it's pointless to draft him. I'd still take him over a 3rd kicker or tight end, though.

 

[Nero]

I think the point of the whole value thing is finding a debth guy who actually turns out to be a starter. Drafted as WR80, but plays as WR50 is value if you forced to start him. The big time value is when the debth guy can start on anyone's team. I had a redraft team last year where I drafted Ray Rice in the 5th as the 25 RB and S. Smith in the 9th as the 43WR. Need I say I was the #1 seed and won the league. Value!

 

[MAC_32]

Most of the posts I contribute here involve youth and unknowns, it isn't because I ignore the upper echelon players - I've analyzed them to death when they were young and unknown too. It's at a certain point I've learned just about everything I can know about a certain player. I don't spend much time at all on my league specific cheat sheets - just take a generic one and adjust it to my biases and league scoring.

I somewhat agree with where the OP is coming from in that a lot of people spend too much time on lower valued players, but that's because I think their approach is wrong. Granted, mine isn't fool proof (no method is) because players can change and I can be guilty of pigeon holing a player too early (I try not to when new info is available but my developed bias still looms), but based on my experience that happens far too infrequently to spend much time worrying about it and it's more than offset by often being too early (if that can be called a bad thing) to true talents that were buried on depth charts - Forsett and Choice immediately come to mind.

 

[TitansFan10]

Dynasty value...

Even dynasty value....can get over analyzed big time. I percieve value as guys that can be drafted in the 5th-8th rounds and end up giving you 1st -2nd round production. I also percieve value as guys taken in the 8,9 and 10th rounds who give you 4th,5th,6th round production. After round 10 for the most part....it's a crap shoot. Guys taken in round 10 and beyond for the most part belong there.Dynasty value however can be found in many ways. The intial draft, the rookie and free agent drafts, and trades, It is a whole other ballgame and it's the only format I play in as well. But even there guys get over valued for their percieved value when all they rally bring to the table is a bye week fill in or unrealized production.It's a tough game.

What are rounds? Sounds archaic. Auction style.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I do agree with the "value" thing being overdone to an extent.In one of my dynasty leagues I have Andre Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, and Calvin Johnson. I'm pretty well set at wide receiver, but could use some help at running back. So when my pick came up at 1.07 in the rookie draft, you'd think I would go running back, right? Well, this draft was fairly RB heavy early on (Tate and Hardesty went 1.05 and 1.06), so I ended up taking Demaryius Thomas at 1.07, over guys like Gerhart or Starks. Why? Because he was better "value".But I'm not big on Demaryius Thomas, I just don't think he's going to be that good. I betrayed my gut (and my need for help at RB) to get better "value". But what does that value actually get me when I set my lineup for week 1 this year? Nothing. There's trade value, but I couldn't even move the 1.07 pick so why would I be any more likely to be able to move the guy I drafted there? Maybe in a few years Thomas will be a stud and at that point his "value" will have translated into actual tangible points in the way of a trade for a running back, but like I said above I don't think Thomas will be a star in the pros.This comes into play early in drafts too. If you think Ryan Matthews (or let's say someone that you know will be an early 2nd rounder, but won't make it back to the end of the second round) will be better than Frank Gore and Steven Jackson this year, do you draft him 5th overall? Obviously, the perfect scenario would be trading down, but that isn't an option in many drafts. So now, do you trust your gut and draft a guy earlier than he's supposed to go, or do you just draft Gore/Sjax because everyone says that their "value" is as a 2nd tier running back whereas Matthews' is not? I think most FF'ers would do the latter, even if they thought that Matthews would have the better season.Many people choose "value" over their own beliefs as to how a player will turn out.

I don't think we agree on what "value" drafting is.

FWIW, I thought this thread was about value vs ADP. Not about sleepers.

 

[ATC1]

OK, obviously left this way too general with OP. If you can get Josh Morgan in the 20th round of a 20-round draft and it's redraft and you start 3 wide, does that represent actual value to your team?

If I feel he has the best shot at ending higher up in the WR rankings then the rest of the WRs remaining. Yeah.

these

I'm taking the guy who I feel has the highest ceiling at this spot in the draft. Who else would you take?

You'd be taking a very risky flier at a position you have likely covered and then some. I think the argument could be made that taking a 2nd kicker on a good offense or even a 3rd TE or a 3rd DST could actually give your team more value because they have a much better shot at actually starting for your team.

No way. A PK on the WW has one good week and I can get him later. A WR on the WW has a good week and they are scooped up immediately at the chance of the next Steve Smith or Marques Colston. I rather have one PK, stud TE and 2 Defenses and drop the one extra for bye week filler at that position and try to find that gem in the draft vs needing to be first in the WW order.

 

[navoner]

This thread prompted me to look up a stat that just floored me.

Let's say you play in a 12-team league and you start 3 WRs, so 36 WRs are contributors in a given week. Take a guess at how many different WRs finished in the weekly top 36 in some week last year:

122! That's about twice as many as will get drafted in many leagues. They are listed below, and you'll note a whopping 66 guys who finished among the top 36 WRs four or more times.

+---------------------+------+-----------------+------------------+| player | year | times_in_top_36 | best_weekly_rank |+---------------------+------+-----------------+------------------+| Steve Smith | 2009 | 14 | 1 || Larry Fitzgerald | 2009 | 14 | 1 || Andre Johnson | 2009 | 13 | 1 || Marques Colston | 2009 | 12 | 2 || Randy Moss | 2009 | 12 | 1 || Wes Welker | 2009 | 11 | 2 || Sidney Rice | 2009 | 11 | 1 || Vincent Jackson | 2009 | 11 | 1 || Santonio Holmes | 2009 | 11 | 3 || DeSean Jackson | 2009 | 11 | 2 || Miles Austin | 2009 | 11 | 1 || Chad Ochocinco | 2009 | 10 | 3 || Donald Driver | 2009 | 10 | 3 || Reggie Wayne | 2009 | 10 | 1 || Roddy White | 2009 | 10 | 1 || Derrick Mason | 2009 | 10 | 4 || Brandon Marshall | 2009 | 9 | 1 || Terrell Owens | 2009 | 9 | 1 || Calvin Johnson | 2009 | 9 | 2 || Steve Smith | 2009 | 9 | 2 || Hines Ward | 2009 | 9 | 4 || Robert Meachem | 2009 | 9 | 6 || Anquan Boldin | 2009 | 9 | 3 || Mike Sims-Walker | 2009 | 8 | 2 || Austin Collie | 2009 | 8 | 6 || Mike Wallace | 2009 | 8 | 4 || Greg Jennings | 2009 | 8 | 4 || Nate Washington | 2009 | 8 | 12 || Jerricho Cotchery | 2009 | 8 | 6 || Pierre Garcon | 2009 | 8 | 9 || Jacoby Jones | 2009 | 8 | 6 || Roy Williams | 2009 | 8 | 8 || Percy Harvin | 2009 | 8 | 1 || Mario Manningham | 2009 | 7 | 3 || Lee Evans | 2009 | 7 | 6 || Chris Chambers | 2009 | 7 | 4 || Dwayne Bowe | 2009 | 7 | 13 || Nate Burleson | 2009 | 7 | 5 || Hakeem Nicks | 2009 | 7 | 4 || Steve Breaston | 2009 | 7 | 10 || Laveranues Coles | 2009 | 7 | 20 || Devin Hester | 2009 | 7 | 6 || Johnny Knox | 2009 | 6 | 7 || Braylon Edwards | 2009 | 6 | 8 || Brian Hartline | 2009 | 6 | 14 || Kenny Britt | 2009 | 6 | 4 || Devery Henderson | 2009 | 6 | 5 || Santana Moss | 2009 | 6 | 1 || Antonio Bryant | 2009 | 6 | 8 || Michael Jenkins | 2009 | 5 | 8 || Jason Avant | 2009 | 5 | 9 || Mohamed Massaquoi | 2009 | 5 | 5 || James Jones | 2009 | 5 | 8 || Bernard Berrian | 2009 | 5 | 8 || Earl Bennett | 2009 | 5 | 20 || Patrick Crayton | 2009 | 5 | 2 || Jeremy Maclin | 2009 | 5 | 3 || T.J. Houshmandzadeh | 2009 | 5 | 7 || Josh Morgan | 2009 | 5 | 19 || Donnie Avery | 2009 | 4 | 5 || Kevin Walter | 2009 | 4 | 7 || Brandon Stokley | 2009 | 4 | 8 || Malcom Floyd | 2009 | 4 | 8 || Jabar Gaffney | 2009 | 4 | 2 || Louis Murphy | 2009 | 4 | 1 || Bobby Wade | 2009 | 4 | 26 || Davone Bess | 2009 | 3 | 7 || Andre Caldwell | 2009 | 3 | 18 || Julian Edelman | 2009 | 3 | 20 || Justin Gage | 2009 | 3 | 12 || Deion Branch | 2009 | 3 | 16 || Kelley Washington | 2009 | 3 | 16 || Bryant Johnson | 2009 | 3 | 11 || Devin Aromashodu | 2009 | 3 | 3 || Michael Crabtree | 2009 | 3 | 11 || Mark Bradley | 2009 | 3 | 13 || Chaz Schilens | 2009 | 3 | 22 || Muhsin Muhammad | 2009 | 3 | 16 || Ted Ginn | 2009 | 3 | 17 || Josh Cribbs | 2009 | 3 | 17 || Mark Clayton | 2009 | 3 | 10 || Sam Aiken | 2009 | 3 | 15 || Torry Holt | 2009 | 3 | 21 || David Clowney | 2009 | 2 | 10 || Chansi Stuckey | 2009 | 2 | 15 || Mike Thomas | 2009 | 2 | 30 || Eddie Royal | 2009 | 2 | 25 || Laurent Robinson | 2009 | 2 | 19 || Michael Clayton | 2009 | 2 | 25 || Maurice Stovall | 2009 | 2 | 19 || Jordy Nelson | 2009 | 2 | 17 || Greg Camarillo | 2009 | 2 | 15 || Sam Hurd | 2009 | 2 | 15 || Brandon Gibson | 2009 | 2 | 18 || Sammie Stroughter | 2009 | 2 | 26 || Devin Thomas | 2009 | 2 | 2 || Chris Henry | 2009 | 2 | 24 || Domenik Hixon | 2009 | 1 | 12 || Sinorice Moss | 2009 | 1 | 31 || Lance Moore | 2009 | 1 | 9 || Dwayne Jarrett | 2009 | 1 | 9 || Derek Hagan | 2009 | 1 | 34 || Darrius Heyward-Bey | 2009 | 1 | 28 || Lance Long | 2009 | 1 | 32 || Eric Weems | 2009 | 1 | 23 || Brad Smith | 2009 | 1 | 5 || David Anderson | 2009 | 1 | 36 || Legedu Naanee | 2009 | 1 | 16 || Keenan Burton | 2009 | 1 | 33 || Antwaan Randle El | 2009 | 1 | 23 || Early Doucet | 2009 | 1 | 21 || Nate Hughes | 2009 | 1 | 32 || Jerheme Urban | 2009 | 1 | 34 || Dennis Northcutt | 2009 | 1 | 14 || Johnnie Lee Higgins | 2009 | 1 | 36 || Josh Reed | 2009 | 1 | 28 || Greg Lewis | 2009 | 1 | 23 || Marty Booker | 2009 | 1 | 12 || Malcolm Kelly | 2009 | 1 | 16 || Demetrius Williams | 2009 | 1 | 16 || Jason Hill | 2009 | 1 | 6 || Brandon Lloyd | 2009 | 1 | 23 |+---------------------+------+-----------------+------------------+
*** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***");document.close();

You might say, who cares?! Just because Sam Aiken had an 81-yard TD catch in some game doesn't mean he was worth owning. He was never startable.

That's a valid point.

So let's look at the number of players who were, in some week during the season, ranked among Dodds' weekly top 36 WRs in his weekly projections. These are the guys who were, by definition, startable at some point during the season.

How many of those guys do you think there were?

81

That's a lot!



*** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***");document.close();

THIS is exactly what I was thinking, but couldn't put into words. Last year, I picked up Sims-Walker and Hakeem Nicks on the waiver wire, was considering both with last round picks, and looking at the list there are at least 10 guys I would've considered or did take with late round fliers who had at least 6 startable weeks. That is the beauty of value picks. My success always comes from at least one stud I grab after round 12. Value, Value, Value!!