RBs being scarfed up in drafts (1 Viewer)

[Kenny Powers]

I think the biggest thing that Ive noticed/learned so far from this thread, is that youre really rolling the dice if you dont take a RB with either of your first 2 picks. Regardless of scoring system, regardless of league size.

Rolling the dice? Sure it is. But if you are at the back end of the draft, aren't you by nature starting off behind those who are sitting in the top 5-7* spots, especially if you don't draft Banzai? If you stick to the VBD formula, you still are needing a lottery ticket to hit. If everyone in the league goes VBD, then the margin by which the top 5 RBs separate themselves from the rest of the pack is a margin you simply can't overcome without a pick or three overplaying their draft position. So if you know that going in, why not set yourself up for that?

If a RB in the fourth round plays over his head and finishes like a RB1, then you have a WR1 better than everyone but Calvin, a WR2 vastly better than the WR1 of most teams, significantly better than the WR2 of every other team, and astronomically better than the WR2 of the teams waiting until round 5 to get their 2nd WR. That margin... that is where your team will have the advantage.

Without guys overplaying their ADP, you can't make up the difference between their RB1 and yours. But with a guy or two overperforming, you have drafted a team with a distinct roster advantage at WR1 and WR2, and one guy playing beyond himself can be the way you make up the shortcoming of not having one of the top 4-5 RBs.

Is it a gamble? Yes. Is it as big a gamble as just going along with the herd? I don't think so.

This whole post is a contradiction. Your first 2 paragraphs make it sound like every player finishes in the same position as they are drafted. Or in other words, theyll finish with the same numbers as whatever projections you are basing the pick on. Then your 3rd paragraph makes it sound like only RBs can overplay/outperform their ADP, or at least much more likely. Really, all the reasoning here is faulty.

As for the bolded, it seems like 1 of, if not the biggest stat you WR/WR guys rely on is top 10 turnover at WR vs RB. Why are you so sure AP, Foster, Martin, Charles, and {insert your next favorite RB} all finish top 5 then? IMO, Lesean McCoy has as good of a chance as anyone not named Peterson or Foster to finish top 5.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Maaaaaaybe I've missed it in the last page or so, but I feel like Graham is being overlooked. If I'm at the back, I typically like my teams most when I end up with

Calvin/RB

Graham

WR or RB (opposite of round 1)

RB

That's why I like getting Graham early with a top WR or RB - you're locking in a positional advantage of quite a few points per week. If you're playing the WW to improve at one position...I think a RB or WR has proven to be a lot more likely to break out each year than a TE is.

The more I think about it and read this thread, Im starting to think Graham is overrated. He was TE1 last year, but from 2011 his catches dropped by 14, yardage by 325, and TDs by 2. Now I think its reasonable for his numbers to go back up towards middle ground of his last 2 years, like 92/1170/10, but 2011 was a historic season for a TE (both him and Gronk) for a reason, because thats real tough to do. He offers no real advantage over Witten or Gonzalez in PPR, yet is going 3+ rounds ahead of them.

I realize TE is a position that looked deep 2 years ago and now looks questionable if you wait, but Graham,Gonzo, and Witten basically had identical seasons point wise last year in PPR, and not much of a difference in non-PPR. I actually think Witten and Gonzo are the value plays, but Im perfectly fine waiting for a TE and maybe grabbing combo like Daniels/Davis and I typically only roster 1 TE.

This makes me think you don't get the math behind Graham's production:

Last year he was about 3 PPG better than Witten (this year's consensus "next guy"). He was about 2 PPG better than Tony G, who I personally don't see repeating his production at all.

Last year, as you so eloquently put, was far below his capabilities. He was hurt, he played hurt in many games, and he was still the #1 TE. He could be worth as much as 5-8 ppg over the #2 TE (and a helluva lot more over each TE worse...) all year long. The advantage is massive.

Last year (based on 1 PPR, 1pt/10 yds, 6pts/TD):

Graham: 85/982/9 = 237.2 pts

Witten: 110/1039/3 = 231.9 pts

Gonzo: 93/930/8 = 234 pts

Where is my math wrong? Those are nearly identical years and the other guys are going 3+ rounds later

 

[Kenny Powers]

I think the biggest thing that Ive noticed/learned so far from this thread, is that youre really rolling the dice if you dont take a RB with either of your first 2 picks. Regardless of scoring system, regardless of league size.

once again you refuse to acknowledge that the bust rate for the top 15 rb's is well over 60%.

Once again, you appear very close-minded. I typically draft the guys that dont bust that early. No one can predict a blownout knee like AD, Jamaal, etc. Well, you never miss, so maybe you do. You might have stud WRs if you go WR/WR this year, but far more often that not your gonna struggle finding your RB that produces near RB1 level, maybe even RB2. Id love it if you posted your roster(s) to begin the season in this thread after going WR/WR and we can see how they turn out.

Call it gut feeling, common sense, or supreme knowledge of the game, but I bet you dont even sniff a championship. Maybe not even playoffs.

While it may be true that 1st round QBs and WRs don't bust as much as RBs, that strategy assumes that you will hit on your RBs later. While that can be done, that's a tall order. So it really doesn't matter that you're 1st round QB didn't bust....if you don't draft the later RBs well, you don't win. Where as if a 1st round RB busts, you also won't be in good shape, but my experience is.......it's very rare to win a title without good RBs. So it's a better strategy to take at least 1 RB in the 1st 2 rounds.

This is what many of the people who think going WR/WR is better this year are relying on, saying theyll pick a handful of RBs in the mid rounds and a couple will hit. While that can happen and work, I agree with you its much harder to do that it sounds. These RBs are all going much later for a reason. Typically rookies are a decent bet because theyre undervalued due to no track record so you can draft them at a discount, but this year it appears Bell is the only rookie who'll be a lead back, and some guys like Bernard and Ball may not even be on the better end (more touches) of their RBBC. Also, I would think history shows any RB going in the 7th round or later, maybe even 6th round, almost always needs an injury to occur to the RB that is preventing them from getting more touches for you to get RB2 production out of them, so now youre counting on luck basically to find your RB2.

Count me out on employing this strategy, this year.

how is this year any different?

The way I see it is........which has a higher probability?

1) taking the "safer" elite QB/WR in rounds 1-2......where your QB-WR or WR-WR CAN'T bust AND you hit on your later RB picks.......OR

2) your 1st round RB busting, with the worst scenario a season ending injury

The answer is clearly #2. While it's not easy......you can recover from a 1st round RB bust......I have won titles with my 1st round RB busting before. But the chances of you winning a title taking the upside down strategy when NOT hitting your later RBs is slim to nil.

I have tried upside down strategy before......it didn't work for me. I prefer a balanced approach to drafting after taking my RB in Round 1. I take the best player available in Rounds 2-3 after I get my RB1 secured.

I have never not "hit" on my mid round or free agent running backs. Never. Look at the top 12ish this year. I see 3 maybe 4 guys that were f/a's or mid rounds in there. Spiller, Morris, Ridley, Martin, Richardson and maybe sproles. (he was going late 3rd last year)

At least Im honest?!

 

[We Tigers]

I think the biggest thing that Ive noticed/learned so far from this thread, is that youre really rolling the dice if you dont take a RB with either of your first 2 picks. Regardless of scoring system, regardless of league size.

once again you refuse to acknowledge that the bust rate for the top 15 rb's is well over 60%.

It's not "well over 60%" by any measure I can see. But even accepting that, I think one of the things people often miss when discussing how half of 1st round RBs don't pan out is that it's still a much, much greater success rate than any other back taken later in the draft. Yes, of course, you get a couple Doug Martins or Arian Fosters as the 15th or 16th back off the board every year, but those guys hit at a much lower rate. It definitely changes your draft. Upside-down drafting is fine, but if you want to win it, you really need to do something like go RB from rounds 6-10, even reaching a little bit for high-upside backups or COP backs.

 

[Instinctive]

Maaaaaaybe I've missed it in the last page or so, but I feel like Graham is being overlooked. If I'm at the back, I typically like my teams most when I end up with

Calvin/RB

Graham

WR or RB (opposite of round 1)

RB

That's why I like getting Graham early with a top WR or RB - you're locking in a positional advantage of quite a few points per week. If you're playing the WW to improve at one position...I think a RB or WR has proven to be a lot more likely to break out each year than a TE is.

The more I think about it and read this thread, Im starting to think Graham is overrated. He was TE1 last year, but from 2011 his catches dropped by 14, yardage by 325, and TDs by 2. Now I think its reasonable for his numbers to go back up towards middle ground of his last 2 years, like 92/1170/10, but 2011 was a historic season for a TE (both him and Gronk) for a reason, because thats real tough to do. He offers no real advantage over Witten or Gonzalez in PPR, yet is going 3+ rounds ahead of them.

I realize TE is a position that looked deep 2 years ago and now looks questionable if you wait, but Graham,Gonzo, and Witten basically had identical seasons point wise last year in PPR, and not much of a difference in non-PPR. I actually think Witten and Gonzo are the value plays, but Im perfectly fine waiting for a TE and maybe grabbing combo like Daniels/Davis and I typically only roster 1 TE.

This makes me think you don't get the math behind Graham's production:

Last year he was about 3 PPG better than Witten (this year's consensus "next guy"). He was about 2 PPG better than Tony G, who I personally don't see repeating his production at all.

Last year, as you so eloquently put, was far below his capabilities. He was hurt, he played hurt in many games, and he was still the #1 TE. He could be worth as much as 5-8 ppg over the #2 TE (and a helluva lot more over each TE worse...) all year long. The advantage is massive.

Last year (based on 1 PPR, 1pt/10 yds, 6pts/TD):

Graham: 85/982/9 = 237.2 pts

Witten: 110/1039/3 = 231.9 pts

Gonzo: 93/930/8 = 234 pts

Where is my math wrong? Those are nearly identical years and the other guys are going 3+ rounds later

Graham missed games and played in others hurt.

Look, you clearly know everything and are perfect, so you don't have to take my word for it...but you sound kind of like an idiot sometimes. Just think before you post.

Also, I get points for this year, not last year. A lot of people have a lot of success basing everything off of last year, but I tend to try and base my picks, strategies, and thoughts about what I think will happen this year. It's not that one way is more right or wrong, but it is a viable option.

Have a good one man.

 

[amicsta]

Last year's winning FPC online champion appears to have spent 3 of his first four picks on RBs.

Here is his winning lineup Roster:

QB-Griffin

RB-Rice, Lynch, Martin

WR-Bryant, Smith, Cobb

TE-Allen

K-Graham

Def-SD

Looks like he was lucky on the waiver by picking up Cobb. Bryant was a 3rd or 4th rounder last year.

First 4 picks were probably Rice, Lynch, Bryant, Martin...

Cobb was his 13th round pick according to my excel file FWIW.

This reminds me that I wanted to go back and look at some more draft strategies for the top teams, so thanks for that.

ETA: lets do the first 10 rounds of that roster: Rice/Lynch/Martin/Bryant/Steve Smith/Matt Ryan/Fred Davis/Malcolm Floyd/Jared Cook/RGIII

Cobb was the only real hit in the backhalf of the draft as well.

How do you access historical FPC data? I was interested in looking at that myself. Thanks!

 

[cdubz]

Last year's winning FPC online champion appears to have spent 3 of his first four picks on RBs.

Here is his winning lineup Roster:

QB-Griffin

RB-Rice, Lynch, Martin

WR-Bryant, Smith, Cobb

TE-Allen

K-Graham

Def-SD

Looks like he was lucky on the waiver by picking up Cobb. Bryant was a 3rd or 4th rounder last year.

First 4 picks were probably Rice, Lynch, Bryant, Martin...

Cobb was his 13th round pick according to my excel file FWIW.

This reminds me that I wanted to go back and look at some more draft strategies for the top teams, so thanks for that.

ETA: lets do the first 10 rounds of that roster: Rice/Lynch/Martin/Bryant/Steve Smith/Matt Ryan/Fred Davis/Malcolm Floyd/Jared Cook/RGIII

Cobb was the only real hit in the backhalf of the draft as well.

How do you access historical FPC data? I was interested in looking at that myself. Thanks!

I haven't found a good way to search it, but all the data is here: http://www.myffpc.com/ffpc-archive/2012.html

My thinking is to look at the standings to find the highest scoring teams in a league and then chart draft strategies.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Maaaaaaybe I've missed it in the last page or so, but I feel like Graham is being overlooked. If I'm at the back, I typically like my teams most when I end up with

Calvin/RB

Graham

WR or RB (opposite of round 1)

RB

That's why I like getting Graham early with a top WR or RB - you're locking in a positional advantage of quite a few points per week. If you're playing the WW to improve at one position...I think a RB or WR has proven to be a lot more likely to break out each year than a TE is.

The more I think about it and read this thread, Im starting to think Graham is overrated. He was TE1 last year, but from 2011 his catches dropped by 14, yardage by 325, and TDs by 2. Now I think its reasonable for his numbers to go back up towards middle ground of his last 2 years, like 92/1170/10, but 2011 was a historic season for a TE (both him and Gronk) for a reason, because thats real tough to do. He offers no real advantage over Witten or Gonzalez in PPR, yet is going 3+ rounds ahead of them.

I realize TE is a position that looked deep 2 years ago and now looks questionable if you wait, but Graham,Gonzo, and Witten basically had identical seasons point wise last year in PPR, and not much of a difference in non-PPR. I actually think Witten and Gonzo are the value plays, but Im perfectly fine waiting for a TE and maybe grabbing combo like Daniels/Davis and I typically only roster 1 TE.

This makes me think you don't get the math behind Graham's production:

Last year he was about 3 PPG better than Witten (this year's consensus "next guy"). He was about 2 PPG better than Tony G, who I personally don't see repeating his production at all.

Last year, as you so eloquently put, was far below his capabilities. He was hurt, he played hurt in many games, and he was still the #1 TE. He could be worth as much as 5-8 ppg over the #2 TE (and a helluva lot more over each TE worse...) all year long. The advantage is massive.

Last year (based on 1 PPR, 1pt/10 yds, 6pts/TD):

Graham: 85/982/9 = 237.2 pts

Witten: 110/1039/3 = 231.9 pts

Gonzo: 93/930/8 = 234 pts

Where is my math wrong? Those are nearly identical years and the other guys are going 3+ rounds later

Graham missed games and played in others hurt.

Look, you clearly know everything and are perfect, so you don't have to take my word for it...but you sound kind of like an idiot sometimes. Just think before you post.

Also, I get points for this year, not last year. A lot of people have a lot of success basing everything off of last year, but I tend to try and base my picks, strategies, and thoughts about what I think will happen this year. It's not that one way is more right or wrong, but it is a viable option.

Have a good one man.

Graham missed 1 game last year.

I dont think Ive said anything that makes me sound like an idiot, but ok.

Thanks for your rebuttal on the top TEs stats last year

 

[Junior McSpiffy]

I think the biggest thing that Ive noticed/learned so far from this thread, is that youre really rolling the dice if you dont take a RB with either of your first 2 picks. Regardless of scoring system, regardless of league size.

Rolling the dice? Sure it is. But if you are at the back end of the draft, aren't you by nature starting off behind those who are sitting in the top 5-7* spots, especially if you don't draft Banzai? If you stick to the VBD formula, you still are needing a lottery ticket to hit. If everyone in the league goes VBD, then the margin by which the top 5 RBs separate themselves from the rest of the pack is a margin you simply can't overcome without a pick or three overplaying their draft position. So if you know that going in, why not set yourself up for that?

If a RB in the fourth round plays over his head and finishes like a RB1, then you have a WR1 better than everyone but Calvin, a WR2 vastly better than the WR1 of most teams, significantly better than the WR2 of every other team, and astronomically better than the WR2 of the teams waiting until round 5 to get their 2nd WR. That margin... that is where your team will have the advantage.

Without guys overplaying their ADP, you can't make up the difference between their RB1 and yours. But with a guy or two overperforming, you have drafted a team with a distinct roster advantage at WR1 and WR2, and one guy playing beyond himself can be the way you make up the shortcoming of not having one of the top 4-5 RBs.

Is it a gamble? Yes. Is it as big a gamble as just going along with the herd? I don't think so.

This whole post is a contradiction. Your first 2 paragraphs make it sound like every player finishes in the same position as they are drafted. Or in other words, theyll finish with the same numbers as whatever projections you are basing the pick on. Then your 3rd paragraph makes it sound like only RBs can overplay/outperform their ADP, or at least much more likely. Really, all the reasoning here is faulty.

As for the bolded, it seems like 1 of, if not the biggest stat you WR/WR guys rely on is top 10 turnover at WR vs RB. Why are you so sure AP, Foster, Martin, Charles, and {insert your next favorite RB} all finish top 5 then? IMO, Lesean McCoy has as good of a chance as anyone not named Peterson or Foster to finish top 5.

Setting aside the fact that I have never brought up the "turnover" issue and you are assigning the reasoning of others to my own assessments....

Both parts of your complaint can be answered the same way. In a tier of 12 (that way everyone can have a RB1... socialism, ain't it grand), they are not all created equal. The four or five at the top are far more likely to be repeaters than are those down near the cusp (remove injuries from the equation). Peterson, Foster and Martin are much less likely to fall short of RB1 numbers than are guys like SJax, Morris or Forte. Likewise, Calvin, AJ Green and D Thomas are much less likely to fall out of WR1 production than are guys like Andre Johnson, V Jax or Cobb. For guys on the bottom cusp of both the RB and WR tier, there is far more likelihood of downward mobility out of the top 15-20 than there is upward mobility into the top 5, at least in my mind. Forget volume of turnover... makes no difference. I'm talking individuals.

Also, I'm not looking for a 4th-round RB to play like a top-3 draft pick. But if I can get 4.1 to play like he's at 2.8, then I'm getting some value. And that, to me, feels much more likely than a guy at 1.12 playing like 1.2, particularly with this year's group. I can't think of a year when I've liked the 2nd round RBs less than this year.

And while I may have phrased it like a guy drafted in position X will perform like a guy at position X, I was just talking percentages. If a guy does his homework and has a reasonable idea of what's going on, drafting in front of you has a high percentage of landing him a better player. And if 10 guys in front of you are drafting RBs, do you think the guy you draft has a high likelihood of leapfrogging five or six guys taken in front of him? Myself, I'm getting off the freeway traffic jam and taking a side street.

As my wife reminds me, it's not always faster to do that. But sometimes it is. It just takes being a little lucky... and the first guy to think of it.

 

[Kenny Powers]

I think the biggest thing that Ive noticed/learned so far from this thread, is that youre really rolling the dice if you dont take a RB with either of your first 2 picks. Regardless of scoring system, regardless of league size.

Rolling the dice? Sure it is. But if you are at the back end of the draft, aren't you by nature starting off behind those who are sitting in the top 5-7* spots, especially if you don't draft Banzai? If you stick to the VBD formula, you still are needing a lottery ticket to hit. If everyone in the league goes VBD, then the margin by which the top 5 RBs separate themselves from the rest of the pack is a margin you simply can't overcome without a pick or three overplaying their draft position. So if you know that going in, why not set yourself up for that?

If a RB in the fourth round plays over his head and finishes like a RB1, then you have a WR1 better than everyone but Calvin, a WR2 vastly better than the WR1 of most teams, significantly better than the WR2 of every other team, and astronomically better than the WR2 of the teams waiting until round 5 to get their 2nd WR. That margin... that is where your team will have the advantage.

Without guys overplaying their ADP, you can't make up the difference between their RB1 and yours. But with a guy or two overperforming, you have drafted a team with a distinct roster advantage at WR1 and WR2, and one guy playing beyond himself can be the way you make up the shortcoming of not having one of the top 4-5 RBs.

Is it a gamble? Yes. Is it as big a gamble as just going along with the herd? I don't think so.

This whole post is a contradiction. Your first 2 paragraphs make it sound like every player finishes in the same position as they are drafted. Or in other words, theyll finish with the same numbers as whatever projections you are basing the pick on. Then your 3rd paragraph makes it sound like only RBs can overplay/outperform their ADP, or at least much more likely. Really, all the reasoning here is faulty.

As for the bolded, it seems like 1 of, if not the biggest stat you WR/WR guys rely on is top 10 turnover at WR vs RB. Why are you so sure AP, Foster, Martin, Charles, and {insert your next favorite RB} all finish top 5 then? IMO, Lesean McCoy has as good of a chance as anyone not named Peterson or Foster to finish top 5.

Setting aside the fact that I have never brought up the "turnover" issue and you are assigning the reasoning of others to my own assessments....

Both parts of your complaint can be answered the same way. In a tier of 12 (that way everyone can have a RB1... socialism, ain't it grand), they are not all created equal. The four or five at the top are far more likely to be repeaters than are those down near the cusp (remove injuries from the equation). Peterson, Foster and Martin are much less likely to fall short of RB1 numbers than are guys like SJax, Morris or Forte. Likewise, Calvin, AJ Green and D Thomas are much less likely to fall out of WR1 production than are guys like Andre Johnson, V Jax or Cobb. For guys on the bottom cusp of both the RB and WR tier, there is far more likelihood of downward mobility out of the top 15-20 than there is upward mobility into the top 5, at least in my mind. Forget volume of turnover... makes no difference. I'm talking individuals.

Also, I'm not looking for a 4th-round RB to play like a top-3 draft pick. But if I can get 4.1 to play like he's at 2.8, then I'm getting some value. And that, to me, feels much more likely than a guy at 1.12 playing like 1.2, particularly with this year's group. I can't think of a year when I've liked the 2nd round RBs less than this year.

And while I may have phrased it like a guy drafted in position X will perform like a guy at position X, I was just talking percentages. If a guy does his homework and has a reasonable idea of what's going on, drafting in front of you has a high percentage of landing him a better player. And if 10 guys in front of you are drafting RBs, do you think the guy you draft has a high likelihood of leapfrogging five or six guys taken in front of him? Myself, I'm getting off the freeway traffic jam and taking a side street.

As my wife reminds me, it's not always faster to do that. But sometimes it is. It just takes being a little lucky... and the first guy to think of it.

Its hard to even answer this long winded post that goes nowhere. Youre basically talking in circles.

As for the bolded, way to jump out on a limb and say RB1s or WR1s are far less likely to not meet their expectations like their RB2 or WR2 counterparts.

Maybe you should let your wife draft for you?

 

[Junior McSpiffy]

I think the biggest thing that Ive noticed/learned so far from this thread, is that youre really rolling the dice if you dont take a RB with either of your first 2 picks. Regardless of scoring system, regardless of league size.

Rolling the dice? Sure it is. But if you are at the back end of the draft, aren't you by nature starting off behind those who are sitting in the top 5-7* spots, especially if you don't draft Banzai? If you stick to the VBD formula, you still are needing a lottery ticket to hit. If everyone in the league goes VBD, then the margin by which the top 5 RBs separate themselves from the rest of the pack is a margin you simply can't overcome without a pick or three overplaying their draft position. So if you know that going in, why not set yourself up for that?

If a RB in the fourth round plays over his head and finishes like a RB1, then you have a WR1 better than everyone but Calvin, a WR2 vastly better than the WR1 of most teams, significantly better than the WR2 of every other team, and astronomically better than the WR2 of the teams waiting until round 5 to get their 2nd WR. That margin... that is where your team will have the advantage.

Without guys overplaying their ADP, you can't make up the difference between their RB1 and yours. But with a guy or two overperforming, you have drafted a team with a distinct roster advantage at WR1 and WR2, and one guy playing beyond himself can be the way you make up the shortcoming of not having one of the top 4-5 RBs.

Is it a gamble? Yes. Is it as big a gamble as just going along with the herd? I don't think so.

This whole post is a contradiction. Your first 2 paragraphs make it sound like every player finishes in the same position as they are drafted. Or in other words, theyll finish with the same numbers as whatever projections you are basing the pick on. Then your 3rd paragraph makes it sound like only RBs can overplay/outperform their ADP, or at least much more likely. Really, all the reasoning here is faulty.

As for the bolded, it seems like 1 of, if not the biggest stat you WR/WR guys rely on is top 10 turnover at WR vs RB. Why are you so sure AP, Foster, Martin, Charles, and {insert your next favorite RB} all finish top 5 then? IMO, Lesean McCoy has as good of a chance as anyone not named Peterson or Foster to finish top 5.

Setting aside the fact that I have never brought up the "turnover" issue and you are assigning the reasoning of others to my own assessments....

Both parts of your complaint can be answered the same way. In a tier of 12 (that way everyone can have a RB1... socialism, ain't it grand), they are not all created equal. The four or five at the top are far more likely to be repeaters than are those down near the cusp (remove injuries from the equation). Peterson, Foster and Martin are much less likely to fall short of RB1 numbers than are guys like SJax, Morris or Forte. Likewise, Calvin, AJ Green and D Thomas are much less likely to fall out of WR1 production than are guys like Andre Johnson, V Jax or Cobb. For guys on the bottom cusp of both the RB and WR tier, there is far more likelihood of downward mobility out of the top 15-20 than there is upward mobility into the top 5, at least in my mind. Forget volume of turnover... makes no difference. I'm talking individuals.

Also, I'm not looking for a 4th-round RB to play like a top-3 draft pick. But if I can get 4.1 to play like he's at 2.8, then I'm getting some value. And that, to me, feels much more likely than a guy at 1.12 playing like 1.2, particularly with this year's group. I can't think of a year when I've liked the 2nd round RBs less than this year.

And while I may have phrased it like a guy drafted in position X will perform like a guy at position X, I was just talking percentages. If a guy does his homework and has a reasonable idea of what's going on, drafting in front of you has a high percentage of landing him a better player. And if 10 guys in front of you are drafting RBs, do you think the guy you draft has a high likelihood of leapfrogging five or six guys taken in front of him? Myself, I'm getting off the freeway traffic jam and taking a side street.

As my wife reminds me, it's not always faster to do that. But sometimes it is. It just takes being a little lucky... and the first guy to think of it.

Its hard to even answer this long winded post that goes nowhere. Youre basically talking in circles.

As for the bolded, way to jump out on a limb and say RB1s or WR1s are far less likely to not meet their expectations like their RB2 or WR2 counterparts.

Maybe you should let your wife draft for you?

I called up a mock draft, grabbed guys taken at 10-12 and used them for my example. Your mileage may vary.

So tell you what, how about you list your suggestions for RB10-12 and WR10-12 so that we can use that? That way, we can circumvent you niggling at tiny points in an effort to intentionally avoid the point I'm making. Game?

EDIT: You know what? Screw that. You just made my point for me. I listed RBs who are commonly taken at the end of round 1 and WRs normally taken at the end of round 3... guys who should be the RB1 on their respective teams, and you scoffed at them as RB2s. You... just made my point perfectly. Thank you for that.

 

[sithrich]

"Calm down Francis"

Think you two are getting a little personal here...

Fantasy football theory craft has a ton of varying opinions. No need for insults.

That said I think the WR/WR argument ignores the fact that in most FPC real drafts (all people drafting, no auto picks) Calvin, Graham and a QB usually are taken, which leaves RBs like Lynch, Spiller, McCoy, Morris, available at the end of the round.

The end of rounds 3&4 have WRs White, VJax, Johnson, Etc

Grabbing 2 top 10 RBs in the first 2 round and grabbing 2 top 10-15 WRs is a much better strategy to build your team.

The team I drafted from the ten spot has Lynch, Morris, White, VJax with the first 4 picks...

 

[pantherclub]

The one thing that is constant and that Powers refuses to acknowledge and address is that that 6,7 or even 8 of the top 12 ranked backs will bust or flame out.

 

[IZ4]

The one thing that is constant and that Powers refuses to acknowledge and address is that that 6,7 or even 8 of the top 12 ranked backs will bust or flame out.

Out of all the people who post in this thread, you're my favorite.

 

[pantherclub]

The one thing that is constant and that Powers refuses to acknowledge and address is that that 6,7 or even 8 of the top 12 ranked backs will bust or flame out.

Out of all the people who post in this thread, you're my favorite.

the truth, I speak it

 

[IZ4]

The one thing that is constant and that Powers refuses to acknowledge and address is that that 6,7 or even 8 of the top 12 ranked backs will bust or flame out.

Out of all the people who post in this thread, you're my favorite.

the truth, I speak it

Anything can be a truth until you are proven wrong.

 

[pantherclub]

The one thing that is constant and that Powers refuses to acknowledge and address is that that 6,7 or even 8 of the top 12 ranked backs will bust or flame out.

Out of all the people who post in this thread, you're my favorite.

the truth, I speak it

Anything can be a truth until you are proven wrong.

by all means. Take a gander at the preseason top ranked backs from the past 3 seasons and see where they ended up. Go ahead I will wait, plus I already have the data right in front of me. I eagerly await your synopsis.

 

[IZ4]

The one thing that is constant and that Powers refuses to acknowledge and address is that that 6,7 or even 8 of the top 12 ranked backs will bust or flame out.

Out of all the people who post in this thread, you're my favorite.

the truth, I speak it

Anything can be a truth until you are proven wrong.

by all means. Take a gander at the preseason top ranked backs from the past 3 seasons and see where they ended up. Go ahead I will wait, plus I already have the data right in front of me. I eagerly await your synopsis.

You have my rankings from the past three years in front of you? Interesting. What you are continually doing is bashing other people's rankings. If you are the type to play FF on the coattails of others, feel free and enjoy yourself but don't be all uppity when people do the legwork themselves and present a solid case and/or opinion. You are not nearly as good as you think you are.

 

[chickensoup]

The one thing that is constant and that Powers refuses to acknowledge and address is that that 6,7 or even 8 of the top 12 ranked backs will bust or flame out.

Out of all the people who post in this thread, you're my favorite.

the truth, I speak it

Anything can be a truth until you are proven wrong.

by all means. Take a gander at the preseason top ranked backs from the past 3 seasons and see where they ended up. Go ahead I will wait, plus I already have the data right in front of me. I eagerly await your synopsis.

A significant portion of those are injury related. Not all, but enough to drive the number up higher. Most of the time it's really not lack of production while on the field that drops backs outside the top tiers.

Players can account for injuries. Folks act like the only people who can comb the waivers or pick up fliers on backups are those who went WR/WR, but it's shortsited. I typically carry anywhere from 5-8 RB and still grab hot commodities on waivers when I can.

And again, people are not suggesting always go RB/RB in the first 2 rounds. People should be saying unless something truly opportunistic shows up (Mega/Graham for instance. Two guys likely to finish as top performers at WR/TE) it's probably a pretty good idea to at least get 1 RB in the first 2 rounds. Don't reach for guys, don't take guys your uncomfortable taking, but it's probably a great idea because of who you have available to you in the 3/4 range.

 

[fightingillini]

Couple of other issue regarding not drafting a RB in the 1st two rounds

1) WRs tend to be more inconsistent than RBs game to game. So even if your elite WR has a great season and doesn't bust, he's likely to have a couple of more dud games than a RB who is consistently getting 18+ touches a game. When your Calvin or your AJ Green or Brandon Marshall has a 3-45-0 type game......you will usually lose. Where as a player like Matt Forte is likely to get 10+ points every week in PPR even if he doesn't score becuase he's catching 2-4 passes a game.

2) Once you start your draft with WR-WR or WR-QB or WR-Graham, your draft strategy becomes inflexible. You HAVE to get RBs, and your leaguemates know it. So if your drafting in the swing, the owners in the 7-11 spots know that WRs that they want will likely get back to them in the next round.....and the WR pool is deep. But they know that the RB that they want will not. So you risk that there will be another mini RB run the late 3rd round, knowing that it's likely that the swing owner who took WR-WR will probably take RB-RB with their next two picks. Now you're stuck with RBs ranked 18th or worse and counting on one of those as your RB1.

So if I am drafting late, I am going with one of my top 12 RBs- elite WR or RB-Graham.....I prefer RB-WR since that gives me the most flexibility to take advantage of value that is given to me in the 3rd and 4th rounds. Once I get to the 5th and 6th rounds, that's when I start looking for need if I have to.

 

[Junior McSpiffy]

The one thing that is constant and that Powers refuses to acknowledge and address is that that 6,7 or even 8 of the top 12 ranked backs will bust or flame out.

Out of all the people who post in this thread, you're my favorite.

the truth, I speak it

Anything can be a truth until you are proven wrong.

by all means. Take a gander at the preseason top ranked backs from the past 3 seasons and see where they ended up. Go ahead I will wait, plus I already have the data right in front of me. I eagerly await your synopsis.

A significant portion of those are injury related. Not all, but enough to drive the number up higher. Most of the time it's really not lack of production while on the field that drops backs outside the top tiers.

Players can account for injuries. Folks act like the only people who can comb the waivers or pick up fliers on backups are those who went WR/WR, but it's shortsited. I typically carry anywhere from 5-8 RB and still grab hot commodities on waivers when I can.

And again, people are not suggesting always go RB/RB in the first 2 rounds. People should be saying unless something truly opportunistic shows up (Mega/Graham for instance. Two guys likely to finish as top performers at WR/TE) it's probably a pretty good idea to at least get 1 RB in the first 2 rounds. Don't reach for guys, don't take guys your uncomfortable taking, but it's probably a great idea because of who you have available to you in the 3/4 range.

But it's like I was saying before: at the end of rounds 3 and 4, I'm getting WRs who everyone acts will perform like WR1s but who have a better chance of sinking to low WR2 production than they do overperforming their draft status and playing like a top-5 guy.

Maybe I'm stuck in a mindset, but it feels like I'm being told to draft for floor for the first two-thirds of my draft. Grab two RBs who will be "solid" (code for "unspectacular"), then since I have my RBs, get two WRs who are equally "solid." Round five, now maybe I get to shoot for the moon from my WR3 position, but round six, get a good backup RB... you know, someone "solid." Round seven and eight, time to get that "solid" TE and QB combo. Sounds like the perfect recipe for a milquetoast team finishing sixth.

The way I see it, there is a tier of four or five RBs who clearly separate themselves, then a pool of fifteen or so guys all lumped together. Same with the WRs... four or five guys who are elite, potential game-changers, then a huge, steaming lump of "value." I'm being told to pass on a chance to get two elite guys just to take two faces in the crowd... and the reasoning is because there will be two more faces in the crowd further along the road.

That is far from loin-moistening.

 

[We Tigers]

But it's like I was saying before: at the end of rounds 3 and 4, I'm getting WRs who everyone acts will perform like WR1s but who have a better chance of sinking to low WR2 production than they do overperforming their draft status and playing like a top-5 guy.

Maybe I'm stuck in a mindset, but it feels like I'm being told to draft for floor for the first two-thirds of my draft. Grab two RBs who will be "solid" (code for "unspectacular"), then since I have my RBs, get two WRs who are equally "solid." Round five, now maybe I get to shoot for the moon from my WR3 position, but round six, get a good backup RB... you know, someone "solid." Round seven and eight, time to get that "solid" TE and QB combo. Sounds like the perfect recipe for a milquetoast team finishing sixth.

The way I see it, there is a tier of four or five RBs who clearly separate themselves, then a pool of fifteen or so guys all lumped together. Same with the WRs... four or five guys who are elite, potential game-changers, then a huge, steaming lump of "value." I'm being told to pass on a chance to get two elite guys just to take two faces in the crowd... and the reasoning is because there will be two more faces in the crowd further along the road.

That is far from loin-moistening.

I'd argue that you're more likely to find a game-changer in a late 1st/early 2nd RB than you are a late 1st/early 2nd WR. The loin-moistening guys should be the ones you think can outperform their draft slot and deliver real value. My bet is that the teams who pick the right late 1st/early 2nd RB out of the likes of Jackson, Forte, Chris Johnson, etc. are going to be hoisting a lot of fake trophies at the end of the year. Similarly, the team that gets the right 4th/5th round WR out of Nelson, Nicks, Bowe, Amendola, Decker, etc. will do the same.You win with the guys who over perform. I think the "safer" path is taking AJ Green or Dez as WR2 or WR3, but you still need to be looking for last year's Dez or Demaryius Thomas. (For my money, your best candidates for that this year are Nicks and Bowe, but your opinion may vary.)

"Elite" isn't really the 2nd or 3rd WR or RB performing that way. It's the 15th performing like the 5th, or the 30th performing like the 15th. RB is the only position where you can already be looking to outperform ADP at the 1/2 turn.. There's value in that. Every time you spend a pick on a "sure thing"--say, a top 5-7 player at the position--you're giving up a chance to find the breakout at a more depleted position. Obviously you'd pick from the 5-7 top ranked guys at every position if you could, but you run out of those opportunities quickly.

It sounds a little counterintuitive, I'll admit. But if I'm picking near the end of the first round, there's a very good chance I'm taking one top-ranked receiver and one of those late 1st/early 2nd backs. That's a good hedge between the safety of a "sure thing" and the potential big returns of an outperformer.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Maaaaaaybe I've missed it in the last page or so, but I feel like Graham is being overlooked. If I'm at the back, I typically like my teams most when I end up with

Calvin/RB

Graham

WR or RB (opposite of round 1)

RB

That's why I like getting Graham early with a top WR or RB - you're locking in a positional advantage of quite a few points per week. If you're playing the WW to improve at one position...I think a RB or WR has proven to be a lot more likely to break out each year than a TE is.

The more I think about it and read this thread, Im starting to think Graham is overrated. He was TE1 last year, but from 2011 his catches dropped by 14, yardage by 325, and TDs by 2. Now I think its reasonable for his numbers to go back up towards middle ground of his last 2 years, like 92/1170/10, but 2011 was a historic season for a TE (both him and Gronk) for a reason, because thats real tough to do. He offers no real advantage over Witten or Gonzalez in PPR, yet is going 3+ rounds ahead of them.

I realize TE is a position that looked deep 2 years ago and now looks questionable if you wait, but Graham,Gonzo, and Witten basically had identical seasons point wise last year in PPR, and not much of a difference in non-PPR. I actually think Witten and Gonzo are the value plays, but Im perfectly fine waiting for a TE and maybe grabbing combo like Daniels/Davis and I typically only roster 1 TE.

This makes me think you don't get the math behind Graham's production:

Last year he was about 3 PPG better than Witten (this year's consensus "next guy"). He was about 2 PPG better than Tony G, who I personally don't see repeating his production at all.

Last year, as you so eloquently put, was far below his capabilities. He was hurt, he played hurt in many games, and he was still the #1 TE. He could be worth as much as 5-8 ppg over the #2 TE (and a helluva lot more over each TE worse...) all year long. The advantage is massive.

Last year (based on 1 PPR, 1pt/10 yds, 6pts/TD):

Graham: 85/982/9 = 237.2 pts

Witten: 110/1039/3 = 231.9 pts

Gonzo: 93/930/8 = 234 pts

Where is my math wrong? Those are nearly identical years and the other guys are going 3+ rounds later

Graham missed games and played in others hurt.

Look, you clearly know everything and are perfect, so you don't have to take my word for it...but you sound kind of like an idiot sometimes. Just think before you post.

Also, I get points for this year, not last year. A lot of people have a lot of success basing everything off of last year, but I tend to try and base my picks, strategies, and thoughts about what I think will happen this year. It's not that one way is more right or wrong, but it is a viable option.

Have a good one man.

Graham missed 1 game last year.

I dont think Ive said anything that makes me sound like an idiot, but ok.

Thanks for your rebuttal on the top TEs stats last year

I would suggest that those numbers for Graham are probably his floor, while the numbers for the other 2 are probably their ceilings. That is the difference. Though you make a fair point.

 

[JustinHawkins]

I have RB fever for sure. Just took Gio Bernard at 5.2 in a PPR redraft (draft only league, no lineup submissions)

Took him over Ball, Lacy, and even Vereen. All aboard CHOO CHOO!

 

[Ilov80s]

Maaaaaaybe I've missed it in the last page or so, but I feel like Graham is being overlooked. If I'm at the back, I typically like my teams most when I end up with

Calvin/RB

Graham

WR or RB (opposite of round 1)

RB

That's why I like getting Graham early with a top WR or RB - you're locking in a positional advantage of quite a few points per week. If you're playing the WW to improve at one position...I think a RB or WR has proven to be a lot more likely to break out each year than a TE is.

The more I think about it and read this thread, Im starting to think Graham is overrated. He was TE1 last year, but from 2011 his catches dropped by 14, yardage by 325, and TDs by 2. Now I think its reasonable for his numbers to go back up towards middle ground of his last 2 years, like 92/1170/10, but 2011 was a historic season for a TE (both him and Gronk) for a reason, because thats real tough to do. He offers no real advantage over Witten or Gonzalez in PPR, yet is going 3+ rounds ahead of them.

I realize TE is a position that looked deep 2 years ago and now looks questionable if you wait, but Graham,Gonzo, and Witten basically had identical seasons point wise last year in PPR, and not much of a difference in non-PPR. I actually think Witten and Gonzo are the value plays, but Im perfectly fine waiting for a TE and maybe grabbing combo like Daniels/Davis and I typically only roster 1 TE.

This makes me think you don't get the math behind Graham's production:

Last year he was about 3 PPG better than Witten (this year's consensus "next guy"). He was about 2 PPG better than Tony G, who I personally don't see repeating his production at all.

Last year, as you so eloquently put, was far below his capabilities. He was hurt, he played hurt in many games, and he was still the #1 TE. He could be worth as much as 5-8 ppg over the #2 TE (and a helluva lot more over each TE worse...) all year long. The advantage is massive.

Last year (based on 1 PPR, 1pt/10 yds, 6pts/TD):

Graham: 85/982/9 = 237.2 pts

Witten: 110/1039/3 = 231.9 pts

Gonzo: 93/930/8 = 234 pts

Where is my math wrong? Those are nearly identical years and the other guys are going 3+ rounds later

Graham missed games and played in others hurt.

Look, you clearly know everything and are perfect, so you don't have to take my word for it...but you sound kind of like an idiot sometimes. Just think before you post.

Also, I get points for this year, not last year. A lot of people have a lot of success basing everything off of last year, but I tend to try and base my picks, strategies, and thoughts about what I think will happen this year. It's not that one way is more right or wrong, but it is a viable option.

Have a good one man.

Graham missed 1 game last year.

I dont think Ive said anything that makes me sound like an idiot, but ok.

Thanks for your rebuttal on the top TEs stats last year

I would suggest that those numbers for Graham are probably his floor, while the numbers for the other 2 are probably their ceilings. That is the difference. Though you make a fair point.

Here are my 2 cents on why Graham is not being overlooked or undervalued. Last year, in standard scoring, 6pts a TD. Graham was the #1 TE and he finished 57 points higher than the 12th TE. The #1 QB last year scored 110 more points than the 12th QB. Ok, so we say Graham has huge upside. Best case scenario would be like Gronks 2011. That year Gronk was 143 points higher than the 12th TE. However, the #1 QB in 2011 finished 170 points higher than the 12th QB. In 2010, it was +73 vs +58 in favor of the QB again. Just looking at the numbers, getting the top QB is going to get you a bigger edge on points at the position than taking Graham. If you take Graham, you are taking the fact that he is reliable and is the surest bet to be the #1 TE, but not because he gives you a massive points advantage.

 

[pantherclub]

Couple of other issue regarding not drafting a RB in the 1st two rounds

1) WRs tend to be more inconsistent than RBs game to game. So even if your elite WR has a great season and doesn't bust, he's likely to have a couple of more dud games than a RB who is consistently getting 18+ touches a game. When your Calvin or your AJ Green or Brandon Marshall has a 3-45-0 type game......you will usually lose. Where as a player like Matt Forte is likely to get 10+ points every week in PPR even if he doesn't score becuase he's catching 2-4 passes a game.

2) Once you start your draft with WR-WR or WR-QB or WR-Graham, your draft strategy becomes inflexible. You HAVE to get RBs, and your leaguemates know it. So if your drafting in the swing, the owners in the 7-11 spots know that WRs that they want will likely get back to them in the next round.....and the WR pool is deep. But they know that the RB that they want will not. So you risk that there will be another mini RB run the late 3rd round, knowing that it's likely that the swing owner who took WR-WR will probably take RB-RB with their next two picks. Now you're stuck with RBs ranked 18th or worse and counting on one of those as your RB1.

So if I am drafting late, I am going with one of my top 12 RBs- elite WR or RB-Graham.....I prefer RB-WR since that gives me the most flexibility to take advantage of value that is given to me in the 3rd and 4th rounds. Once I get to the 5th and 6th rounds, that's when I start looking for need if I have to.

1) I am not sure how you can positively quantify that running backs are more consistent then wr's at getting points. It would be almost impossible to do. I think perhaps you "feel" like this is true but its really probably not.

2)Who cares what your leaguemates know, if they are adjusting their strategy to counter yours then thats a huge win as you can pick up even more value because they are catering to you.

If I am drafting late (10-12) I would target a qb if the #1 was on the board or Calvin or AJ Green. Coming back around it would be probably Julio, Graham or Marshall. If the Running back "run" continues down the second and back up the 3rd I will go ahead and get my 3rd wr and be set. Focus on the mid level running backs from there. Chances are one of those will produce high RB 2 numbers maybe a one if you get like on a guy like Spiller from last year. I feel that my 3 top wr or 2 wr and elite quarterback will mask any deficient running back numbers until I decide on my set running back starters.

This method has been very good to me for the past few years. Like I said, I always seem to find legit starters in the middle rounds.

 

[Junior McSpiffy]

But it's like I was saying before: at the end of rounds 3 and 4, I'm getting WRs who everyone acts will perform like WR1s but who have a better chance of sinking to low WR2 production than they do overperforming their draft status and playing like a top-5 guy.

Maybe I'm stuck in a mindset, but it feels like I'm being told to draft for floor for the first two-thirds of my draft. Grab two RBs who will be "solid" (code for "unspectacular"), then since I have my RBs, get two WRs who are equally "solid." Round five, now maybe I get to shoot for the moon from my WR3 position, but round six, get a good backup RB... you know, someone "solid." Round seven and eight, time to get that "solid" TE and QB combo. Sounds like the perfect recipe for a milquetoast team finishing sixth.

The way I see it, there is a tier of four or five RBs who clearly separate themselves, then a pool of fifteen or so guys all lumped together. Same with the WRs... four or five guys who are elite, potential game-changers, then a huge, steaming lump of "value." I'm being told to pass on a chance to get two elite guys just to take two faces in the crowd... and the reasoning is because there will be two more faces in the crowd further along the road.

That is far from loin-moistening.

"Elite" isn't really the 2nd or 3rd WR or RB performing that way. It's the 15th performing like the 5th, or the 30th performing like the 15th. RB is the only position where you can already be looking to outperform ADP at the 1/2 turn.. There's value in that. Every time you spend a pick on a "sure thing"--say, a top 5-7 player at the position--you're giving up a chance to find the breakout at a more depleted position. Obviously you'd pick from the 5-7 top ranked guys at every position if you could, but you run out of those opportunities quickly.

It sounds a little counterintuitive, I'll admit. But if I'm picking near the end of the first round, there's a very good chance I'm taking one top-ranked receiver and one of those late 1st/early 2nd backs. That's a good hedge between the safety of a "sure thing" and the potential big returns of an outperformer.

The point about over-performing at RB1... makes sense. I still would need to see a RB I feel comfortable with fall to me at that spot, but perhaps I could find a way to expand my idea of "first tier" a bit.

 

[Ilov80s]

Couple of other issue regarding not drafting a RB in the 1st two rounds

1) WRs tend to be more inconsistent than RBs game to game. So even if your elite WR has a great season and doesn't bust, he's likely to have a couple of more dud games than a RB who is consistently getting 18+ touches a game. When your Calvin or your AJ Green or Brandon Marshall has a 3-45-0 type game......you will usually lose. Where as a player like Matt Forte is likely to get 10+ points every week in PPR even if he doesn't score becuase he's catching 2-4 passes a game.

2) Once you start your draft with WR-WR or WR-QB or WR-Graham, your draft strategy becomes inflexible. You HAVE to get RBs, and your leaguemates know it. So if your drafting in the swing, the owners in the 7-11 spots know that WRs that they want will likely get back to them in the next round.....and the WR pool is deep. But they know that the RB that they want will not. So you risk that there will be another mini RB run the late 3rd round, knowing that it's likely that the swing owner who took WR-WR will probably take RB-RB with their next two picks. Now you're stuck with RBs ranked 18th or worse and counting on one of those as your RB1.

So if I am drafting late, I am going with one of my top 12 RBs- elite WR or RB-Graham.....I prefer RB-WR since that gives me the most flexibility to take advantage of value that is given to me in the 3rd and 4th rounds. Once I get to the 5th and 6th rounds, that's when I start looking for need if I have to.

1) I am not sure how you can positively quantify that running backs are more consistent then wr's at getting points. It would be almost impossible to do. I think perhaps you "feel" like this is true but its really probably not.

http://www.thehuddle.com/2013/articles/dmd-consistency-player-rankings-wide-receiver.php

http://www.thehuddle.com/2013/articles/dmd-consistency-player-rankings-running-back.php

 

[pantherclub]

Couple of other issue regarding not drafting a RB in the 1st two rounds

1) WRs tend to be more inconsistent than RBs game to game. So even if your elite WR has a great season and doesn't bust, he's likely to have a couple of more dud games than a RB who is consistently getting 18+ touches a game. When your Calvin or your AJ Green or Brandon Marshall has a 3-45-0 type game......you will usually lose. Where as a player like Matt Forte is likely to get 10+ points every week in PPR even if he doesn't score becuase he's catching 2-4 passes a game.

2) Once you start your draft with WR-WR or WR-QB or WR-Graham, your draft strategy becomes inflexible. You HAVE to get RBs, and your leaguemates know it. So if your drafting in the swing, the owners in the 7-11 spots know that WRs that they want will likely get back to them in the next round.....and the WR pool is deep. But they know that the RB that they want will not. So you risk that there will be another mini RB run the late 3rd round, knowing that it's likely that the swing owner who took WR-WR will probably take RB-RB with their next two picks. Now you're stuck with RBs ranked 18th or worse and counting on one of those as your RB1.

So if I am drafting late, I am going with one of my top 12 RBs- elite WR or RB-Graham.....I prefer RB-WR since that gives me the most flexibility to take advantage of value that is given to me in the 3rd and 4th rounds. Once I get to the 5th and 6th rounds, that's when I start looking for need if I have to.

1) I am not sure how you can positively quantify that running backs are more consistent then wr's at getting points. It would be almost impossible to do. I think perhaps you "feel" like this is true but its really probably not.

http://www.thehuddle.com/2013/articles/dmd-consistency-player-rankings-wide-receiver.php

http://www.thehuddle.com/2013/articles/dmd-consistency-player-rankings-running-back.php

If I am reading that right and after a quick glance at the top 12 it appears that wr are more consistent. If I am reading that correctly.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Maaaaaaybe I've missed it in the last page or so, but I feel like Graham is being overlooked. If I'm at the back, I typically like my teams most when I end up with

Calvin/RB

Graham

WR or RB (opposite of round 1)

RB

That's why I like getting Graham early with a top WR or RB - you're locking in a positional advantage of quite a few points per week. If you're playing the WW to improve at one position...I think a RB or WR has proven to be a lot more likely to break out each year than a TE is.

The more I think about it and read this thread, Im starting to think Graham is overrated. He was TE1 last year, but from 2011 his catches dropped by 14, yardage by 325, and TDs by 2. Now I think its reasonable for his numbers to go back up towards middle ground of his last 2 years, like 92/1170/10, but 2011 was a historic season for a TE (both him and Gronk) for a reason, because thats real tough to do. He offers no real advantage over Witten or Gonzalez in PPR, yet is going 3+ rounds ahead of them.

I realize TE is a position that looked deep 2 years ago and now looks questionable if you wait, but Graham,Gonzo, and Witten basically had identical seasons point wise last year in PPR, and not much of a difference in non-PPR. I actually think Witten and Gonzo are the value plays, but Im perfectly fine waiting for a TE and maybe grabbing combo like Daniels/Davis and I typically only roster 1 TE.

This makes me think you don't get the math behind Graham's production:

Last year he was about 3 PPG better than Witten (this year's consensus "next guy"). He was about 2 PPG better than Tony G, who I personally don't see repeating his production at all.

Last year, as you so eloquently put, was far below his capabilities. He was hurt, he played hurt in many games, and he was still the #1 TE. He could be worth as much as 5-8 ppg over the #2 TE (and a helluva lot more over each TE worse...) all year long. The advantage is massive.

Last year (based on 1 PPR, 1pt/10 yds, 6pts/TD):

Graham: 85/982/9 = 237.2 pts

Witten: 110/1039/3 = 231.9 pts

Gonzo: 93/930/8 = 234 pts

Where is my math wrong? Those are nearly identical years and the other guys are going 3+ rounds later

Graham missed games and played in others hurt.

Look, you clearly know everything and are perfect, so you don't have to take my word for it...but you sound kind of like an idiot sometimes. Just think before you post.

Also, I get points for this year, not last year. A lot of people have a lot of success basing everything off of last year, but I tend to try and base my picks, strategies, and thoughts about what I think will happen this year. It's not that one way is more right or wrong, but it is a viable option.

Have a good one man.

Graham missed 1 game last year.

I dont think Ive said anything that makes me sound like an idiot, but ok.

Thanks for your rebuttal on the top TEs stats last year

I would suggest that those numbers for Graham are probably his floor, while the numbers for the other 2 are probably their ceilings. That is the difference. Though you make a fair point.

Here are my 2 cents on why Graham is not being overlooked or undervalued. Last year, in standard scoring, 6pts a TD. Graham was the #1 TE and he finished 57 points higher than the 12th TE. The #1 QB last year scored 110 more points than the 12th QB. Ok, so we say Graham has huge upside. Best case scenario would be like Gronks 2011. That year Gronk was 143 points higher than the 12th TE. However, the #1 QB in 2011 finished 170 points higher than the 12th QB. In 2010, it was +73 vs +58 in favor of the QB again. Just looking at the numbers, getting the top QB is going to get you a bigger edge on points at the position than taking Graham. If you take Graham, you are taking the fact that he is reliable and is the surest bet to be the #1 TE, but not because he gives you a massive points advantage.

Without doing all the math, there may be some legitimacy here, but wouldn't 57 points for a TE be much more important than 57 points for a QB? What percentage over the number 12 QB was the number 1 and the same for TE?

e.g., A difference between 500 and 390 would be less valuable than a difference between 157 and 100, no?

 

[Ilov80s]

Couple of other issue regarding not drafting a RB in the 1st two rounds

1) WRs tend to be more inconsistent than RBs game to game. So even if your elite WR has a great season and doesn't bust, he's likely to have a couple of more dud games than a RB who is consistently getting 18+ touches a game. When your Calvin or your AJ Green or Brandon Marshall has a 3-45-0 type game......you will usually lose. Where as a player like Matt Forte is likely to get 10+ points every week in PPR even if he doesn't score becuase he's catching 2-4 passes a game.

2) Once you start your draft with WR-WR or WR-QB or WR-Graham, your draft strategy becomes inflexible. You HAVE to get RBs, and your leaguemates know it. So if your drafting in the swing, the owners in the 7-11 spots know that WRs that they want will likely get back to them in the next round.....and the WR pool is deep. But they know that the RB that they want will not. So you risk that there will be another mini RB run the late 3rd round, knowing that it's likely that the swing owner who took WR-WR will probably take RB-RB with their next two picks. Now you're stuck with RBs ranked 18th or worse and counting on one of those as your RB1.

So if I am drafting late, I am going with one of my top 12 RBs- elite WR or RB-Graham.....I prefer RB-WR since that gives me the most flexibility to take advantage of value that is given to me in the 3rd and 4th rounds. Once I get to the 5th and 6th rounds, that's when I start looking for need if I have to.

1) I am not sure how you can positively quantify that running backs are more consistent then wr's at getting points. It would be almost impossible to do. I think perhaps you "feel" like this is true but its really probably not.

http://www.thehuddle.com/2013/articles/dmd-consistency-player-rankings-wide-receiver.php

http://www.thehuddle.com/2013/articles/dmd-consistency-player-rankings-running-back.php

If I am reading that right and after a quick glance at the top 12 it appears that wr are more consistent. If I am reading that correctly.

Yeah, last year WRs were more consistent based on his analysis (did they get a 100 yards and/or a TD). There were more WRs over 50% than there were RBs over 50%. Not a perfect system as a player with 50 yards and another with 5 yards are both rated as an equal miss.

 

[We Tigers]

But it's like I was saying before: at the end of rounds 3 and 4, I'm getting WRs who everyone acts will perform like WR1s but who have a better chance of sinking to low WR2 production than they do overperforming their draft status and playing like a top-5 guy.

Maybe I'm stuck in a mindset, but it feels like I'm being told to draft for floor for the first two-thirds of my draft. Grab two RBs who will be "solid" (code for "unspectacular"), then since I have my RBs, get two WRs who are equally "solid." Round five, now maybe I get to shoot for the moon from my WR3 position, but round six, get a good backup RB... you know, someone "solid." Round seven and eight, time to get that "solid" TE and QB combo. Sounds like the perfect recipe for a milquetoast team finishing sixth.

The way I see it, there is a tier of four or five RBs who clearly separate themselves, then a pool of fifteen or so guys all lumped together. Same with the WRs... four or five guys who are elite, potential game-changers, then a huge, steaming lump of "value." I'm being told to pass on a chance to get two elite guys just to take two faces in the crowd... and the reasoning is because there will be two more faces in the crowd further along the road.

That is far from loin-moistening.

"Elite" isn't really the 2nd or 3rd WR or RB performing that way. It's the 15th performing like the 5th, or the 30th performing like the 15th. RB is the only position where you can already be looking to outperform ADP at the 1/2 turn.. There's value in that. Every time you spend a pick on a "sure thing"--say, a top 5-7 player at the position--you're giving up a chance to find the breakout at a more depleted position. Obviously you'd pick from the 5-7 top ranked guys at every position if you could, but you run out of those opportunities quickly.It sounds a little counterintuitive, I'll admit. But if I'm picking near the end of the first round, there's a very good chance I'm taking one top-ranked receiver and one of those late 1st/early 2nd backs. That's a good hedge between the safety of a "sure thing" and the potential big returns of an outperformer.

The point about over-performing at RB1... makes sense. I still would need to see a RB I feel comfortable with fall to me at that spot, but perhaps I could find a way to expand my idea of "first tier" a bit.

To pull on that thread a little more: if we grant that half of the first ten RBs taken will underperform, doesn't that make the next few off the board pretty good investments? I know the order is arbitrary, as is the fact that the dropout happens every year (I'd say it's more just a reflection of the fact that half of RBs tend to underperform across the board, often through injury). But if you're the kind of person who believes ADP has at least some loose predictive value (or at least derives from prediction/the wisdom of the crowd), you'd probably bank on the 11th through 15th ranked guys being next in line for relatively big numbers when half the top ten fails, right? In that respect, there's nothing special about "top ten" RBs versus the rest of them. Seems like fantasy football managers get things right about half the time whether you're top ten or top thirty.For all its sniping, this thread is going some interesting places. Good stuff.

 

[stbugs]

Maaaaaaybe I've missed it in the last page or so, but I feel like Graham is being overlooked. If I'm at the back, I typically like my teams most when I end up with

Calvin/RB

Graham

WR or RB (opposite of round 1)

RB

That's why I like getting Graham early with a top WR or RB - you're locking in a positional advantage of quite a few points per week. If you're playing the WW to improve at one position...I think a RB or WR has proven to be a lot more likely to break out each year than a TE is.

The more I think about it and read this thread, Im starting to think Graham is overrated. He was TE1 last year, but from 2011 his catches dropped by 14, yardage by 325, and TDs by 2. Now I think its reasonable for his numbers to go back up towards middle ground of his last 2 years, like 92/1170/10, but 2011 was a historic season for a TE (both him and Gronk) for a reason, because thats real tough to do. He offers no real advantage over Witten or Gonzalez in PPR, yet is going 3+ rounds ahead of them.

I realize TE is a position that looked deep 2 years ago and now looks questionable if you wait, but Graham,Gonzo, and Witten basically had identical seasons point wise last year in PPR, and not much of a difference in non-PPR. I actually think Witten and Gonzo are the value plays, but Im perfectly fine waiting for a TE and maybe grabbing combo like Daniels/Davis and I typically only roster 1 TE.

This makes me think you don't get the math behind Graham's production:

Last year he was about 3 PPG better than Witten (this year's consensus "next guy"). He was about 2 PPG better than Tony G, who I personally don't see repeating his production at all.

Last year, as you so eloquently put, was far below his capabilities. He was hurt, he played hurt in many games, and he was still the #1 TE. He could be worth as much as 5-8 ppg over the #2 TE (and a helluva lot more over each TE worse...) all year long. The advantage is massive.

Last year (based on 1 PPR, 1pt/10 yds, 6pts/TD):

Graham: 85/982/9 = 237.2 pts

Witten: 110/1039/3 = 231.9 pts

Gonzo: 93/930/8 = 234 pts

Where is my math wrong? Those are nearly identical years and the other guys are going 3+ rounds later

Graham missed games and played in others hurt.

Look, you clearly know everything and are perfect, so you don't have to take my word for it...but you sound kind of like an idiot sometimes. Just think before you post.

Also, I get points for this year, not last year. A lot of people have a lot of success basing everything off of last year, but I tend to try and base my picks, strategies, and thoughts about what I think will happen this year. It's not that one way is more right or wrong, but it is a viable option.

Have a good one man.

Graham missed 1 game last year.

I dont think Ive said anything that makes me sound like an idiot, but ok.

Thanks for your rebuttal on the top TEs stats last year

I would suggest that those numbers for Graham are probably his floor, while the numbers for the other 2 are probably their ceilings. That is the difference. Though you make a fair point.

Here are my 2 cents on why Graham is not being overlooked or undervalued. Last year, in standard scoring, 6pts a TD. Graham was the #1 TE and he finished 57 points higher than the 12th TE. The #1 QB last year scored 110 more points than the 12th QB. Ok, so we say Graham has huge upside. Best case scenario would be like Gronks 2011. That year Gronk was 143 points higher than the 12th TE. However, the #1 QB in 2011 finished 170 points higher than the 12th QB. In 2010, it was +73 vs +58 in favor of the QB again. Just looking at the numbers, getting the top QB is going to get you a bigger edge on points at the position than taking Graham. If you take Graham, you are taking the fact that he is reliable and is the surest bet to be the #1 TE, but not because he gives you a massive points advantage.

Without doing all the math, there may be some legitimacy here, but wouldn't 57 points for a TE be much more important than 57 points for a QB? What percentage over the number 12 QB was the number 1 and the same for TE?

e.g., A difference between 500 and 390 would be less valuable than a difference between 157 and 100, no?

No, that is wrong. The percentage doesn't matter, it is the point difference. Getting 110 points more for the year is better than 57 points more. Assuming the rest of the players all score the average for Team A and Team B and all those guys score 2000 points, Team A with QB1 and TE12 will score 2600 points and Team B will score 2547 points. Team A will be better.

 

[pantherclub]

I dont think anyone is arguing over the top 3, maybe 4 backs. Its when you get into the Chris Johnson, Forte, Richardson area is where people start getting a little queasy. Thats the same basic area that a top qb or Calvin, Green could go.

 

[Ilov80s]

Maaaaaaybe I've missed it in the last page or so, but I feel like Graham is being overlooked. If I'm at the back, I typically like my teams most when I end up with

Calvin/RB

Graham

WR or RB (opposite of round 1)

RB

That's why I like getting Graham early with a top WR or RB - you're locking in a positional advantage of quite a few points per week. If you're playing the WW to improve at one position...I think a RB or WR has proven to be a lot more likely to break out each year than a TE is.

The more I think about it and read this thread, Im starting to think Graham is overrated. He was TE1 last year, but from 2011 his catches dropped by 14, yardage by 325, and TDs by 2. Now I think its reasonable for his numbers to go back up towards middle ground of his last 2 years, like 92/1170/10, but 2011 was a historic season for a TE (both him and Gronk) for a reason, because thats real tough to do. He offers no real advantage over Witten or Gonzalez in PPR, yet is going 3+ rounds ahead of them.

I realize TE is a position that looked deep 2 years ago and now looks questionable if you wait, but Graham,Gonzo, and Witten basically had identical seasons point wise last year in PPR, and not much of a difference in non-PPR. I actually think Witten and Gonzo are the value plays, but Im perfectly fine waiting for a TE and maybe grabbing combo like Daniels/Davis and I typically only roster 1 TE.

This makes me think you don't get the math behind Graham's production:

Last year he was about 3 PPG better than Witten (this year's consensus "next guy"). He was about 2 PPG better than Tony G, who I personally don't see repeating his production at all.

Last year, as you so eloquently put, was far below his capabilities. He was hurt, he played hurt in many games, and he was still the #1 TE. He could be worth as much as 5-8 ppg over the #2 TE (and a helluva lot more over each TE worse...) all year long. The advantage is massive.

Last year (based on 1 PPR, 1pt/10 yds, 6pts/TD):

Graham: 85/982/9 = 237.2 pts

Witten: 110/1039/3 = 231.9 pts

Gonzo: 93/930/8 = 234 pts

Where is my math wrong? Those are nearly identical years and the other guys are going 3+ rounds later

Graham missed games and played in others hurt.

Look, you clearly know everything and are perfect, so you don't have to take my word for it...but you sound kind of like an idiot sometimes. Just think before you post.

Also, I get points for this year, not last year. A lot of people have a lot of success basing everything off of last year, but I tend to try and base my picks, strategies, and thoughts about what I think will happen this year. It's not that one way is more right or wrong, but it is a viable option.

Have a good one man.

Graham missed 1 game last year.

I dont think Ive said anything that makes me sound like an idiot, but ok.

Thanks for your rebuttal on the top TEs stats last year

I would suggest that those numbers for Graham are probably his floor, while the numbers for the other 2 are probably their ceilings. That is the difference. Though you make a fair point.

Here are my 2 cents on why Graham is not being overlooked or undervalued. Last year, in standard scoring, 6pts a TD. Graham was the #1 TE and he finished 57 points higher than the 12th TE. The #1 QB last year scored 110 more points than the 12th QB. Ok, so we say Graham has huge upside. Best case scenario would be like Gronks 2011. That year Gronk was 143 points higher than the 12th TE. However, the #1 QB in 2011 finished 170 points higher than the 12th QB. In 2010, it was +73 vs +58 in favor of the QB again. Just looking at the numbers, getting the top QB is going to get you a bigger edge on points at the position than taking Graham. If you take Graham, you are taking the fact that he is reliable and is the surest bet to be the #1 TE, but not because he gives you a massive points advantage.

Without doing all the math, there may be some legitimacy here, but wouldn't 57 points for a TE be much more important than 57 points for a QB? What percentage over the number 12 QB was the number 1 and the same for TE?

e.g., A difference between 500 and 390 would be less valuable than a difference between 157 and 100, no?

My league uses the weekly sum of the starting rosters to determine weekly point totals so it doesn't matter whether my QB scores 30 and my TE scores 10 or vice versa. It's 40 points either way.

 

[stbugs]

But it's like I was saying before: at the end of rounds 3 and 4, I'm getting WRs who everyone acts will perform like WR1s but who have a better chance of sinking to low WR2 production than they do overperforming their draft status and playing like a top-5 guy.

Maybe I'm stuck in a mindset, but it feels like I'm being told to draft for floor for the first two-thirds of my draft. Grab two RBs who will be "solid" (code for "unspectacular"), then since I have my RBs, get two WRs who are equally "solid." Round five, now maybe I get to shoot for the moon from my WR3 position, but round six, get a good backup RB... you know, someone "solid." Round seven and eight, time to get that "solid" TE and QB combo. Sounds like the perfect recipe for a milquetoast team finishing sixth.

The way I see it, there is a tier of four or five RBs who clearly separate themselves, then a pool of fifteen or so guys all lumped together. Same with the WRs... four or five guys who are elite, potential game-changers, then a huge, steaming lump of "value." I'm being told to pass on a chance to get two elite guys just to take two faces in the crowd... and the reasoning is because there will be two more faces in the crowd further along the road.

That is far from loin-moistening.

"Elite" isn't really the 2nd or 3rd WR or RB performing that way. It's the 15th performing like the 5th, or the 30th performing like the 15th. RB is the only position where you can already be looking to outperform ADP at the 1/2 turn.. There's value in that. Every time you spend a pick on a "sure thing"--say, a top 5-7 player at the position--you're giving up a chance to find the breakout at a more depleted position. Obviously you'd pick from the 5-7 top ranked guys at every position if you could, but you run out of those opportunities quickly.It sounds a little counterintuitive, I'll admit. But if I'm picking near the end of the first round, there's a very good chance I'm taking one top-ranked receiver and one of those late 1st/early 2nd backs. That's a good hedge between the safety of a "sure thing" and the potential big returns of an outperformer.

The point about over-performing at RB1... makes sense. I still would need to see a RB I feel comfortable with fall to me at that spot, but perhaps I could find a way to expand my idea of "first tier" a bit.

To pull on that thread a little more: if we grant that half of the first ten RBs taken will underperform, doesn't that make the next few off the board pretty good investments? I know the order is arbitrary, as is the fact that the dropout happens every year (I'd say it's more just a reflection of the fact that half of RBs tend to underperform across the board, often through injury). But if you're the kind of person who believes ADP has at least some loose predictive value (or at least derives from prediction/the wisdom of the crowd), you'd probably bank on the 11th through 15th ranked guys being next in line for relatively big numbers when half the top ten fails, right? In that respect, there's nothing special about "top ten" RBs versus the rest of them. Seems like fantasy football managers get things right about half the time whether you're top ten or top thirty.For all its sniping, this thread is going some interesting places. Good stuff.

Finally it is. The one thing that I still think gets missed in here is that we know for a fact that RBs will go earlier than WRs. Taking that into account, I don't agree with your overperforming comment. I liken that to the NFL Draft. Sure there are 6th round Tom Bradys who overperform 1st round QBs. That said, over the history, 1st round picks are better than 6th round picks. So, IMHO, the chances of RB15 being RB1 is way less than the chance that WR5 (I think that would be about right) is WR1. That is why I would consider going WR2/3 or QB1/2 or TE1 at the end of round 1 over RB8/9/10. I would definitely go WR-RB at the turn if one of the RBs I like fell, like Forte. I would much rather have Green/Jones/Bryant than Lynch/CJ/SJ/Bush as I do think those WRs have a legit chance of being WR1 or close to Calvin, whereas I don't see any of those 4 challenging Peterson. It is possible, but while you can occasionally strike gold late, I think your team has a better chance of being a playoff team year over year with a solid to great base in the first few rounds. The guys you pick in round 1 and round 2 are supposed to be the best performers already, so it is more about limiting the busts/downsides of those guys IMHO.

 

[stbugs]

I dont think anyone is arguing over the top 3, maybe 4 backs. Its when you get into the Chris Johnson, Forte, Richardson area is where people start getting a little queasy. Thats the same basic area that a top qb or Calvin, Green could go.

Actually, we are talking about the end of the 1st, so Richardson and Forte are probably gone before you get to Green/top QB. Calvin is really the only exception in any of the rankings I have seen to be up amongst the top tier of RBs.

 

[pantherclub]

I dont think anyone is arguing over the top 3, maybe 4 backs. Its when you get into the Chris Johnson, Forte, Richardson area is where people start getting a little queasy. Thats the same basic area that a top qb or Calvin, Green could go.

Actually, we are talking about the end of the 1st, so Richardson and Forte are probably gone before you get to Green/top QB. Calvin is really the only exception in any of the rankings I have seen to be up amongst the top tier of RBs.

Yeah I hear you, after posting that I thought to I should have used "Tier2,Tier3 etc" instead of individual players.

 

[Ilov80s]

To add to the Jimmy Graham vs QB sub-topic here, if you grab Brees, Rodgers, Brady, Manning or Cam you have a drafted a QB that has shown that in nearly every year they have started in the NFL, they were a top 5 fantasy QB. It is a guess as to who will finish first overall, but you can be pretty confident you have a top 5 QB. In a prior post,I looked at point differentials for best case scenario: #1 QB vs #12 QB. What about the most likely worst case scenario? #5 QB vs #12 QB.

QB 2012: +56 2011: +121 2010: +56

The advantage with Graham is that there isn't much reasonable competition to prevent him from being the #1 TE. So here again are the #1TE vs #12 TE

TE 2012: +57 2011: +143 2010: +58

That means if you take a top end QB instead of Graham, Graham either needs to have a Gronk 2011 type year or the pick was a dud. The 5th QB likely outperforms the 12th QB to the same degree that the # TE1 outperforms the #12 TE. However, if that QB finishes higher than 5, they are definitely going to give you a greater points advantage than Jimmy Graham.

 

[cdubz]

Grabbing 2 top 10 RBs in the first 2 round and grabbing 2 top 10-15 WRs is a much better strategy to build your team.

How exactly do you grab 2 top 10 RBs if you have say picks 8 and 17?

ETA: Or 12 and 13 for that matter.

 

[Ilov80s]

Grabbing 2 top 10 RBs in the first 2 round and grabbing 2 top 10-15 WRs is a much better strategy to build your team.

How exactly do you grab 2 top 10 RBs if you have say picks 8 and 17?

ETA: Or 12 and 13 for that matter.

I suppose it depends on how you personally rank the RBs. If you really like MJD, Chris Johnson, or Steven Ridley, you could get one of them at 17 and in your mind have 2 top 10 RBs.

 

[cdubz]

Grabbing 2 top 10 RBs in the first 2 round and grabbing 2 top 10-15 WRs is a much better strategy to build your team.

How exactly do you grab 2 top 10 RBs if you have say picks 8 and 17?

ETA: Or 12 and 13 for that matter.

I suppose it depends on how you personally rank the RBs. If you really like MJD, Chris Johnson, or Steven Ridley, you could get one of them at 17 and in your mind have 2 top 10 RBs.

If we are assuming that when drafting you know significantly more than your league mates and are going to be able to grab a top 10 RB as the 15th,16th, or 19th RB drafted (FantasyPro's PPR consensus rankings) then of course you should nab a top 10 RB.

However how have RBs drafted in those slots fared historically?

Over the past 5 years, median outcome of 15th RB drafted based on ADP is RB27, 16th is RB18 and 19th is RB21.

The median outcomes go down after that, so if you are comfortable drafting a low-end RB2 in the 2nd due to positional scarcity it may still make sense, but those median outcomes is why people look elsewhere.

TLDR; if you know the future pick a top 10 RB in the late 2nd, otherwise you might want to consider other options.

 

[Ilov80s]

Grabbing 2 top 10 RBs in the first 2 round and grabbing 2 top 10-15 WRs is a much better strategy to build your team.

How exactly do you grab 2 top 10 RBs if you have say picks 8 and 17?

ETA: Or 12 and 13 for that matter.

I suppose it depends on how you personally rank the RBs. If you really like MJD, Chris Johnson, or Steven Ridley, you could get one of them at 17 and in your mind have 2 top 10 RBs.

If we are assuming that when drafting you know significantly more than your league mates and are going to be able to grab a top 10 RB as the 15th,16th, or 19th RB drafted (FantasyPro's PPR consensus rankings) then of course you should nab a top 10 RB.

However how have RBs drafted in those slots fared historically?

Over the past 5 years, median outcome of 15th RB drafted based on ADP is RB27, 16th is RB18 and 19th is RB21.

The median outcomes go down after that, so if you are comfortable drafting a low-end RB2 in the 2nd due to positional scarcity it may still make sense, but those median outcomes is why people look elsewhere.

TLDR; if you know the future pick a top 10 RB in the late 2nd, otherwise you might want to consider other options.

Do you have median finish for other ADP positions? RB5? RB10? How come you left out RBs 14,17, and 18?

 

[Instinctive]

To add to the Jimmy Graham vs QB sub-topic here, if you grab Brees, Rodgers, Brady, Manning or Cam you have a drafted a QB that has shown that in nearly every year they have started in the NFL, they were a top 5 fantasy QB. It is a guess as to who will finish first overall, but you can be pretty confident you have a top 5 QB. In a prior post,I looked at point differentials for best case scenario: #1 QB vs #12 QB. What about the most likely worst case scenario? #5 QB vs #12 QB.

QB 2012: +56 2011: +121 2010: +56

The advantage with Graham is that there isn't much reasonable competition to prevent him from being the #1 TE. So here again are the #1TE vs #12 TE

TE 2012: +57 2011: +143 2010: +58

That means if you take a top end QB instead of Graham, Graham either needs to have a Gronk 2011 type year or the pick was a dud. The 5th QB likely outperforms the 12th QB to the same degree that the # TE1 outperforms the #12 TE. However, if that QB finishes higher than 5, they are definitely going to give you a greater points advantage than Jimmy Graham.

I'm seeing one big thing that a lot of people are, IMO, overlooking:

Your baseline matters a lot. If I'm taking a guy like Graham or Rodgers or whomever that early, it's not because they'll outperform a worst-starter baseline. I hate the worst-starter baseline. I want to WIN, not be above average. I want guys that outperform an average starter, not the worst starter. I don't play the worst starter every week.

I know that there are ways to adjust within the worst starter measurement to compare value, but we should also consider that an average starter might be a better comparison here. I don't know how it affects the numbers to compare QB1 to QB6 and TE1 to TE6, but it might be worth looking at.

Could be nothing, but the VBD approach generally accepted doesn't quite sit right with me, and never has. Always looking for ways to improve upon it.

 

[LawFitz]

In start 2 RB (no flex) leagues, I really think you're overdoing it drafting 2 RBs with your first two picks. Generally, you should under-invest in the last starter for a particular position. I.e. wait on RB2 and WR3 in start 2 RB / 3 WR leagues. This leaves flexibility to unearth gems later in the draft or off the wire in season to fill out your roster. Balance among positions and grabbing the safest elite players early in a draft is the best course for success IMO. And due to attrition, no RB is truly as "safe" as an elite WR or QB, which at least partially offsets VBD guidance. That said, the way RBs are flying off the board this year, it's a dangerous game to come out of rd 1 and 2 without your RB1, particularly if you're drafting in the back half of rounds 1 and 3 and/or in >10 team leagues.

 

[Ilov80s]

To add to the Jimmy Graham vs QB sub-topic here, if you grab Brees, Rodgers, Brady, Manning or Cam you have a drafted a QB that has shown that in nearly every year they have started in the NFL, they were a top 5 fantasy QB. It is a guess as to who will finish first overall, but you can be pretty confident you have a top 5 QB. In a prior post,I looked at point differentials for best case scenario: #1 QB vs #12 QB. What about the most likely worst case scenario? #5 QB vs #12 QB.

QB 2012: +56 2011: +121 2010: +56

The advantage with Graham is that there isn't much reasonable competition to prevent him from being the #1 TE. So here again are the #1TE vs #12 TE

TE 2012: +57 2011: +143 2010: +58

That means if you take a top end QB instead of Graham, Graham either needs to have a Gronk 2011 type year or the pick was a dud. The 5th QB likely outperforms the 12th QB to the same degree that the # TE1 outperforms the #12 TE. However, if that QB finishes higher than 5, they are definitely going to give you a greater points advantage than Jimmy Graham.

I'm seeing one big thing that a lot of people are, IMO, overlooking:

Your baseline matters a lot. If I'm taking a guy like Graham or Rodgers or whomever that early, it's not because they'll outperform a worst-starter baseline. I hate the worst-starter baseline. I want to WIN, not be above average. I want guys that outperform an average starter, not the worst starter. I don't play the worst starter every week.

I know that there are ways to adjust within the worst starter measurement to compare value, but we should also consider that an average starter might be a better comparison here. I don't know how it affects the numbers to compare QB1 to QB6 and TE1 to TE6, but it might be worth looking at.

Could be nothing, but the VBD approach generally accepted doesn't quite sit right with me, and never has. Always looking for ways to improve upon it.

Fair points and I will run those numbers real quick. I chose 12 not in theory of playing against other players, but in terms of drafting. The difference in spending a high value pick vs using a late round pick to fill those positions.

TE 1 vs 6 was +38 +116, and +51, QB 1 vs 6 was +55, +102, +20. So that is a better sign for the TE and does speak to there being a little more depth at tier 1 and 2 for QB.

 

[cdubz]

Grabbing 2 top 10 RBs in the first 2 round and grabbing 2 top 10-15 WRs is a much better strategy to build your team.

How exactly do you grab 2 top 10 RBs if you have say picks 8 and 17?

ETA: Or 12 and 13 for that matter.

I suppose it depends on how you personally rank the RBs. If you really like MJD, Chris Johnson, or Steven Ridley, you could get one of them at 17 and in your mind have 2 top 10 RBs.

If we are assuming that when drafting you know significantly more than your league mates and are going to be able to grab a top 10 RB as the 15th,16th, or 19th RB drafted (FantasyPro's PPR consensus rankings) then of course you should nab a top 10 RB.

However how have RBs drafted in those slots fared historically?

Over the past 5 years, median outcome of 15th RB drafted based on ADP is RB27, 16th is RB18 and 19th is RB21.

The median outcomes go down after that, so if you are comfortable drafting a low-end RB2 in the 2nd due to positional scarcity it may still make sense, but those median outcomes is why people look elsewhere.

TLDR; if you know the future pick a top 10 RB in the late 2nd, otherwise you might want to consider other options.

Do you have median finish for other ADP positions? RB5? RB10? How come you left out RBs 14,17, and 18?

Because we were talking about 3 specific RBs. The way I personally use this data is to group the RB draft slots into groups of 5 and take the median over that tranche which leads to more robust data IMO.

RB1-5 median of RB9

RB 6-10 median of RB13

RB11-15 median of RB23

RB 16-20 median of RB19

RB 21-25 median of RB40

RB 26-30 median of RB37

First range of numbers is position drafted.

Obviously results will vary year-to-year but I think taking medians over 5 years and looking at a larger range of draft slots gives some relatively robust data. I did this last year and median outcomes for top 2 tranches were exact same for 2007-2011 vs 2008-2012.

ETA: One interesting takeaway from this is that the RB 31-35 and RB 40-45 tranches have better median outcomes than RB 21-25 and RB 26-30.

 

[Kenny Powers]

The one thing that is constant and that Powers refuses to acknowledge and address is that that 6,7 or even 8 of the top 12 ranked backs will bust or flame out.

Peterson

Foster

Martin

Charles

Lynch

Rice

Spiller

Richardson

McCoy

Morris

Forte

Jackson

So 6-8 of these guys will bust? Meaning, finish worse than RB18 say (mid level RB2). I doubt it, but can you tell me me which 6-8 of the 12 will be those busts Nostrapantherclub?

 

[Kenny Powers]

Maaaaaaybe I've missed it in the last page or so, but I feel like Graham is being overlooked. If I'm at the back, I typically like my teams most when I end up with

Calvin/RB

Graham

WR or RB (opposite of round 1)

RB

That's why I like getting Graham early with a top WR or RB - you're locking in a positional advantage of quite a few points per week. If you're playing the WW to improve at one position...I think a RB or WR has proven to be a lot more likely to break out each year than a TE is.

The more I think about it and read this thread, Im starting to think Graham is overrated. He was TE1 last year, but from 2011 his catches dropped by 14, yardage by 325, and TDs by 2. Now I think its reasonable for his numbers to go back up towards middle ground of his last 2 years, like 92/1170/10, but 2011 was a historic season for a TE (both him and Gronk) for a reason, because thats real tough to do. He offers no real advantage over Witten or Gonzalez in PPR, yet is going 3+ rounds ahead of them.

I realize TE is a position that looked deep 2 years ago and now looks questionable if you wait, but Graham,Gonzo, and Witten basically had identical seasons point wise last year in PPR, and not much of a difference in non-PPR. I actually think Witten and Gonzo are the value plays, but Im perfectly fine waiting for a TE and maybe grabbing combo like Daniels/Davis and I typically only roster 1 TE.

This makes me think you don't get the math behind Graham's production:

Last year he was about 3 PPG better than Witten (this year's consensus "next guy"). He was about 2 PPG better than Tony G, who I personally don't see repeating his production at all.

Last year, as you so eloquently put, was far below his capabilities. He was hurt, he played hurt in many games, and he was still the #1 TE. He could be worth as much as 5-8 ppg over the #2 TE (and a helluva lot more over each TE worse...) all year long. The advantage is massive.

Last year (based on 1 PPR, 1pt/10 yds, 6pts/TD):

Graham: 85/982/9 = 237.2 pts

Witten: 110/1039/3 = 231.9 pts

Gonzo: 93/930/8 = 234 pts

Where is my math wrong? Those are nearly identical years and the other guys are going 3+ rounds later

Graham missed games and played in others hurt.

Look, you clearly know everything and are perfect, so you don't have to take my word for it...but you sound kind of like an idiot sometimes. Just think before you post.

Also, I get points for this year, not last year. A lot of people have a lot of success basing everything off of last year, but I tend to try and base my picks, strategies, and thoughts about what I think will happen this year. It's not that one way is more right or wrong, but it is a viable option.

Have a good one man.

Graham missed 1 game last year.

I dont think Ive said anything that makes me sound like an idiot, but ok.

Thanks for your rebuttal on the top TEs stats last year

I would suggest that those numbers for Graham are probably his floor, while the numbers for the other 2 are probably their ceilings. That is the difference. Though you make a fair point.

While I agree with this, the fact that Graham is being drafted this year at essentially the same point as last year, despite coming off a considerably less productive year, tells me he is being overdrafted by a small margin.

 

[Ilov80s]

Grabbing 2 top 10 RBs in the first 2 round and grabbing 2 top 10-15 WRs is a much better strategy to build your team.

How exactly do you grab 2 top 10 RBs if you have say picks 8 and 17?

ETA: Or 12 and 13 for that matter.

I suppose it depends on how you personally rank the RBs. If you really like MJD, Chris Johnson, or Steven Ridley, you could get one of them at 17 and in your mind have 2 top 10 RBs.

If we are assuming that when drafting you know significantly more than your league mates and are going to be able to grab a top 10 RB as the 15th,16th, or 19th RB drafted (FantasyPro's PPR consensus rankings) then of course you should nab a top 10 RB.

However how have RBs drafted in those slots fared historically?

Over the past 5 years, median outcome of 15th RB drafted based on ADP is RB27, 16th is RB18 and 19th is RB21.

The median outcomes go down after that, so if you are comfortable drafting a low-end RB2 in the 2nd due to positional scarcity it may still make sense, but those median outcomes is why people look elsewhere.

TLDR; if you know the future pick a top 10 RB in the late 2nd, otherwise you might want to consider other options.

Do you have median finish for other ADP positions? RB5? RB10? How come you left out RBs 14,17, and 18?

Because we were talking about 3 specific RBs. The way I personally use this data is to group the RB draft slots into groups of 5 and take the median over that tranche which leads to more robust data IMO.

RB1-5 median of RB9

RB 6-10 median of RB13

RB11-15 median of RB23

RB 16-20 median of RB19

RB 21-25 median of RB40

RB 26-30 median of RB37

First range of numbers is position drafted.

Obviously results will vary year-to-year but I think taking medians over 5 years and looking at a larger range of draft slots gives some relatively robust data. I did this last year and median outcomes for top 2 tranches were exact same for 2007-2011 vs 2008-2012.

ETA: One interesting takeaway from this is that the RB 31-35 and RB 40-45 tranches have better median outcomes than RB 21-25 and RB 26-30.

Interesting, thanks. In theory, the best value for a RB is pick 16-20 since the median is only between -3 and +1. Taking a RB in the top 5 is pretty awful since you are getting somewhere between -4 and -8.

ETA: I am mostly kidding, I don't really think a top 5 pick is bad.