Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Anarchy99

2017 Anarchy League 6 Thread

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Stinkin Ref said:

at some point....every team HAS TO HAVE at least 4 RB's....soooo they may not light up the scoreboard, but you are still putting your 4 up against 15 other guys 4...with the attitude you express, one could look at it that it actually opens up an opportunity to sperate from the pack a little bit at that position....

I suppose but with this scoring I just see a lot of RBs only averaging 5 to 12 points per week.  I see more scoring opportunities with WRs and good TEs.  I could have it all wrong too.

I know last year I didn't pay as much attention to the scoring settings and treated it more like a regular draft.  I ended up finishing 6th overall which isn't too bad.  I took Jamaal Charles as my first RB in the 3rd round and still managed to compensate for him.  I waited too long on TE and QB last year though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I suppose but with this scoring I just see a lot of RBs only averaging 5 to 12 points per week.  I see more scoring opportunities with WRs and good TEs.  I could have it all wrong too.

I know last year I didn't pay as much attention to the scoring settings and treated it more like a regular draft.  I ended up finishing 6th overall which isn't too bad.  I took Jamaal Charles as my first RB in the 3rd round and still managed to compensate for him.  I waited too long on TE and QB last year though.

with the fact that only 1 roster spot is not dictated....we are all playing with basically the same deck...and of those 16 slots it is very likely that zero RB's will fill those and we will have exactly 64 RB's drafted....flex will be filled by WR's or TE's....for some RB may need to be the place they make up some ground because let's face it, some teams are getting stuck with crappy QB's, crappy DST's, and even some misses on PK's.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last year in these leagues RB64 put up 52.6 points.  111 WR put up more points than that, as did 48 TE.  It's a very valid strategy to take RB early in an attempt to avoid getting stuck with the dregs.  But with injuries and inseason turnover at the position, you can still very easily get stuck with underperformers, as last year's draft in this league shows:  http://www70.myfantasyleague.com/2016/options?L=15728&O=17&DISPLAY=LEAGUE&POSITION=RB&FRANCHISE=0000 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Stinkin Ref said:

with the fact that only 1 roster spot is not dictated....we are all playing with basically the same deck...and of those 16 slots it is very likely that zero RB's will fill those and we will have exactly 64 RB's drafted....flex will be filled by WR's or TE's....for some RB may need to be the place they make up some ground because let's face it, some teams are getting stuck with crappy QB's, crappy DST's, and even some misses on PK's.... 

Also, most NFL teams have 3 viable fantasy WRs in a league this deep and some (Patriots, Saints, Steelers) probably have 4 or 5 ... while when you look at most teams' RB2s you're talking 3rd-down guys and scatbacks and those guys lose a ton of value in 0PPR  ... Riddick only finished RB32, Duke Johnson RB39, Gio Bernard RB46 and so on down the line.

So here I am talking up the value of RBs when I haven't taken one yet and won't get a crack at one for another 25+ picks ... d'oh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr. Irrelevant said:

Also, most NFL teams have 3 viable fantasy WRs in a league this deep and some (Patriots, Saints, Steelers) probably have 4 or 5 ... while when you look at most teams' RB2s you're talking 3rd-down guys and scatbacks and those guys lose a ton of value in 0PPR  ... Riddick only finished RB32, Duke Johnson RB39, Gio Bernard RB46 and so on down the line.

So here I am talking up the value of RBs when I haven't taken one yet and won't get a crack at one for another 25+ picks ... d'oh

You did take Ebron though which I was not pleased with. Oh well can't win them all. I expect he will do well this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2017 at 9:38 AM, Mr. Irrelevant said:

1.03 - Antonio Brown (WR1). I'll just quote David from L2 here to save time:

2.14 - Colts TMQB (QB6). Reached a bit for my first QB in the interest of ceiling over floor. Obviously Luck's health status is completely up in the air and I don't trust the Colts' front office further than I could throw them, but there are a literal handful of QBs capable of 500-point seasons, and he's one of them.

3.03 - Jimmy Graham (TE5). You can't win in a 2PPR league without at least one stud at the position. RW3 will certainly improve on his 21 TDs from last year and Graham should be the primary beneficiary. Multiple playoff games seem likely.

4.14 - Eric Ebron (TE12). At this stage I gave serious thought to stacking AB, Martavis here, and Big Ben at 5.03 - no idea if that would have been the sharpest or dumbest Anarchy roster ever. In the end I chickened out and grabbed the last TE in his tier. Should get additional TD opportunities with red-zone hog Boldin gone.

5.03 - Golden Tate (WR27). So I wound up doubling up on pass-catchers anyway; an above-average team that'll throw 600+ times seems like a good place to plant that flag. Figure I might as well go high-floor now as I'm sure to be throwing plenty of darts later on. Tate should put up numbers better than or very close to Landry's at a full round discount.

Not unhappy with this start, although I appear to have learned nothing from last year when I lost out on a title bid primarily because I waited so long on RB that I wound up with Chris Ivory headlining my squad. :(

Welp, I seem to have overshot my course correction to that problem:

6.14 - Mark Ingram (RB28)

7.03 - LeGarrette Blount (RB30)

8.14 - Danny Woodhead (RB36)

My thinking was not that I'm wholly excited by any of these guys (I'd be surprised if any of them managed a 50% share of their team's carries this year), but that I see a couple dozen names at WR that can still be good bets to finish in the 175-200 point range, and I certainly can't say that about the smoking trash pile left at RB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Mr. Irrelevant said:

Welp, I seem to have overshot my course correction to that problem:

6.14 - Mark Ingram (RB28)

7.03 - LeGarrette Blount (RB30)

8.14 - Danny Woodhead (RB36)

My thinking was not that I'm wholly excited by any of these guys (I'd be surprised if any of them managed a 50% share of their team's carries this year), but that I see a couple dozen names at WR that can still be good bets to finish in the 175-200 point range, and I certainly can't say that about the smoking trash pile left at RB.

For me, with this scoring system, are those backs going to score that much less than the backs that went rounds earlier?  I don't think so.  I see a format where I can have 5 WRs scoring for me getting 1PPR and only need 2 RB that don't get any extra points.  With RBs you really just need guys that will get goal line carries so they have a better chance at scoring TDs and find guys that have a good shot at playing in the playoffs.  That's just my observation so far, I'll probably end up with the worst team after thinking I know what I'm doing. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

For me, with this scoring system, are those backs going to score that much less than the backs that went rounds earlier?  I don't think so.  I see a format where I can have 5 WRs scoring for me getting 1PPR and only need 2 RB that don't get any extra points.  With RBs you really just need guys that will get goal line carries so they have a better chance at scoring TDs and find guys that have a good shot at playing in the playoffs.  That's just my observation so far, I'll probably end up with the worst team after thinking I know what I'm doing. lol

Hope you realized this and just mistyped, but while you're right about the 0PPR for RBs, you actually need 4 of them, not 2 (it's 4 RB / 5 WR / 2 TE required with a single RB/WR/TE flex).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 9:38 AM, Mr. Irrelevant said:

3.03 - Jimmy Graham (TE5). You can't win in a 2PPR league without at least one stud at the position. RW3 will certainly improve on his 21 TDs from last year and Graham should be the primary beneficiary. Multiple playoff games seem likely.

4.14 - Eric Ebron (TE12). At this stage I gave serious thought to stacking AB, Martavis here, and Big Ben at 5.03 - no idea if that would have been the sharpest or dumbest Anarchy roster ever. In the end I chickened out and grabbed the last TE in his tier. Should get additional TD opportunities with red-zone hog Boldin gone.

 

Last year Genester ran away with this league with Austin Hooper and Jesse James at TE:  nos. 38 and 22.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr. Irrelevant said:

Hope you realized this and just mistyped, but while you're right about the 0PPR for RBs, you actually need 4 of them, not 2 (it's 4 RB / 5 WR / 2 TE required with a single RB/WR/TE flex).

You know what, I was wrong.  For some reason I was thinking it was more like an MFL league where it only uses certain amount of starters so I was thinking we had to draft 4 RBs but it only used the score of the best two.  I looked back at my team last year and it only used scores from two of my RBs.  After looking closer I see that my other RBs were not playing which is why they didn't show any points.

Whelp, that changes things a bit.  Still pretty happy with my team so far though.  Sometimes it can be tough remembering the rules to all the different drafts I do, even when I try to read the rules beforehand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Go DC Yourself said:

Last year Genester ran away with this league with Austin Hooper and Jesse James at TE:  nos. 38 and 22.

I also see he took the top two QBs with his first two picks, bet that helped.  Looks like he went QB, QB, WR then a bunch of RBS.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hawkeye21 said:

I also see he took the top two QBs with his first two picks, bet that helped.  Looks like he went QB, QB, WR then a bunch of RBS.

Teams have won these leagues with all types of strategies. Luck is a huge factor. I won one of the leagues a couple of years ago with Brett Perriman going on IR before the season started and Arian Foster and Percy Harvin joining him in the first month of the season. But I hit it out of the park on my other picks, including getting middle tier production from all my picks outside the Top 200 picks. I went Gronk - Pats QB to start and both scored a ton. Bottom line, you never know how the leagues will play out.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

Teams have won these leagues with all types of strategies. Luck is a huge factor. I won one of the leagues a couple of years ago with Brett Perriman going on IR before the season started and Arian Foster and Percy Harvin joining him in the first month of the season. But I hit it out of the park on my other picks, including getting middle tier production from all my picks outside the Top 200 picks. I went Gronk - Pats QB to start and both scored a ton. Bottom line, you never know how the leagues will play out.

I believe it and I'm not too concerned.  Just feel a little dumb after trying to base a strategy on my own error.  Will be interesting to see what happens this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I believe it and I'm not too concerned.  Just feel a little dumb after trying to base a strategy on my own error.  Will be interesting to see what happens this year.

You're fine. Intentionally loading up on other spots and waiting on RB is a viable and proven strategy in these leagues. You just need to sniff out a couple of backs that will do a little better or play more than expected. But that's true for pretty much all team's late round picks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random thoughts on League 6:

Biabreakable going with the all rookie backfield and no QB's for now should be interesting.

Which is pretty opposite of Genester's strategy (first two picks on QB and no RB's at all yet). Genester has 3 more TE's rostered than Extreme Montage, Go DC Yourself, and Ben & Jerry's have combined.

Six teams have yet to take a player at one of the 4 primary positions.

Four teams have as many or more TE's than RB's so far.

Five teams have two players that switched NFL teams.

Two teams have 4 WR already. Three teams have only 2 WR.

Two teams have 7 spots that scored 200+ points last season. Biabreakable has only 1 player that scored at least 200 points. Three other teams have only 3 players that hit 200+ points.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah these guys have drafted so many QB and earlier than they were being drafted in league two (where I thought they went a bit high as well) that I have not ended up with any of them.

While its true I have 3 rookie RB I think all 3 of them will be good producers in 2017. Especially Dalvin Cook, but I like Perine and Hunt a lot as well. All good opportunities to be productive players. I was able to get Hunt in league two but other owners were able to get Cook and Perine before I could.

I may end up regretting not reaching a bit higher for a QB than I did. But wow were they drafted high.

19 Qb were selected in the top 100 picks. 24 of them selected in the top 120 picks.

For sake of comparison 17 Qb were selected in the top 100 picks in league two. 21 Qb selected in the top 120 picks.

My pick of the Bengals at pick 96 was selected in league six at pick 85. I did try to get Carson Palmer at pick 103 and also Jason Witten but they were selected before me.and that is how I ended up with Perine instead.

My other QB pick of the Dolphins in league two at pick 129 was gone in league six by pick 115 here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't paid attention to the other leagues but did notice I would be staring at a very low ranked TMQB2 if I didn't jump for it early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just Win Baby wrote this in the L2 thread:

Quote

 

The PK trend in Anarchy 2:

10.10 Gostkowski

10.12 Tucker

10.16 Crosby

11.1 McManus

11.2 Bailey

 

Kinda surprised in L6 that the 1st PK (Gostkowski) went at 9.05 and two full rounds later, only 3 PKs are off the board (Tucker went at 9.16, Bailey not until 11.03). It's a giant game of kicker chicken! :scared:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mr. Irrelevant said:

Just Win Baby wrote this in the L2 thread:

Kinda surprised in L6 that the 1st PK (Gostkowski) went at 9.05 and two full rounds later, only 3 PKs are off the board (Tucker went at 9.16, Bailey not until 11.03). It's a giant game of kicker chicken! :scared:

Looking at the scoring system I really don't see a huge difference in any player.  None of their scoring will really be that far apart.  The only key to drafting a kicker that I can see is trying to find two guys that will be on playoff teams.  Last year I basically only had one and a half kickers since Gould didn't get on a team until half way through the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Looking at the scoring system I really don't see a huge difference in any player.  None of their scoring will really be that far apart.  The only key to drafting a kicker that I can see is trying to find two guys that will be on playoff teams.  Last year I basically only had one and a half kickers since Gould didn't get on a team until half way through the season.

Last year's lowest-scoring full-time kicker (Zuerlein) put up 90 points in this format; the top five PKs averaged 184. In 2015 those figures were 82 and 188.

90-100 points of VBD doesn't mean quite as much in this league as in standard ones given the wonky format, but any time you can get that pretty predictably with a pick in the double-digit rounds, it's a pretty good return on investment IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention that waiting on PK until the tail end carries the additional downside risk of a big fat zero if your guy is a camp cut. You take a zero from any position in a total-points format like this and you've crippled your team's title hopes before the season even starts.

Edited by Mr. Irrelevant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mr. Irrelevant said:

Not to mention that waiting on PK until the tail end carries the additional downside risk of a big fat zero if your guy is a camp cut. You take a zero from any position in a total-points format like this and you've crippled your team's title hopes before the season even starts.

Yep.

There are a couple positions that guarantee points. Team defense and team QB. You can leave either of these positions until the very end of the draft and still get some points there.

Because of this, I really question all the high picks at QB.

If you leave kicker until the end (or RB, WR, TE) then you are taking more of a risk of getting ZERO from that pick.

I am pretty sure I have still finished high in total points while taking zero at kicker, but it makes things a lot harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mr. Irrelevant said:

Not to mention that waiting on PK until the tail end carries the additional downside risk of a big fat zero if your guy is a camp cut. You take a zero from any position in a total-points format like this and you've crippled your team's title hopes before the season even starts.

I only had one kicker for the first 6 weeks.  I also had Jamaal Charles, Kenneth Dixon, Karlos Williams and Jace Amaro.  That was a whole lot of zeros there but somehow still managed to finish 6th overall.  I think every team is going to have a couple players that miss games due to injury or not making the team, it's just part of doing a draft with this many teams and roster spots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Biabreakable said:

Yep.

There are a couple positions that guarantee points. Team defense and team QB. You can leave either of these positions until the very end of the draft and still get some points there.

Because of this, I really question all the high picks at QB.

If you leave kicker until the end (or RB, WR, TE) then you are taking more of a risk of getting ZERO from that pick.

I am pretty sure I have still finished high in total points while taking zero at kicker, but it makes things a lot harder.

What's the average difference in having a kicker or not having a kicker though, like 6 points maybe?  What would be the average difference between having a good QB and a crappy QB?  I would think more than 6 points but I'd have to look.  It's something to consider that's for sure.

I just thought of this as well.  The QBs that are going early are not only the highest scoring per game but they're also most likely to be going to the playoffs which means more points.

I looked at what the Packers QB scored over my Tampa QB and it was a lot.  Basically there is a chance to score points in 21 weeks, 20 counting the bye.  The Packers QB scored 564.26 which was the highest.  The Tampa Bay QB scored 335.10 which was 13th.  Packers averaged 26.87 points per game and Tampa averaged 15.96 based on 21 weeks.  The Tampa QB did not make the playoffs so there were more zeros.  Makes a good, playoff caliber QB worth a lot, especially when you have to draft two of them.

Edited by Hawkeye21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

What's the average difference in having a kicker or not having a kicker though, like 6 points maybe?  What would be the average difference between having a good QB and a crappy QB?  I would think more than 6 points but I'd have to look.  It's something to consider that's for sure.

6 points? :confused: If you are talking about points per game I guess that sort of makes sense. As we are talking about total points however kicker 16 last season scored 151 points. In 2015 kicker 16 scored 136 points. This averages to 143 points. Which is 8.9 points per game.

If you are taking a zero at the kicker position you are losing 143 total points compared to the average. 

I have had some back luck in regards to this recently drafting Blair Walsh for example last year who only provided 61 points before the Vikings canned him. Josh Brown only scored 50 points last year. This is what you are trying to hopefully avoid. Taking less than 100 points from the kicker position. A top five kicker should give your team 180+ points which is only a marginal advantage over the average. The point is to not take zero. The longer you wait the higher odds are that you will be taking a zero. At this point in time there are several kicker battles in the NFL undecided. I can tell you that the two kickers the Vikings have right now are neck and neck as far as which one will win the job. I really don't know which one it will be. The same is true for several other NFL teams.

23 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I just thought of this as well.  The QBs that are going early are not only the highest scoring per game but they're also most likely to be going to the playoffs which means more points.

I am not sure why your talking about this in terms of points per game?

The top QB are providing 150-200 points advantage over the average QB. However the top QBs tend to change each year, with a few exceptions, like the Patriots or Packers.

In 2015 Cam Newton was the highest scoring QB 535 points. In 2016 he was QB 24 and scored 319 points. If you are picking the QB high, you really need to be right. The Falcons were the 2nd highest scoring QB in 2016 530 points (notice that Cam and Ryan made the super bowl and enjoyed the extra points from these playoff games) in 2015 Ryan scored 283 points and was QB 27. Thats a pretty big swing no?

But lets say your high QB pick works out, and scores 150 points more than the average QB score. If you take zero at kicker then your advantage gained from the high QB pick gets lost by not having a good enough kicker.

23 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I looked at what the Packers QB scored over my Tampa QB and it was a lot.  Basically there is a chance to score points in 21 weeks, 20 counting the bye.  The Packers QB scored 564.26 which was the highest.  The Tampa Bay QB scored 335.10 which was 13th.  Packers averaged 26.87 points per game and Tampa averaged 15.96 based on 21 weeks.  The Tampa QB did not make the playoffs so there were more zeros.  Makes a good, playoff caliber QB worth a lot, especially when you have to draft two of them.

It most certainly does. However you always risk that your top QB pick ends up only being average, or perhaps even below average any given year, see the Cam Newton and Matt Ryan examples above. If that team does not make the playoffs, then those extra games do not count in your favor.

To illustrate this using you example of the Packers QB vs Tampa QB over 17 weeks the Packers had 466 points and Tampa had 335 points. So this was a 135 point advantage of Qb 1 over Qb 11 last year. 

The 3 extra games from the Packers added an additional 98 points to the total.

Making the playoffs is hard. Some players like Brady have better odds of doing it than others such as the NFC South QBs who have made it the last couple seasons.

If your player does make the playoffs, it might only be one additional game instead of 3. Only a few teams advance that far in the playoffs.

It is vastly important, but also requires quite a bit of luck to bank on those extra points from the playoff games.

The margins between an average QB who scores about 300 points and a top 5 QB scoring about 400 points is significant, but also difficult to predict. Plenty of times a top 5 Qb will end up just scoring near the average and no real advantage is gained.

The worst QB only scores about 200 points. So you are giving up a 100 point advantage to the field and even more to the teams who do land the top 5 QB scorers.

However teams who only have average or below average QBs are likely stronger at other positions, such as RB/TE/WR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Biabreakable said:

6 points? :confused: If you are talking about points per game I guess that sort of makes sense. As we are talking about total points however kicker 16 last season scored 151 points. In 2015 kicker 16 scored 136 points. This averages to 143 points. Which is 8.9 points per game.

If you are taking a zero at the kicker position you are losing 143 total points compared to the average. 

I have had some back luck in regards to this recently drafting Blair Walsh for example last year who only provided 61 points before the Vikings canned him. Josh Brown only scored 50 points last year. This is what you are trying to hopefully avoid. Taking less than 100 points from the kicker position. A top five kicker should give your team 180+ points which is only a marginal advantage over the average. The point is to not take zero. The longer you wait the higher odds are that you will be taking a zero. At this point in time there are several kicker battles in the NFL undecided. I can tell you that the two kickers the Vikings have right now are neck and neck as far as which one will win the job. I really don't know which one it will be. The same is true for several other NFL teams.

I am not sure why your talking about this in terms of points per game?

The top QB are providing 150-200 points advantage over the average QB. However the top QBs tend to change each year, with a few exceptions, like the Patriots or Packers.

In 2015 Cam Newton was the highest scoring QB 535 points. In 2016 he was QB 24 and scored 319 points. If you are picking the QB high, you really need to be right. The Falcons were the 2nd highest scoring QB in 2016 530 points (notice that Cam and Ryan made the super bowl and enjoyed the extra points from these playoff games) in 2015 Ryan scored 283 points and was QB 27. Thats a pretty big swing no?

But lets say your high QB pick works out, and scores 150 points more than the average QB score. If you take zero at kicker then your advantage gained from the high QB pick gets lost by not having a good enough kicker.

It most certainly does. However you always risk that your top QB pick ends up only being average, or perhaps even below average any given year, see the Cam Newton and Matt Ryan examples above. If that team does not make the playoffs, then those extra games do not count in your favor.

To illustrate this using you example of the Packers QB vs Tampa QB over 17 weeks the Packers had 466 points and Tampa had 335 points. So this was a 135 point advantage of Qb 1 over Qb 11 last year. 

The 3 extra games from the Packers added an additional 98 points to the total.

Making the playoffs is hard. Some players like Brady have better odds of doing it than others such as the NFC South QBs who have made it the last couple seasons.

If your player does make the playoffs, it might only be one additional game instead of 3. Only a few teams advance that far in the playoffs.

It is vastly important, but also requires quite a bit of luck to bank on those extra points from the playoff games.

The margins between an average QB who scores about 300 points and a top 5 QB scoring about 400 points is significant, but also difficult to predict. Plenty of times a top 5 Qb will end up just scoring near the average and no real advantage is gained.

The worst QB only scores about 200 points. So you are giving up a 100 point advantage to the field and even more to the teams who do land the top 5 QB scorers.

However teams who only have average or below average QBs are likely stronger at other positions, such as RB/TE/WR.

I just don't see the kickers really being a make or break position.  They can certainly help but losing a kicker for the season may not lose you the season.  Just like any position, you don't want to be getting zeros but I feel you can survive a kicker going down more than any other position.

I may be looking at it the wrong way but I feel if you focus on getting more players from playoff caliber teams the better your chances are.  Sounds obvious since those teams generally have the best players but they also are giving you the chance score in more games.

Looking at Genester's team from last year he picked Green Bay and New England right away for his QBs.  That got him a ton of points.  It also helped a lot that he had very few players that missed games.  He had 8 positions that made it to the playoffs which are basically bonus points.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I just don't see the kickers really being a make or break position.  They can certainly help but losing a kicker for the season may not lose you the season.  Just like any position, you don't want to be getting zeros but I feel you can survive a kicker going down more than any other position.

I may be looking at it the wrong way but I feel if you focus on getting more players from playoff caliber teams the better your chances are.  Sounds obvious since those teams generally have the best players but they also are giving you the chance score in more games.

Looking at Genester's team from last year he picked Green Bay and New England right away for his QBs.  That got him a ton of points.  It also helped a lot that he had very few players that missed games.  He had 8 positions that made it to the playoffs which are basically bonus points.

I agree that the playoff games matter for the reasons you mention. Players doing well increases their teams chances of making the playoffs. So more points from the regular season from players performing well, and the bonus points from the playoff games.

There are tons of ancillary factors that contribute to this however. A player on a team can be very good, but them performing well does not necessarily guarantee that their team will make the playoffs. See David Johnson last year.

You don't want to take zeros. Waiting on kicker increases your risk of taking a zero. Waiting on RB or TE would be the next highest risks of zero or just very few points. There are more WR earning at least some points than there are RB and TE.

Having the worst QB is still a big disadvantage. However as the very last pick of the draft, no other position guarantees points like the QB position does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Biabreakable said:

I agree that the playoff games matter for the reasons you mention. Players doing well increases their teams chances of making the playoffs. So more points from the regular season from players performing well, and the bonus points from the playoff games.

There are tons of ancillary factors that contribute to this however. A player on a team can be very good, but them performing well does not necessarily guarantee that their team will make the playoffs. See David Johnson last year.

You don't want to take zeros. Waiting on kicker increases your risk of taking a zero. Waiting on RB or TE would be the next highest risks of zero or just very few points. There are more WR earning at least some points than there are RB and TE.

Having the worst QB is still a big disadvantage. However as the very last pick of the draft, no other position guarantees points like the QB position does.

I will admit with how the rules are in this league the QB position is one that will guarantee some scoring no matter what.  It may not always be positive but there will be a score every week.  Just like a team defense.

After talking about this I'm curious why it isn't treated as team kicker like the QB and defense position is?  Seems like it would make a lot of sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is, losing a kicker to injury is way different than starting the season with a zero all season because you picked the wrong guy on the 32nd PK pick because you didn't want to burn an earlier pick on one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hawkeye21 said:

I will admit with how the rules are in this league the QB position is one that will guarantee some scoring no matter what.  It may not always be positive but there will be a score every week.  Just like a team defense.

After talking about this I'm curious why it isn't treated as team kicker like the QB and defense position is?  Seems like it would make a lot of sense.

Because having individual QB's would kill an Anarchy team if the starter got hurt. Having individual kickers dramatically changes draft strategy. I would almost rather have no kickers at all than having TMPK's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Anarchy99 said:

Because having individual QB's would kill an Anarchy team if the starter got hurt. Having individual kickers dramatically changes draft strategy. I would almost rather have no kickers at all than having TMPK's.

I'd be fine with no kickers and I bet most others would too.  It just seemed to make perfect sense to have team kickers since there can only be one kicker starting on a team yet a team may use more than one, just like the QB position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC in league two which Anarcy won, I was very close to winning as well going into the playoffs.

However I was taking zero at kicker and some other spots, and David was loaded with Patriots players who got extra points from playoffs as being two of the main difference makers between winning the league and taking second place.

It matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having to do the kicker dance is a subtle yet major part of these leagues...it would be too easy to not do them or do teamPK....that dance is actually one of the things that separates us to a certain extent without us even being able to see/realize it....we may not go back and figure it out....but how many of us would have loved to go a different direction when we pulled the trigger on a PK....?...yeah me too...every time...it sucks to pass on a guy that could really help you at RB/WR/TE cause you feel the need to take a PK cause you don't want to be scouring the web to try and figure out who has the leg up in a PK competition this time of year...and then maybe be wrong and take the donut.....IMO the kicker dance is an essential part of these leagues and a little test of the size of your stones..

Edited by Stinkin Ref
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2017 at 4:18 PM, Anarchy99 said:

The point is, losing a kicker to injury is way different than starting the season with a zero all season because you picked the wrong guy on the 32nd PK pick because you didn't want to burn an earlier pick on one.

That's the point I was trying to make, in a nutshell.

Anyone can lose anyone to injury in preseason, and yeah, it sucks, and yeah, unless you hit it out of the park everywhere else you can basically wave the white flag on a title at that point. But that's worlds different from choosing to wait until rounds 16 or 17 to take a PK knowing that there's a significant risk of voluntarily taking a zero, without reducing your injury risk anywhere else.

Even the much-maligned, couldn't-hit-the-broad-side-of-a-barn-door Roberto Aguayo put up 106 points last year. Adam Thielen (WR32) scored 197 points; Albert Wilson (WR87) scored 90. If you held your nose and reached a round on Aguayo instead of a camp cut like Travis Coons, you basically swapped a warm body for a low-end WR2. Not a bad tradeoff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Go DC Yourself said:

My favorite twist is when the older guy in a camp competition gets cut, and the another team picks him up and puts on the street a mid-level guy who had no camp competition.

Yep.

Robbie Gould who I thought was a lock as one of the highest paid kickers and solid career with the Bears at that point was cut for salary cap reasons, on a team that was going no where and didn't really have cap issues.

It took awhile but he finally landed on another team.

Trying to predict stuff like this pretty near impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Biabreakable said:

Yep.

Robbie Gould who I thought was a lock as one of the highest paid kickers and solid career with the Bears at that point was cut for salary cap reasons, on a team that was going no where and didn't really have cap issues.

It took awhile but he finally landed on another team.

Trying to predict stuff like this pretty near impossible.

Didn't he end up on the Giants last year? Now on the Niners?

The cutting vets to save money model doesn't make a ton of sense to me. Look at the Jets this year. They got rid of almost all their play makers and are still $18 million under the cap. I guess it makes sense in being able to roll that money over if (when) they don't use it. But they now have $17 million in dead cap money because of all their cuts.

I get that it gets kids and draft picks playing time, but if the team is terrible how does that play into a player's growth and development?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Anarchy99 said:

Didn't he end up on the Giants last year? Now on the Niners?

The cutting vets to save money model doesn't make a ton of sense to me. Look at the Jets this year. They got rid of almost all their play makers and are still $18 million under the cap. I guess it makes sense in being able to roll that money over if (when) they don't use it. But they now have $17 million in dead cap money because of all their cuts.

I get that it gets kids and draft picks playing time, but if the team is terrible how does that play into a player's growth and development?

Yeah I think the Giants after their kicker got into some off the field trouble.

I tried to use some logic that teams paying a lot for kickers are doing so because they want consistency from that position, thus why I thought Gould was a solid bet to be the kicker for his team.

Nope.

The Bears were in rebuild with Fox as the coach and they cut Gould to save something like $2 million which really wasn't going to make a difference either way as far as their cap outlook. It still doesn't make sense to me.

I have given up trying to apply logic to this and just draft them earlier and hope that works out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I drafted Gould last year and took zeros from him for the fist 6 weeks until he landed on the Giants.

For those talking about the risks in taking a kicker late because those kickers may not make the roster, can't the same be said for all players being taken in the later rounds.  A lot of these rookies and depth players are big risks to get very little playing time or just get cut.  No different than a kicker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Biabreakable said:

Yeah I think the Giants after their kicker got into some off the field trouble.

I tried to use some logic that teams paying a lot for kickers are doing so because they want consistency from that position, thus why I thought Gould was a solid bet to be the kicker for his team.

Nope.

The Bears were in rebuild with Fox as the coach and they cut Gould to save something like $2 million which really wasn't going to make a difference either way as far as their cap outlook. It still doesn't make sense to me.

I have given up trying to apply logic to this and just draft them earlier and hope that works out.

I believe that Gould was one of the highest paid kicker in the NFL, if not the highest overall.  He had a bad season the year before and had been on a decline so they cut him to save money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hawkeye21 said:

I drafted Gould last year and took zeros from him for the fist 6 weeks until he landed on the Giants.

For those talking about the risks in taking a kicker late because those kickers may not make the roster, can't the same be said for all players being taken in the later rounds.  A lot of these rookies and depth players are big risks to get very little playing time or just get cut.  No different than a kicker.

IMO, any late round pick is risky and probably won't score a ton. Which is why I generally play it safe and take guys that should score a moderate amount but probably won't be a stud or a total bust.

As far as taking QB's early or late, I think either is a viable strategy as long as the early ones are proven high scorers and not wannabe high scorers. IMO, after the Top 5, the net group of 15 QB's are pretty close. I would be happy to wait it out and take the leftovers in the later rounds. Waiting until near the end isn't a horrible idea as you are guaranteed points, but you can end up getting way behind in QB scoring if you get some of the lower scoring TMQB's.

Defenses are a little different. The scoring from DEF1 vs. DEF2 is nowhere near as great as with QB's. I still wouldn't want one of the bottom few defenses, and defensive scoring from year to year seems to fluctuate quite a bit.

Even this year some people are going to end up losing out on kicker points, because in some of the leagues two kickers were drafted from the same team. That's why you have to try to get more of a sure thing. Even bigger names can get cut, but usually a bigger name has a better chance of getting added somewhere else.

Everyone has different strategies, and mine usually is to try get points in every spot every week.

In League 6 last year, the good pick ups in Rounds 17 and 18 were SF QB, Tyrell Williams, Brandon LaFell, Kenny Stills, and Nick Novak. On the flip side, Karlos Williams (0), Travis Coons (0), Darren McFadden (10.40), Jonathan Williams (15.40), and Braxton Miller (30.90) were basically throwaways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I believe that Gould was one of the highest paid kicker in the NFL, if not the highest overall.  He had a bad season the year before and had been on a decline so they cut him to save money.

He was top 5 as far as kicker salaries at the time I was reading this.

Not being a Bears fan I didn't know that they viewed his play as being in decline. Gould had done well for me on fantasy teams in the past and I drafted him pretty late when most of the other options were gone (and looked more risky than Gould to me at the time).

I am not sure saving the money made any difference for the Bears. I recall some Bears fans being unhappy about the decision right after it happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Anarchy99 said:

IMO, any late round pick is risky and probably won't score a ton. Which is why I generally play it safe and take guys that should score a moderate amount but probably won't be a stud or a total bust.

As far as taking QB's early or late, I think either is a viable strategy as long as the early ones are proven high scorers and not wannabe high scorers. IMO, after the Top 5, the net group of 15 QB's are pretty close. I would be happy to wait it out and take the leftovers in the later rounds. Waiting until near the end isn't a horrible idea as you are guaranteed points, but you can end up getting way behind in QB scoring if you get some of the lower scoring TMQB's.

Defenses are a little different. The scoring from DEF1 vs. DEF2 is nowhere near as great as with QB's. I still wouldn't want one of the bottom few defenses, and defensive scoring from year to year seems to fluctuate quite a bit.

Even this year some people are going to end up losing out on kicker points, because in some of the leagues two kickers were drafted from the same team. That's why you have to try to get more of a sure thing. Even bigger names can get cut, but usually a bigger name has a better chance of getting added somewhere else.

Everyone has different strategies, and mine usually is to try get points in every spot every week.

In League 6 last year, the good pick ups in Rounds 17 and 18 were SF QB, Tyrell Williams, Brandon LaFell, Kenny Stills, and Nick Novak. On the flip side, Karlos Williams (0), Travis Coons (0), Darren McFadden (10.40), Jonathan Williams (15.40), and Braxton Miller (30.90) were basically throwaways.

LOL  Karlos Williams was my pick.  That one hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Biabreakable said:

He was top 5 as far as kicker salaries at the time I was reading this.

Not being a Bears fan I didn't know that they viewed his play as being in decline. Gould had done well for me on fantasy teams in the past and I drafted him pretty late when most of the other options were gone (and looked more risky than Gould to me at the time).

I am not sure saving the money made any difference for the Bears. I recall some Bears fans being unhappy about the decision right after it happened.

Bear's fans were very upset with him and wanted him replaced.  I still liked him and was fine with him but he his production was not meeting his salary anymore.  The year before he had one of his worst years in accuracy and missed three very big FGs.  I think all three FGs directly led to them losing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I drafted Gould last year and took zeros from him for the fist 6 weeks until he landed on the Giants.

For those talking about the risks in taking a kicker late because those kickers may not make the roster, can't the same be said for all players being taken in the later rounds.  A lot of these rookies and depth players are big risks to get very little playing time or just get cut.  No different than a kicker.

Yes definitely the same is true for late picks at other positions except for QB and defense.

One perspective on this would be to wait on drafting a kickers so you can fill other positions such as RB/TE/WR with earlier picks that should be safer bets to produce points for you. In a league where you can pick up kickers off waivers, that makes a lot of sense.

As this isn't an option in these leagues, I have decided to try to draft the kickers a bit earlier and hopefully not take the zero from them being cut just before the season. This year I see about 15 teams where this could happen. There is a bit more turnover at the kicker position right now than I recall there being in the past.

The kicker position is so independent from the rest of the team that salaries shouldn't really be related to the cap. The teams who actually pay their kickers a lot of money are teams who are prioritizing that position for the kickers consistency. 

Vinaterri of the Patriots for example was over paid by the Colts because he was a difference maker for the Pats vs. the Colts in the playoffs for a few year there before Peyton left. They still pay him a ton. Hasn't pushed them over the edge at all in the playoffs though.

The Ravens prioritize kicker play more than other teams and pay for it.

The Raiders used a 1st round pick on Janikowski and he has been there kicker forever.

I dunno the reasoning of money just doesn't seem to apply to these other highly paid kickers, so I am not sure why it did with Gould. My logic of a kicker being paid highly means job security for that kicker does seem to apply to these other examples though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Biabreakable said:

Yes definitely the same is true for late picks at other positions except for QB and defense.

One perspective on this would be to wait on drafting a kickers so you can fill other positions such as RB/TE/WR with earlier picks that should be safer bets to produce points for you. In a league where you can pick up kickers off waivers, that makes a lot of sense.

As this isn't an option in these leagues, I have decided to try to draft the kickers a bit earlier and hopefully not take the zero from them being cut just before the season. This year I see about 15 teams where this could happen. There is a bit more turnover at the kicker position right now than I recall there being in the past.

The kicker position is so independent from the rest of the team that salaries shouldn't really be related to the cap. The teams who actually pay their kickers a lot of money are teams who are prioritizing that position for the kickers consistency. 

Vinaterri of the Patriots for example was over paid by the Colts because he was a difference maker for the Pats vs. the Colts in the playoffs for a few year there before Peyton left. They still pay him a ton. Hasn't pushed them over the edge at all in the playoffs though.

The Ravens prioritize kicker play more than other teams and pay for it.

The Raiders used a 1st round pick on Janikowski and he has been there kicker forever.

I dunno the reasoning of money just doesn't seem to apply to these other highly paid kickers, so I am not sure why it did with Gould. My logic of a kicker being paid highly means job security for that kicker does seem to apply to these other examples though.

I'm not sure how much of an issue it was with money but I know there was a problem with his performance.  Kickers only have one job and once they stop performing well they get dropped to find someone who can.  Gould lost them about three games and it seemed his performance was on the decline so they moved on from him.  Not a huge surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I'm not sure how much of an issue it was with money but I know there was a problem with his performance.  Kickers only have one job and once they stop performing well they get dropped to find someone who can.  Gould lost them about three games and it seemed his performance was on the decline so they moved on from him.  Not a huge surprise.

Only a surprise for me I guess. There was a reason he was available for me later in the draft. I just wasn't aware of it.

The cut was because of how he was performing as you said, not because of the salary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Biabreakable said:

Only a surprise for me I guess. There was a reason he was available for me later in the draft. I just wasn't aware of it.

The cut was because of how he was performing as you said, not because of the salary.

I think salary had some to do with it too.  If he had like a league minimum contract I wouldn't be surprised if they kept him.  I can't imagine that they actually felt that Barth was the better overall kicker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.