Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The Official Staff/Messageboard Survivor Thread (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter BassNBrew
- Start date
good call.I really couldn't be any happier with how my first 4 picks turned out picking from the #2 hole. I knew I'd wind up with Holmes or LT2, and that is a big advantage over most other teams. Corey Dillon was exactly the player I was hoping would fall to me in round 2, although I thought there was a very small chance it would happen. Staley was exactly the guy I planned to take at 3.2...the Steelers brought him in to be the man, and I think Bettis will play a limited role this year. Regardless, Staley should make an excellent RB3 b/c of his receiving and all around ability. Then, at 4.11, I was SHOCKED to see Laveranues Coles sitting out there just waiting for me to pick him. In a league with this many sharks, it is rare to have no tough decisions to make through the first 4 rounds. Every one of these picks was a no-brainer for me.I also thought BFred got tremendous value with all his first 4 selections. The joke during the draft was that even a monkey could have made those picks since they were all screaming VALUE at the spot where they were made, but he deserves credit for picking players that weren't expected to slide that far.I was a bit surprised that Maurile took Torry Holt over Domanick Davis. With 1pt/reception, I think Davis has a lot of value. My pre-draft plan was to go RB-RB-RB but I was expecting to be seriously tempted to grab Holt at the 2/3 turn, so I think he was definitely worthy of going in round 2. I just didn't expect him to go above DDavis, who I think should outscore Tiki Barber this year pretty easily. Nevertheless, Holt going early is a big reason why Dillon slipped to me, so I can't complain. Things worked out very well for MT when a consistent scorer like Curtis Martin was still around in the middle of round 3.I was also surprised to see guys like Michael Bennett and Stephen Davis go ahead of Dillon. Both seem destined to share carries this year and neither adds much in the way of receptions, while Dillon should be the main guy in Beantown and may end up catching more passes than both of them.Sinrman surprised me by going WR/WR at the 2/3 turn....meaning he wouldn't be able to grab a RB2 until the end of the 4th round after 47 players had been drafted. I think that is a weakness that he'll have a very hard time overcoming. LT2 can definitely score as much as 2 RBs most weeks, but in a survivor league with limited depth, you are likely toast as soon as he has an off week (which was last year in week 1 for his owner Will Grant). Also, Warrick Dunn could perform like a capable RB2 if healthy, but he's recovering from a lisfranc injury that wrecked Michael Bennett's 2003 season so it's very risky to rely on him for much.I thought Kevin Jones was tremendous value at the end of round 3 for Shawn. I would have given very serious consideration to drafting him at 3.2 if Sinrman had taken Duce Staley ahead of me.The Shockey pick over Gonzalez by Sandbagger was a big surprise to me as well. I understand Shockey had 80 receptions his rookie season, but he's not a consistent TD producer and he has serious health issues that make him a risky choice.The staff did talk about hitting QBs often in the rounds 5-8 range, but I was a bit surrprised to see McNair and Hasselbeck go where they did. I fully expected to be selecting one of them at the 4.11/5.02 turn. Luckily, them going early allowed Coles to fall to me, so that worked out just fine for me as well b/c there were still some other QBs I was interested in. Seeing Steve Smith go ahead of Coles, Moulds, and Boldin surprised me a bit as well given the Panthers run-first offensive philosophy and his lack of prototypical WR1 size.The staff in league 2 definitely did not subscribe to the Stud TE theory. All of the "big 3" TEs went to MB contestants. The MB also ended up with 2 of the "big 3" QBs. Should be interesting to see how that works out for them. Last year in SII, I seem to recall that all 3 "stud TE" teams were eliminated pretty early on. However, sandbagger and BFred didn't seem very convinced by that result since they went that way again. However, I think in round 4, the value was a lot better this year, whereas those TEs went in round 3 last year.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chris Smith
The Head Goon!
If you were surprised that the two quarterbacks went in round four, why would you be targeting one of them in the same round?I think value picks are overrated when you go by pick # instead of round. If you want a player on your roster and you know he won't be there in the next round, you need to take him in your draft slot. Period. I don't care if ADP or VBD says the player should be the 49th pick in the draft if I have the 43rd pick and then the 54th pick.
By all means if ADP says a player will still be on board in another couple of rounds and you want him it makes sense to wait on the player. However if you are talking about a player who won't be available with your next pick (or extremely unlikley in any case) and you want that player, don't get cute with the pick. Take the player you want.
Chris Smith
The Head Goon!
I am very happy with my roster after four rounds. In a Survivor League, I believe the two key positions are quarterbacks and running backs. Both positions dry out quickly and it is important to have quality depth at those positions. Having James, Bennett and Garner should be a solid cornerstone at the RB position and McNair is a great fantasy quarterback who should continue to put up strong numbers.In my opinion you can effectively wait on selecting receivers and then go with six players who are capable of big weeks. Not having to pick which receivers will be the best in any given week is a huge plus.I can see the lure of taking one of the big three tight ends early. However I would rather look elsewhere in the first four rounds unless I see awesome value at the tight end position.
I don't know. In all the mocks we/I did to prepare for this draft, I don't think McNair or Hasselbeck were ever both gone by 4.11. In fact, I think both were always available at the 4.11 spot. I thought there was even a tiny chance McNabb would slide to that selection if people really wanted to wait on QBs.My plan was to grab a stud WR at 4.11 and a QB at 5.02, but if Coles, Moulds, or Boldin weren't available, then I was probably going to grab a QB at 4.11. Imagine my surprise when all 3 of those WRs were sitting there for me to choose from.
I wasn't at all panicked by McNair and Hass going where they did, as I had a backup plan in place that I was happy to implement, and it allowed Coles to fall to me.
BTW, I agree with your point about sometimes having to "reach" for a player you want if you are pretty certain he won't be around for your next selection. I'm not knocking the pick at all...just pointing out how it differed from my expectations going into the draft.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chris Smith
The Head Goon!
Cool. Good reply.
I thought about going Coles with the pick but I felt it more important to target strong quarterbacks and look for receiver depth later in the draft. I believe that went pretty well but time will tell. I had convinced myself that McNair wouldn't be there at the next pick and in all honesty, I had two players already planned out at the quarterback position that I would be targeting whose bye weeks fit together rather nicely. McNair and... (stay tuned)
Chris Smith
The Head Goon!
It's hard for us participants to grade a draft after four rounds as we know the entire roster of each team which leads to a biased opinion. That said, I believe the strongest after four rounds (excluding my own) are:1. Culcasi (proved he isn't JUST a defensive guru)2. Mike Anderson (solid all-around squad)3. Boston Fred (Nice duo at RB and top fantasy QB and possibly TE)4. Aaron R. (three solid running backs)
bostonfred2
Footballguy
Actually, I was completely convinced by the result, I just read it differently than you did. Last year, the big three TEs all started out slow, which made it a bad test. Even then, though, the big TEs are more inconsistent than other positions, which devalues them in a survivor format. Unlike inconsistent WRs and RBs, where you start 2 or 3 players and typically carry 4-6 to make up for their inconsistency, you only start 1 TE, and usually carry only two. Even though they score a ridiculous amount in this scoring system with 2 pts per TE reception, it's unlikely someone would spend two picks out of their first five just to lock up two stud TEs, which means you're just going to have to suck up the inconsistency. The high scoring, though, does have its merits. According to FBG projections, Gonzalez is slated to score 261 points this year. By comparison, Fred Taylor is projected to score 263. The next TE who would have been available in the 5th was Winslow, at 195, and the 12th TE will score 148. Carrying two TEs won't help, either - even if someone had two average TEs, they'd have to score 20, 0, 20, 0, 20, 0, 20, 0... and 0, 20, 0, 20, 0, 20... to score as many points as Gonzalez. That's a big advantage no matter how you slice it. I'm estimating that Gonzalez alone will outscore the other TEs in the league by about 5-7 points per game. As for the big 3 QBs, Culpepper is projected by FBGs to score 361 points in this scoring system this year. Manning, 326. After that, Culpepper has a 4 points per game advantage over the next group of QBs, and his scoring has been consistent in the past, which is a huge bonus. Between those two picks, at this point, I'm outscoring the rest of the league by about 10 points per game. As for Portis and D Davis, Portis is projected to score 313 points, and Davis 245. That's close to, if not the, highest scoring RB combination, although it's not yet backed up, and the bye weeks are an issue. These teams with their 3 and 4 RBs may beat my two RBs, but not by 10 points per game on average. After four picks, I'm not as well backed up as they are, but on paper, my team will score the most points by a large margin. In conclusion, points are good, and we'd like to draft teams of players that score lots of points.
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
Not as much as people passing on him for the likes of Shipp, Bennett, and Rudi. Not saying passin ghim for these guys is necessarily wrong, but there was a decent amount of either luck, or a string of people who were been burned by Dillon in the past, to let him get to the 2.11 pick in such a RB-heavy first couple of rounds.I could have understood it if some of them were pass catching backs, but outside of Shipp, I don't think any have demonstrated receiving skills - whatever skills Bennett has are overshadowed by a 65+ catch guy like Moe Wiliams on the squad, C-Pepp's tendency to run over dumping off, and good receivers on the squad.
Chris Smith
The Head Goon!
Agreed. YOu had a very solid draft.I went TE early in Survivor last year (Gonzalez) but it didn't turn out very well thanks to his slow start. However the real problem last year was (a) McNabb's very slow start after I thought I stole him in round four (took Gonzalez in round three) and thinking Pinkston could actually play receiver in the NFL
Taking a TE early can be a big building block. I was seriously thinking about Gonzalez in round four but your pick one spot before mine made my pick an easy one.Outstanding work. In my opinion, you were the class of the MB'ers.
Chris Smith
The Head Goon!
I may be completely wrong on this front but I feel much of Moe Williams' success last season is directly attributed to Michael Bennett's injury problems. I don't feel he will have a large impact in 2004.
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
One of the most overlooked draft concepts in the first few rounds - I was trying to write a cohesive article on this concept (it is essentially Mike "Unlucky"'s DGP theory) and keep getting stuck on how to explain rationally the concept of exactly when you should reach down for a player and why - it's so subjective.Someone criticized Fro for taking Barlow at #7 ion League 2. Nope. There was almost NO chance Barlow would last until 2.05, and if Fro had him as the 6-7-8 guy on his board and WANTED him, it was NOT a reach.Same thing with 'Bagger and Shockey - if 'Bagger wanted Shockey over Gonzo badly enough, he had to take him exactly where he did.McNair at 4.07 and Hass at 4.09 are not really a surprise or a reach if Aaron was thinking about taking one of them at his 5.02 turn. Sour grapes for getting those QBs snaked form him? Not likely - like he said, that allowed Coles to fall.bostonfred2
Footballguy
I took Portis at 1.07, but I was actually hoping Alexander would slip to me. If I were at 1.05, I'd have taken Alexander over Portis too. I like Alexander a little better than Portis this year, mostly because I don't trust anything in Washington, but I like both better than Edgerrin, who went early to staff teams in both drafts. As for Barlow over Ricky, a lot of people are scared of Ricky's workload, which is more than anyone ever in history ever.I'm surprised to see Shaun Alexander picke before Clinton Portis and Kevan Barlow picked before Ricky Williams?
cracKer
Shawn Culcasi
I'm a firm believer that Ricky Williams' legs will fall off this year, plus I have a man-crush on Barlow.Interestingly, I took Williams at 1.09 in a recent draft (over Barlow). Hedging my opinion, in case I'm wrong on both counts (which has happened before, I think)I'm surprised to see Shaun Alexander picke before Clinton Portis and Kevan Barlow picked before Ricky Williams?
Sinrman
Footballguy
Actually, if Hasselbeck or McNair had fallen to me at 4.12/5.01 I would have taken one there along with Dunn, but both were taken shortly before me.As Aaron pointed out, I may have started off fairly well, but I made some mistakes as we went along. You'll see why once rounds 5 & 6 are released. I'm realllllllllllllllllllllllllllly wishing I had gone with my original gut instinct instead of going with who I went at 5.01. Who I nabbed there is a great player, and probably would have been picked that round sometime, but it may come back to haunt me. :X
Overall though, just about everyone's rosters are strong. We have several different drafting styles being used, which makes for great debate. Mistakes were made (I made more than one - DOH!) But in the end, it will be a lot of fun to see who makes it to the end, and how. Will the vaunted "Stud RB" theory win out? What about the "stud WR" theory? Or will the winner just flat out get lucky (not have the injuries that others suffered, lucky breaks as the season progressed, etc.)?
BFred, I fully admit that your team looks very good after 4 rounds, and I like all 4 selections. And I understand and agree with the points you are making regarding the points based on FBG projections.BUT, I think a lot of what you are saying to defend your picks is almost the same things that sandbagger was saying about his "stacked squad" last year in SII. IIRC, he went Portis in round 1, then went Culpepper, then went Gonzo in round 3. He thought Portis would score like 1.5 RBs, Culpepper would give him a huge advantage at QB and Gonzo would give him a huge advantage at TE. However, he neglected the RB2 position and especially the WR1 position for far too long.I think a case can definitely be made for grabbing a stud QB or a stud TE in rounds 3 and 4 (and you certainly got the 2 I think most people would want), but I think grabbing one of each may end up hurting you. They are most certainly valuable in leagues where you have to pick a starter each week, but in Survivor I think 2 QBs and 2 TEs drafted later can easily score enough to consistently help you avoid elimination.Where your team improves on sandbagger's '03 squad is that you got DDavis as your RB2 and were able to grab CPepp and Gonzo a round later than he did last year. I think were this a regular H2H league, your team would be a big favorite after 4 rounds. But, in Survivor, I don't think the advantage those players give you will be as great as you think. Scoring points is definitely the main objective, but avoiding the low score is slightly different than trying to score the highest.Regardless, were I in your spot, I'd be thrilled with getting those 4 guys in the first 4 rounds. I'll be very relieved to see your team get eliminated b/c you are definitely a threat to win this thing just looking at the first 4 rounds.
Last edited by a moderator:
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
Yeah - B-Fred , I was critical a bit of you in the other thread, but you will be pleased by my commentary on your squad. At one point, I believe I called you the "value guru" of the draft.I used various picks throughout the draft as springboards to discuss draft strategy - including yours, Aaron's and 'bagger's, but the discussions of the strategy should not be interpreted by y'all as direct criticisms of anyone's drafts. If I didn't like a pick, I made it clear and I made it clear why - I don't recall for sure, but I think that through the first 10 rounds at least, I did not dislike any of the SII guys' picks. (nice double negative there).Also remember that BnB and I were asked to make commmentary deliberately putting ourselves in a bit of a vacuum as the draft unfolded, with no knowledge of what exactly you had in mind for later in the draft (even though we had the whole draft before us) or if any team strategy was being employed (regardless of any inside knowledge we might have).
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
Also, if you believe (like I do) that SA will continue last year's consistency of 13 out of 16 games with either 100 combined yardage and/or a TD, he is superior in this format over a back that might start slkow as he puts in practice for the first time a new o-line and new o-system on a new team with a new coach (Gibbs is an old coach, but these guys don't know him, so he is a new coach to them).In a H2H or points league, I'd be all over Portis over SA b/c I think he starts to explode during the year, but in a survivor format, you don't have time to wait for someone to get in gear - witness my Faulk and CuMar picks in SII and the slowest starts EVER for a pair of backs.Same with Barlow over Ricky - Ricky may start slow considering they open versus Tennessee, Pitt, and NE in the first 5 games while Barlow has these first five games: Atl, @NO, @Sea, StL, Ari - Barlow may be one of the top-5 rushers in the league after five games with that opening schedule.I took Portis at 1.07, but I was actually hoping Alexander would slip to me. If I were at 1.05, I'd have taken Alexander over Portis too. I like Alexander a little better than Portis this year, mostly because I don't trust anything in Washington, but I like both better than Edgerrin, who went early to staff teams in both drafts. As for Barlow over Ricky, a lot of people are scared of Ricky's workload, which is more than anyone ever in history ever.I'm surprised to see Shaun Alexander picke before Clinton Portis and Kevan Barlow picked before Ricky Williams?
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
Thank god - I was gettting sick of sharing my man-crush on Fred Taylor with you.He's mine ladies! All MINE!
bostonfred2
Footballguy
I don't mind people being critical of my team - in fact, I welcome it, because I love talking about how great this team is. 
I just want to challenge the idea that a top TE is a bad thing, or that a top QB is a bad thing, or that both together are a bad thing. And I want to challenge the ntion that somehow 3 or even 4 RBs in the first four rounds is better than 2. I think there's a lot of room for argument there, and I'd like to hear the other side because honestly, aside from hearing "you can't take a top QB AND a top TE in the first four rounds", I haven't heard a reason why not. I've heard that TE scoring is inconsistent - in fact, I put it out there first. I think that inconsistency will hurt me in weeks my backup TE also doesn't score. I've heard that a top QB is less valuable in Survivor, but I'll be arguing this point again this week I'm sure. I've heard that you need a top WR, but at this point, I've also only seen 7 WRs go by in the draft, so it's not like WR value was passing me by. Why can't someone start out with the top QB and the top TE?
I just want to challenge the idea that a top TE is a bad thing, or that a top QB is a bad thing, or that both together are a bad thing. And I want to challenge the ntion that somehow 3 or even 4 RBs in the first four rounds is better than 2. I think there's a lot of room for argument there, and I'd like to hear the other side because honestly, aside from hearing "you can't take a top QB AND a top TE in the first four rounds", I haven't heard a reason why not. I've heard that TE scoring is inconsistent - in fact, I put it out there first. I think that inconsistency will hurt me in weeks my backup TE also doesn't score. I've heard that a top QB is less valuable in Survivor, but I'll be arguing this point again this week I'm sure. I've heard that you need a top WR, but at this point, I've also only seen 7 WRs go by in the draft, so it's not like WR value was passing me by. Why can't someone start out with the top QB and the top TE?
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
This was my EXACT point in the other thread -and it is the springboard point I make when BFred takes Gonzo.We'll have ot see this play out, but BFred's point about only 7 WRs gonje is a good one, but not agreat ojne, as I believe this league will be won by a team that ends up with TWO top-12 WRs, TWO top-12 RBs, and a top-5 QB. The stud TE won't matter again - just like it didn't matter in any of the survivor leagues last year with 2pts/rec.
bostonfred2
Footballguy
Again, why would you say that? Did you keep track of how sandbagger scored after he was eliminated? Or are you just basing it on the fact he was eliminated early, so therefore it must not have worked? To me, that's like saying Priest didn't help anyone win their leagues in 2002 because he was hurt week 16. As for the two top 12 WRs, I will make my argument about this later, but I feel that the most important thing is total team scoring - the number of points I got from my 3 Ds last year was almost as valuable as the points I got from Jamal Lewis, TJ Duckett, or Fred Taylor.
the simplest explanation I can give is that it usually costs too much to acquire the #1 QB and #1 TE. Normally, by taking them you are passing on very very good WRs or decent options at RB3.In your case, however, I think getting CPepp in the 3rd and Gonzo in the 4th makes it a viable strategy that will work out just fine. You didn't have to sacrifice your RB2 spot and actually got a guy who should put up top-15 numbers as long as he stays healthy. While it would be great to have a RB3 or stud WR1 after 4, I don't think it's a necessity. I think you can get by without a legit "stud" at WR, but finding that solid RB3 who can contribute during bye weeks and when your big guns either get injured or get shut down is a very valuable commodity.Last year, I took Ricky Williams at #2 and everybody thought he was in for a big year. I grabbed William Green at 2.11 and thought he was the steal of the draft based on how he finished '02. Well, both those guys ended up significantly underperforming their draft position. I actually thought I was so strong at RB after those 2 guys that I waited until rounds 8 and 9 I think to grab my RB3 and RB4 in Buckhalter and Betts. Eventually, low RB scoring was my demise, and I made a point to land 3 solid starters this year. Similarly, I thought Garcia was in for a huge year last year, but my QB3 Jake Delhomme probably ended up being more valuable to my squad even though he began the year as a backup. A lot comes down to injuries and who can survive the bad weeks by their star players...so, having studs is great, but you still need to fill out your roster with a lot of quality in the mid rounds and hit on a few guys in the later part of the draft to survive longer than most.Anyway, I know you know all this. Just rambling a bit here. I do think a general rule of survivor leagues though is that the team that appears to be the "strongest" at this point of the season rarely wins. Depth and bye week management and luck with injuries are often more important than just compiling the best possible players.
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
The commentary will bear it out - had you taken a WR here along with the WRs you got later, having or not having Gonzo wouldn't have mattered a whit to your sqaud - you could stick the TE 4, 5, or 6, drafted SIGNIFICANTLY later, alongside the WR you coulda grabbed where you took Gonzo, plus the WRs you ended up getting, and started all of that with Portis, DD, C-Pepp and the rest of your squad and you'd have been, IMO, significantly stronger on a week to week consistency basis.There is also the consideration that one bad week from Gonzo (or, for that matter, C-Pepp) early in the year is not likely to be compensated by any other member of your roster unless, as you mention you chase C-Pepp or Gonzo with another of the same position immediately. Meanwhile a TON of the other teams can have a bad or ZERO week at any one of their starter positions and they could still get a performance they expected from the position overall and stay in the game. tjhe very VBD worth of C-Pepp and Gonzo are their potential downfall to your squad - noone does what they do, and that can actually be a problem in a survivor system that rewards redundancies on a squad.Witness either LHUCKS' or GregR - the team of destiny that played with Pennie, and no other playing QB, for so long. Put another way - would you rather have two WRs who could be your WR1, along with a host of WRs who would get you points in their stead, or one TE who, if he has a bad game, you need luck from your third tier backup TE to match his production? Since all your other positions are equal with mine, I'll take the WR crew and not be forced to count on the weekly TE numbers - there, in a nutshell, is the VBD trap at TE under this format. VBD/DVBD is not designed to account for Murphy's law, but in this no-movement, draft is king, survivor drafting, you need to take Murphy into account.You now have opened yourself up to two situations of extreme disaster - lose either CPepp or Gonzo and you are severely handicapped - other teams can lose their RB1 OR WR1, OR TE1, OR QB1 for three or four weeks and still compete - of you lose either for that long, you are likely hurting. You didn't take just one risk of that happening - you took two risks of that happening.Don't get me wrong - if Gonzo and C-Pepp put up weekly numbers like they are supposed to right out of the gate, you are going to go far - at leats to week 7. If eith erstumble in that week7/8 period, you will be struggling again. If you survive week 8, you could win it all. Just like my squad in SII - you have to survive until your bye week problem before it is an issue, but you better pray for Gonzo v. Atlanta) and C-Pepp (v. Tennessee) to put up HUGE week 7 numbers.I don't mind people being critical of my team - in fact, I welcome it, because I love talking about how great this team is.
Drugrunner
Just call me HORSE
On the flip side of that, I strongly concidered taking Portis at 1.4 It was a huge toss up between Portis and Ahman for me, but in the end, I am happy with Ahman.1.4 Was going to come down to Ahman, Portis, and Edge. I see huge things for Edge this season.I took Portis at 1.07, but I was actually hoping Alexander would slip to me. If I were at 1.05, I'd have taken Alexander over Portis too. I like Alexander a little better than Portis this year, mostly because I don't trust anything in Washington, but I like both better than Edgerrin, who went early to staff teams in both drafts. As for Barlow over Ricky, a lot of people are scared of Ricky's workload, which is more than anyone ever in history ever.I'm surprised to see Shaun Alexander picke before Clinton Portis and Kevan Barlow picked before Ricky Williams?
rebel34
Footballguy
I was THIS close to taking Portis at 1.05 I have watched him up close here in Denver for 2 years, and when I met him he was a super nice guy (I was decked out in UoM gearI'm surprised to see Shaun Alexander picke before Clinton Portis and Kevan Barlow picked before Ricky Williams?
). but this is survivor so I had to look at it as a marathon and not a sprint. As stated in my breakdown, I have concerns about the backups in Was over the backups in Sea. I feel comfortable with SA, especially now with my Shipp pick at 2.08 looking like ####. 
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
B-Fred - sorry for all the words - you asked me for a "reason" why you shouldn't take the top-QB and top-TE - I gave the reasons as I see them. I don't think you drafted poorly at all - I think you are strong as heck - but I can't say right now all of why you in particular did well in this draft (only 4 rounds are released).I think you had to grab that value where you did - all four were excellent selections for excellent value - I feel it pitted you on a pretty risky course, as I see it, a course better to avoid with both RBs for sure missing week 7.In short, were it me, I'd have grabbed C-Pepp when you did, hovered my draft finger over Gonzo's name in the 4th, stopped, thought hard, and taken a WR, a backup RB or even another stud QB. I MIGHT have even played with real fire and taken Coles despite the bye issue problem.Side note on this discussion - Joe Bryant discussed a survivor draft he was in last year - despite the two players being on a bye at the same time, he has an EXCELLENT reason for considering selecting QB-RB form the same team in no-starter survivor formats - given Coles' situation, I'd have considered the RB-WR hookup, but would have grabbed a different WR since at that point in the draft, I see 4 decent starting WR1 options still available - and you could have had two of them starting next to C-Pepp, Portis and DDavis. Who cares if your TE woulda been Crumpler/McMichael backed up by Graham/Whitten??
Last edited by a moderator:
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
Note - imagine, BFred if you had gone C-Pepp/McNair instead of C-Pepp/Gonzo - talk about guaranteeing yourself a top finish at both QB and RB each week!
LHUCKS
Footballguy
Let me first say that it is hard to judge a draft after only four rounds, mostly because a team's perceived weakness can be compensated for with depth and solid mid/late round drafting. That being said, I think a couple of teams really hurt their chances of Surviving through week 16.I'll hand out team grades and a brief blurb stating why.Boston Fred: A+I'm not the biggest supporter of Portis, but the Culpepper and Gonzo picks were huge value. The week 7 bye is definitely a concern, but the fact that the week 7 is a combo week is much more important than people realize. I would expect that Fred has relatively few byes in the week 6/7 period from his players going forward. I would also expect Fred gets solid RB backups that will contribute in week 7 so that the RB scoring is not a complete wash. FYI, BostonFred was my pick to win it all before the draft started...his squad comes as no surprise to me. Clearly outdrafted the others IMO. Aaron Rudnicki: AHas three uncontested starting runningbacks and Coles is a great player to have in this format given his ability to produce big games. Aaron really reduced his risk by getting three solid RBs. So that is two 2003 Survivor II alumni with a grade of A.Maurile Tremblay: AI'm not concerned about Lewis' legal troubles. Holt and Mason will pay huge dividends as two likely top 10 WRs. Martin was great value at 3.08. Shawn Culcasi: BAgain, three uncontested starting runningbacks I like. I don't like the McNabb pick in round 4 because I like to see at least one WR in the first four rounds. If Shawn gets good middle round value at WR this team could be an A.Chris Smith: BVery similar to Culcasi's team in that he has three uncontested starting runningbacks and a QB in round 4. Again if Mid/Late round WR value can be had than this team could be an A. Sandbagger: BHard to argue with any of his top three selections. I'm just not high on Shockey. Had a WR been selected instead of Shockey this team would be an A. I would like to see a McGahee handcuff, but could be tricky given his ADP. Hopefully for bagger he slides.Grouse: BThree uncontested starting backs and my #2 TE. I have Heap as the clear #2 TE this year. If WR quality is not lacking could be an A.Mike Anderson: B-Like Dodd's squad, this team is dinged for the Westbrook pick. I like Dodd's squad a little better because he went WR in round 4. Not my kind of draft, but could still prove to be successful if WR value is found.David Yudkin: B-Chris Brown doesn't hurt as much given he was the #3 RB taken, but that in addition to the Vick pick forces this team's hand in the middle rounds and value will be lost. Too much risk.Sinrman: CI have two problems with this squad. Warrick Dunn as the #2 and the top two WRs with week 5 byes. Twilight: C-I'll never endorse the stud WR theory in a survivor format. If T. Jones is not a stud this squad will suffer way too much at RB. Interesting twist though. Rebel34: C-I don't like Shipp as the #2 back for obvious reasons. Shick's grade was not as low because he had Shipp along with two additional starting RBs so he can recover. This squad will have a much tougher time doing so.Everybody will get a shot at my draft in Survivor II or check out the EBF invitational for something current...notice Shipp and Brown weren't on my team in that draft 
I look forward to the upcoming rounds. The most interesting discussion IMO concerns a) the # of players taken at each position b) bye week strategy c) overall risk profileall of which obviously can't be discussed until the draft is complete.
I look forward to the upcoming rounds. The most interesting discussion IMO concerns a) the # of players taken at each position b) bye week strategy c) overall risk profileall of which obviously can't be discussed until the draft is complete.
Last edited by a moderator:
rebel34
Footballguy
I saw Smith as the best WR available at this time. (and ironically so did Dodds at the EXACT same pick in league 1-wierd huh?)Brunell scares me in Washington. The D should stack the line to stop CP, and that will leave Coles to slice and dice in man to man coverage. Coles is awesome but the fact that Brunell will be throwing him the ball has me concerned. I know, I know, Jimmy Smith had some great years with Brunell, but Smith is a different type of receiver and Brunell is quite a bit older now.Moulds is a great target that has size, speed and hands. I easily could have taken EM and felt good about it. Boldin is a solid playmaker but I feel that Fitzgerald will take some opportunity away from him. Boldin should have more receptions than Fitz, but LF should have more TD's. McCown looked good in limited duty last year, but we'll see how he fares as a full time starter.
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
I was surprised, too - but I understand it - Steve Smith catches a LOT of passes - caught more than Coles last year - which is a big bonus in this format.
I'm a fan of Steve Smith's game and was very impressed with his performances last year. In fact, he was a HUGE reason why my SII team survived as long as it did as I drafted him in the 13th round last year. I like him much better than a player he is normally compared to - Santana Moss - because Smith is much more physical and can fight for jump balls, etc. while Santana is slighter in build and more of a finesse/speed WR. I think Smith is similar to Coles, both have legit deep speed, but also are strong and unafraid to make plays over the middle.That being said, I can't shake the idea that Muhammad could end up as the #1 WR in Carolina this year. Moose really came on strong late in the year and in the Super Bowl. If Smith continues to draw most of the defensive attention, I think Muhammad will become a favorite target for Delhomme and a serious redzone threat as well. I don't think any WR in Washington poses a similar threat to Coles, even though I was leading the Gardner bandwagon last summer.
As for concerns about Brunell...I'm not too worried. If he struggles at all, I think Ramsey could come in and do very well. Having 2 capable QBs there increases Coles value, for me anyway. I'd be much more concerned about relying on a WR who has 2 quality RBs on his team, a somewhat conservative coach who is willing to pound the ball 40 times a game and let his defense win games, and a backup QB who should be collecting social security
. I think the O-line in Washington will perform much better this year and I think Gibbs will go to max-protect very often like St. Louis and Green Bay did frequently last year. That should end up giving Brunell or Ramsey plenty of time to find Coles, who I don't think will have too much trouble beating any of the CBs in the NFC East this year.I have similar concerns about Boldin as you do, but it's hard to ignore the monster season he had last year as a rookie, and with 1pt/rec he should still be capable of putting up big numbers. My fear there is that the running game will not be effective enough to keep defenses honest. But, it could eaisly be a Moss/Carter or Plaxico/Ward situation with Fitz playing the deep threat/big play guy and Boldin continuing as one of the best possession WRs in the game. In that sense, having Fitz around could actually help keep some of the focus off Boldin this year.
Last edited by a moderator:
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
I agree - I said "imagine" not "you shoulda' done it"Of course, I am privvy to exactly what BFred for QB2.
bostonfred2
Footballguy
I think you guys are talking about my QB3.I am privvy as well
rebel34
Footballguy
I heard that Rodney Peete would be endorsing The Rascal this year.I'd be much more concerned about relying on a WR who has 2 quality RBs on his team, a somewhat conservative coach who is willing to pound the ball 40 times a game and let his defense win games, and a backup QB who should be collecting social security
It's never too early to draft...you know who
bostonfred2
Footballguy
To this day, you're still bitter and I'm still wondering, why couldn't I allow him to take both Couch and Holcomb?What, you vultured Kelly Holcomb again?I think you guys are talking about my QB3.I am privvy as well
GregR_2
Footballguy
Heh heh, what can I say, I can forget my family's birthdays, but I can't forget fantasy football things.To this day, you're still bitter and I'm still wondering, why couldn't I allow him to take both Couch and Holcomb?What, you vultured Kelly Holcomb again?I think you guys are talking about my QB3.I am privvy as well
And you know, the funny thing is that I never needed him. Peyton was the only QB who scored for me all season.Still I have to admit that I looked to make sure you were picking at the other end of the draft in SOS II. 
I've seen Tony Hollings play, and I think he's mucho talented. Not saying he'll take Davis's job -- there's probably only about a 5% chance of that happening; but that's too high for my taste in the second round. There's about a 0% chance that somebody will take Holt's job (barring injury), so I felt more comfortable with Holt.If I'd taken a RB with that pick, it would have been Dillon.
Last edited by a moderator:
:rotflmao:
well, then I'm even happier that you took Holt when you did. I have a feeling that if you didn't, it could very well have been me who ended up with him at 2.11. Not sure I was ready to have to rely on Duce Staley as my RB2, so I'm happy I wasn't faced with that decision.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
