1.01 pick in redraft PPRs (1 Viewer)

[jurb26]

Don't pay for last season, go with Adrian Peterson. He'll catch more passes than he's ever seen with Norv Turner calling plays.

Can't go wrong with Calivn, either; although I prefer Peterson slightly.

McCoy will probably catch fewer passes with the addition of Sproles - a big deal in PPR formats.

You could find a few of reasons to avoid Charles - offensive line gets significantly worse, work load likely decreases. High risk.

Graham at 1.01 has too much audacity. Foolish. Trade back if you want him.

Take Manning in the second.

You really think Manning is going to be available in the 2nd? He's not going to last past the 1st 10 picks in any draft this year.

Not a chance you will get Manning in the 2nd. Not in my leagues anyway. Also, what is all this risk with Charles? Why is he going to see a reduced workload?

 

[fightingillini]

Don't pay for last season, go with Adrian Peterson. He'll catch more passes than he's ever seen with Norv Turner calling plays.

Can't go wrong with Calivn, either; although I prefer Peterson slightly.

McCoy will probably catch fewer passes with the addition of Sproles - a big deal in PPR formats.

You could find a few of reasons to avoid Charles - offensive line gets significantly worse, work load likely decreases. High risk.

Graham at 1.01 has too much audacity. Foolish. Trade back if you want him.

Take Manning in the second.

You really think Manning is going to be available in the 2nd? He's not going to last past the 1st 10 picks in any draft this year.

Not a chance you will get Manning in the 2nd. Not in my leagues anyway. Also, what is all this risk with Charles? Why is he going to see a reduced workload?

I don't think that. I would take Charles 1.01 in a PPR and not think twice about it.

He's a lock for 240+ carries, 60+ receptions, and 10+ TDs. And we saw what is ceiling is, and it's a place that wins you championships.

Some are worried about his career year last year, and the schedule is harder. Sure, he's going to probably regress back some. But tell me any RB who has a high floor AND a ceiling as high as Charles in a PPR league? No one. Charles' floor is higher than McCoy and Peterson in a PPR league (I think McCoy will lose a decent amount of receptions to Sproles), and Charles' ceiling is much higher than Forte's.

In a non PPR league, it's a lot tougher decision, and I would definitely consider Charles, McCoy, and Peterson at the 1.01 spot.

 

[cloppbeast]

Don't pay for last season, go with Adrian Peterson. He'll catch more passes than he's ever seen with Norv Turner calling plays.

Can't go wrong with Calivn, either; although I prefer Peterson slightly.

McCoy will probably catch fewer passes with the addition of Sproles - a big deal in PPR formats.

You could find a few of reasons to avoid Charles - offensive line gets significantly worse, work load likely decreases. High risk.

Graham at 1.01 has too much audacity. Foolish. Trade back if you want him.

Take Manning in the second.

You really think Manning is going to be available in the 2nd? He's not going to last past the 1st 10 picks in any draft this year.

I just went by ADP data available from MFL, which has Manning as a late 2nd round pick, even behind Rodgers. I haven't done any drafts yet so I can't provide any anecdotes from experience.

 

[cloppbeast]

Don't pay for last season, go with Adrian Peterson. He'll catch more passes than he's ever seen with Norv Turner calling plays.

Can't go wrong with Calivn, either; although I prefer Peterson slightly.

McCoy will probably catch fewer passes with the addition of Sproles - a big deal in PPR formats.

You could find a few of reasons to avoid Charles - offensive line gets significantly worse, work load likely decreases. High risk.

Graham at 1.01 has too much audacity. Foolish. Trade back if you want him.

Take Manning in the second.

You really think Manning is going to be available in the 2nd? He's not going to last past the 1st 10 picks in any draft this year.

Not a chance you will get Manning in the 2nd. Not in my leagues anyway. Also, what is all this risk with Charles? Why is he going to see a reduced workload?

I don't think that. I would take Charles 1.01 in a PPR and not think twice about it.

He's a lock for 240+ carries, 60+ receptions, and 10+ TDs. And we saw what is ceiling is, and it's a place that wins you championships.

Some are worried about his career year last year, and the schedule is harder. Sure, he's going to probably regress back some. But tell me any RB who has a high floor AND a ceiling as high as Charles in a PPR league? No one. Charles' floor is higher than McCoy and Peterson in a PPR league (I think McCoy will lose a decent amount of receptions to Sproles), and Charles' ceiling is much higher than Forte's.

In a non PPR league, it's a lot tougher decision, and I would definitely consider Charles, McCoy, and Peterson at the 1.01 spot.

I remember reading somewhere about coach saying he wanted to reduce Charles' workload, which would limit his upside. But, you could very well chalk it up to coach speak. In any event, his reception and touchdown totals scream outlier. So, you're right, we've definitely seen his upside. What's a realistic expectation though? Consider also he now has a worse offensive line blocking for him, which you would think translates to less efficiency.

I expect Charles to catch more balls than Peterson considering the their respected offenses - but not by that much. Don't forget the new OC in Minnesota likes to pass to his backs also. Norv always seems to get the best out his feature guy, from Emmitt Smith to Ladanian Tomlinson. Even if he catches a few less passes, AP will likely get more carries with better efficiency than Charles, and more touchdowns.

 

[jurb26]

Charles caught 70 passes last year, SEVENTY! No way I see Peterson reaching near that. I agree he will catch more, say 50 range.

 

[cloppbeast]

Charles caught 70 passes last year, SEVENTY! No way I see Peterson reaching near that. I agree he will catch more, say 50 range.

I think it's a little unrealistic to expect Charles to catch 70 passes this year, as it seems like an outlier. Give Charles a realistic 60, and that's only 10 more than your projection for Peterson.

Am I off base to say AP will get more TDs and more rushing yards, enough to make up for 10 points in catches?

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Charles caught 70 passes last year, SEVENTY! No way I see Peterson reaching near that. I agree he will catch more, say 50 range.

I think it's a little unrealistic to expect Charles to catch 70 passes this year, as it seems like an outlier. Give Charles a realistic 60, and that's only 10 more than your projection for Peterson.

Am I off base to say AP will get more TDs and more rushing yards, enough to make up for 10 points in catches?

It's not an outlier at all when you look at Andy Reid's history of RB production in the passing game. IMO those numbers are way more relevant to 2014 Charles than his (lack of) receiving usage under prior coaching regimes.

 

[cloppbeast]

Charles caught 70 passes last year, SEVENTY! No way I see Peterson reaching near that. I agree he will catch more, say 50 range.

I think it's a little unrealistic to expect Charles to catch 70 passes this year, as it seems like an outlier. Give Charles a realistic 60, and that's only 10 more than your projection for Peterson.

Am I off base to say AP will get more TDs and more rushing yards, enough to make up for 10 points in catches?

It's not an outlier at all when you look at Andy Reid's history of RB production in the passing game. IMO those numbers are way more relevant to 2014 Charles than his (lack of) receiving usage under prior coaching regimes.

Takes me back to the days of Westbrook.

Since 2006, and Reid has targeted his pass catching back more than 104 times only twice; in 2006 and 2007 he passed to Westbrook 111 and 120 times, respectively. Over the period of 2006 - present, Reid has averaged targeting his back 87 times per season.

So Charles could see an increase based on coaches history, but he still sits on the high side. Make his upside 80 catches, but expect 62.

Over the same period of time, Norv Turner has targeted his back 73 times on average.

 

[jurb26]

Charles caught 70 passes last year, SEVENTY! No way I see Peterson reaching near that. I agree he will catch more, say 50 range.

I think it's a little unrealistic to expect Charles to catch 70 passes this year, as it seems like an outlier. Give Charles a realistic 60, and that's only 10 more than your projection for Peterson.

Am I off base to say AP will get more TDs and more rushing yards, enough to make up for 10 points in catches?

It's not an outlier at all when you look at Andy Reid's history of RB production in the passing game. IMO those numbers are way more relevant to 2014 Charles than his (lack of) receiving usage under prior coaching regimes.

Takes me back to the days of Westbrook.

Since 2006, and Reid has targeted his pass catching back more than 104 times only twice; in 2006 and 2007 he passed to Westbrook 111 and 120 times, respectively. Over the period of 2006 - present, Reid has averaged targeting his back 87 times per season.

So Charles could see an increase based on coaches history, but he still sits on the high side. Make his upside 80 catches, but expect 62.

Over the same period of time, Norv Turner has targeted his back 73 times on average.

There is a reason Charles sits on the high side. He is probably the best receiving option in KC and one of the best pass catching RBs in the NFL. Peterson is not in either category.Lol, auto spell changes RBs to Arabs.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Put the names AP, Charles, and McCoy in a hat.

Select whichever name you pull out first.

 

[Monsters of the Midway]

I have the Big Three ranked the same, if I had to choose I'd probably go Charles because of likelihood of catching the most balls. I'm thinking McCoy's should drop with the addition of Sproles.

non-PPR I'd take ADP.

 

[cloppbeast]

Charles caught 70 passes last year, SEVENTY! No way I see Peterson reaching near that. I agree he will catch more, say 50 range.

I think it's a little unrealistic to expect Charles to catch 70 passes this year, as it seems like an outlier. Give Charles a realistic 60, and that's only 10 more than your projection for Peterson.

Am I off base to say AP will get more TDs and more rushing yards, enough to make up for 10 points in catches?

It's not an outlier at all when you look at Andy Reid's history of RB production in the passing game. IMO those numbers are way more relevant to 2014 Charles than his (lack of) receiving usage under prior coaching regimes.

Takes me back to the days of Westbrook.

Since 2006, and Reid has targeted his pass catching back more than 104 times only twice; in 2006 and 2007 he passed to Westbrook 111 and 120 times, respectively. Over the period of 2006 - present, Reid has averaged targeting his back 87 times per season.

So Charles could see an increase based on coaches history, but he still sits on the high side. Make his upside 80 catches, but expect 62.

Over the same period of time, Norv Turner has targeted his back 73 times on average.

There is a reason Charles sits on the high side. He is probably the best receiving option in KC and one of the best pass catching RBs in the NFL. Peterson is not in either category.Lol, auto spell changes RBs to Arabs.

I grant you that Charles, for a back, pretty well catches passes, somewhat accounting for his high side reception. Add check down guy at quarterback, and you have yourself an excellent situation. For the sake of reaching an agreement, I will consent to expecting another 104 targets for Charles.

Despite this defeat, I still insist on Peterson as the 1.01. If I have underrated Charles in Reid's offense, you also underrate Peterson in Turner's offense. The Vikings new OC has a well established reputation of getting a lot out of his backs, and dare I say he has not seen one of AP's caliber. Even in PPR, 300+ carries and 75 targets for Peterson will surpass Charles with his 250 carries and 104 targets.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Put the names AP, Charles, and McCoy in a hat.

Select whichever name you pull out first.

I don't think you could really go wrong, as is your implication. It's just a personal preference, since all three have legit arguments for going first overall.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Put the names AP, Charles, and McCoy in a hat.

Select whichever name you pull out first.

I don't think you could really go wrong, as is your implication. It's just a personal preference, since all three have legit arguments for going first overall.

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

We sometimes spend too much time trying to predict the future in this hobby.

But the reality is a) Each of these guys has a chance at being the #1 guy at year's end and b) while the RB position is diminished in the NFL, it's at a premium in FFB so you don't take anything but a RB if you're at the 1.1 spot. Guys like Calvin, Peyton, and Graham are tempting, but there's more talent to be had at those positions.

I wouldn't over think this.

 

[brun]

Don't pay for last season, go with Adrian Peterson. He'll catch more passes than he's ever seen with Norv Turner calling plays.

Can't go wrong with Calivn, either; although I prefer Peterson slightly.

McCoy will probably catch fewer passes with the addition of Sproles - a big deal in PPR formats.

You could find a few of reasons to avoid Charles - offensive line gets significantly worse, work load likely decreases. High risk.

Graham at 1.01 has too much audacity. Foolish. Trade back if you want him.

Take Manning in the second.

You really think Manning is going to be available in the 2nd? He's not going to last past the 1st 10 picks in any draft this year.

I just went by ADP data available from MFL, which has Manning as a late 2nd round pick, even behind Rodgers. I haven't done any drafts yet so I can't provide any anecdotes from experience.

FWIW - thought I'd share

I've done 6 drafts so far. All with FFPC scoring, 2 redrafts, 4 DE. Manning has gone 1.10 once, 3rd round twice, late 2nd 3 times.

In my last draft I had 1.1 and took Charles. At the end of the season, I think I'd be happy with him, McCoy, Forte or AP.

Graham has gone as high as 1.2 and as late as 1.6. Of course these are 1.5 ppr for TE leagues.

IIRC Calvin has gone 1.4 - 1.6. Pretty tight window.

 

[jurb26]

I grant you that Charles, for a back, pretty well catches passes, somewhat accounting for his high side reception. Add check down guy at quarterback, and you have yourself an excellent situation. For the sake of reaching an agreement, I will consent to expecting another 104 targets for Charles.

Despite this defeat, I still insist on Peterson as the 1.01. If I have underrated Charles in Reid's offense, you also underrate Peterson in Turner's offense. The Vikings new OC has a well established reputation of getting a lot out of his backs, and dare I say he has not seen one of AP's caliber. Even in PPR, 300+ carries and 75 targets for Peterson will surpass Charles with his 250 carries and 104 targets.

I'm actually more with than than you think on the Peterson bandwagon. For full disclosure here are my projections for Peterdon this year and I posted these in the Minn thread. 300 carries, 1395 yds, 11 TDs

50 targets, 36 receptions, 224 yds, 1 TD

Perhaps I'm low on his receptions and targets as I did do these over a month ago and I'd move them north now. Let's oh ahead and assume he gets 70 targets, 48 receptions, 350 yds instead. That's a fair bump, no?

In PPR I'd actually rank him and Charles as clear 1 and 2 but is still favor Charles rather easy. Getting 20 or so more catches is a lot of ground to make up. Even for a RN as special as Peterson. Really it would come down to TDs IMO. TDs are too fluctuating for me to value that highly.

 

[cloppbeast]

I'm actually more with than than you think on the Peterson bandwagon. For full disclosure here are my projections for Peterdon this year and I posted these in the Minn thread.

300 carries, 1395 yds, 11 TDs

50 targets, 36 receptions, 224 yds, 1 TD

Perhaps I'm low on his receptions and targets as I did do these over a month ago and I'd move them north now. Let's oh ahead and assume he gets 70 targets, 48 receptions, 350 yds instead. That's a fair bump, no?

In PPR I'd actually rank him and Charles as clear 1 and 2 but is still favor Charles rather easy. Getting 20 or so more catches is a lot of ground to make up. Even for a RN as special as Peterson. Really it would come down to TDs IMO. TDs are too fluctuating for me to value that highly.

I think you mean 'Peterdong'? Wait, what is 'Peterdong', some sort of perverted thing? Or do you mean 'Arab'? lol

I must worry a little more about Charles' rushing statistics. It only takes 4 touchdowns to make up for 20 receptions.

 

[pantherclub]

Don't pay for last season, go with Adrian Peterson. He'll catch more passes than he's ever seen with Norv Turner calling plays.

Can't go wrong with Calivn, either; although I prefer Peterson slightly.

McCoy will probably catch fewer passes with the addition of Sproles - a big deal in PPR formats.

You could find a few of reasons to avoid Charles - offensive line gets significantly worse, work load likely decreases. High risk.

Graham at 1.01 has too much audacity. Foolish. Trade back if you want him.

Take Manning in the second.

You really think Manning is going to be available in the 2nd? He's not going to last past the 1st 10 picks in any draft this year.

I just went by ADP data available from MFL, which has Manning as a late 2nd round pick, even behind Rodgers. I haven't done any drafts yet so I can't provide any anecdotes from experience.

FWIW - thought I'd share

I've done 6 drafts so far. All with FFPC scoring, 2 redrafts, 4 DE. Manning has gone 1.10 once, 3rd round twice, late 2nd 3 times.

In my last draft I had 1.1 and took Charles. At the end of the season, I think I'd be happy with him, McCoy, Forte or AP.

Graham has gone as high as 1.2 and as late as 1.6. Of course these are 1.5 ppr for TE leagues.

IIRC Calvin has gone 1.4 - 1.6. Pretty tight window.

not doubting you I just dont understand how that is possible? The 3rd round?

 

[jurb26]

I'm actually more with than than you think on the Peterson bandwagon. For full disclosure here are my projections for Peterdon this year and I posted these in the Minn thread.

300 carries, 1395 yds, 11 TDs

50 targets, 36 receptions, 224 yds, 1 TD

Perhaps I'm low on his receptions and targets as I did do these over a month ago and I'd move them north now. Let's oh ahead and assume he gets 70 targets, 48 receptions, 350 yds instead. That's a fair bump, no?

In PPR I'd actually rank him and Charles as clear 1 and 2 but is still favor Charles rather easy. Getting 20 or so more catches is a lot of ground to make up. Even for a RN as special as Peterson. Really it would come down to TDs IMO. TDs are too fluctuating for me to value that highly.

I think you mean 'Peterdong'? Wait, what is 'Peterdong', some sort of perverted thing? Or do you mean 'Arab'? lol

I must worry a little more about Charles' rushing statistics. It only takes 4 touchdowns to make up for 20 receptions.

Yeah, I'll let this thread serve as a reminder of why I shouldn't post from my phone.... Ugh. It's worth noting that Charles missed a game last year so the 104 targets was in 15 games, not 16. My projections for Charles right now are;

265 carries, 1350 yds, 9 TDs.

108 targets, 73 receptions, 671 TDs, 3 TDs.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I agree with those that say - tread carefully regarding chasing Peyton's career year. However, people conveniently forget that Graham had his career year too last year and so did Jamaal Charles.

Charles:

2013: 70 catches and 19 combined TDs

2012: 36 catches and 6 combined TDs

2011: Injured so not counting

2010: 45 catches and 8 combined TDs

Graham:

2013: 86 catches and 16 TDs

2012: 85 catches and 9 TDs

2011: 99 catches and 11 TDs

2010: 31 catches and 5 TDs (missed some games though that year)

Do you expect Graham to repeat 16 TDs and Charles to repeat 19 TDs too?

There is a big difference between those guys having a career year and Peyton having the best year a QB has ever had. Besides, Charles and Graham are both still young, so what you are calling career years could end up not being much better than what their normal years become as they glide through their primes. In other words, Peyton is more likely to have a bigger drop-off, percentage-wise, than those guys are.

Oh so age matters now? lol....didn't Peyton just have his career year despite being 35+?

Way to miss the point.

Also, to those thinking Charles workload will be lightened, why do you think this? He should still get a ton of targets in the passing game thanks to a) Andy Reid still being the head coach, and b) Alex Smith, aka Captain Checkdown, still being the QB. 1,800+ combined yards, 65+ catches, and 10+ touchdowns seems like a no-brainer, health permitting.

 

[Ojaays]

Put the names AP, Charles, and McCoy in a hat.

Select whichever name you pull out first.

This is why I'd rather pick 3,4,5 instead of 1.

 

[Level 3 Offenders]

I've been in over 20 drafts this season, all $100+ entry and I don't recall seeing Manning taken in the 1st once, but have seen him go in the 3rd.

 

[pantherclub]

I've been in over 20 drafts this season, all $100+ entry and I don't recall seeing Manning taken in the 1st once, but have seen him go in the 3rd.

okay guy

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Taking a QB in the 1st in a non-superflex league (barring weirdly slanted scoring systems) is probably a mistake. Taking one 1st overall is a huge sucker move -- just really awful.

 

[monk]

How can Peyton Manning not be the obvious #1 selection? I know the QB position is deep but Peyton Manning is in a tier all to himself theres not a single bigger difference maker in Fantasy Football than Peyton Manning

Manning threw 49 TDs in 2004. He threw for 28, 31, 31, 27, 33 and 33, in his next 6 seasons respectively. Record breaking seasons don't happen very often, so why pay for last season's stats?

Charles had his career best yards from scrimmage, receiving TDs, rushing TDs and receptions last season. I think he is just as likely to see a drop in his overall numbers as Peyton.

Charles due to the nature of the position is more likely to get injured or lose stats to another RB

 

[monk]

Taking a QB in the 1st in a non-superflex league (barring weirdly slanted scoring systems) is probably a mistake. Taking one 1st overall is a huge sucker move -- just really awful.

Peyton Manning scored almost double what Charles scored in my league ... He scored almost 100 points more (about 20%) than the next best QB

 

[Level 3 Offenders]

I've been in over 20 drafts this season, all $100+ entry and I don't recall seeing Manning taken in the 1st once, but have seen him go in the 3rd.

okay guy

You obviously don't draft much if you have a hard time believing that.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Taking a QB in the 1st in a non-superflex league (barring weirdly slanted scoring systems) is probably a mistake. Taking one 1st overall is a huge sucker move -- just really awful.

Peyton Manning scored almost double what Charles scored in my league ... He scored almost 100 points more (about 20%) than the next best QB

And? He was still far less valuable than the top few RBs in most scoring systems, and about on par with Graham and the top few WRs. Basing FF value on a comparison of total points across different positions is spectacularly bad process. And Manning is HUGELY likely to regress this year.

 

[rjv]

How can Peyton Manning not be the obvious #1 selection? I know the QB position is deep but Peyton Manning is in a tier all to himself theres not a single bigger difference maker in Fantasy Football than Peyton Manning

Always believed that when you draft a QB in the first round you will be playing catchup the entire draft. I guess everyone has their own strategy but in the league I have been in for over 20 years, same guys in it no turnover. Everyone that has drafted a QB in the first round has never won the championship, nor made it past the first round of the playoffs. This is a 6pt per passing TDs as well.

My guess would be McCoy.

 

[cloppbeast]

And? Peyton Manning was still far less valuable than the top few RBs in most scoring systems,

I disagree. How did you come to this conclusion?

 

[monk]

Taking a QB in the 1st in a non-superflex league (barring weirdly slanted scoring systems) is probably a mistake. Taking one 1st overall is a huge sucker move -- just really awful.

Peyton Manning scored almost double what Charles scored in my league ... He scored almost 100 points more (about 20%) than the next best QB

And? He was still far less valuable than the top few RBs in most scoring systems, and about on par with Graham and the top few WRs. Basing FF value on a comparison of total points across different positions is spectacularly bad process. And Manning is HUGELY likely to regress this year.

Yeah ... but that's just not true. In standard scoring ...

Mannings production vs the next 4 QBs (+16%, +37%, +40%, +42%)

Charles production vs the next 4 RBs ( +12%, +17%, +28%, +29%)

So even Brees @ #2 QB would have been a better value than Charles the #1 RB last year.

You're also much more likely to find a sleeper RB later in the draft than than a sleeper QB

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Taking a QB in the 1st in a non-superflex league (barring weirdly slanted scoring systems) is probably a mistake. Taking one 1st overall is a huge sucker move -- just really awful.

Peyton Manning scored almost double what Charles scored in my league ... He scored almost 100 points more (about 20%) than the next best QB

And? He was still far less valuable than the top few RBs in most scoring systems, and about on par with Graham and the top few WRs. Basing FF value on a comparison of total points across different positions is spectacularly bad process. And Manning is HUGELY likely to regress this year.

Yeah ... but that's just not true. In standard scoring ...Mannings production vs the next 4 QBs (+16%, +37%, +40%, +42%)

Charles production vs the next 4 RBs ( +12%, +17%, +28%, +29%)

So even Brees @ #2 QB would have been a better value than Charles the #1 RB last year.

You're also much more likely to find a sleeper RB later in the draft than than a sleeper QB

In leagues in which you start the same number of QBs as RBs your math would be closer to correct. That's pretty atypical though. Worst starter is a much more typical, and valuable, baseline to use. VORP makes the case for Manning 1st overall even uglier. I'd recommend reading the VBD articles that this site was essentially founded on -- they're pretty fundamental to FF understanding.

 

[pantherclub]

I've been in over 20 drafts this season, all $100+ entry and I don't recall seeing Manning taken in the 1st once, but have seen him go in the 3rd.

okay guy

You obviously don't draft much if you have a hard time believing that.

You are right, I dont draft over 20 leagues for $100+ plus this far from training camp, but whatever floats your boat fella

 

[cloppbeast]

In leagues in which you start the same number of QBs as RBs your math would be closer to correct. That's pretty atypical though. Worst starter is a much more typical, and valuable, baseline to use. VORP makes the case for Manning 1st overall even uglier. I'd recommend reading the VBD articles that this site was essentially founded on -- they're pretty fundamental to FF understanding.

Rather than worst starter, I use average of starters, in which case Manning had the most value out of everybody last year. I didn't calculate the worst starter value, but I'd still bet Manning had more than anybody else, assuming no accounting tricks were used.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

And? Peyton Manning was still far less valuable than the top few RBs in most scoring systems,

I disagree. How did you come to this conclusion?

I used math.

Speaking to "typical" league settings -- one QB / 2+ RBs / 3+ WRs / PPR / no point-per-completion, etc. In leagues where you can start more than one QB, obviously things are different, and no one should take issue with QBs being drafted early in those formats.

 

[cloppbeast]

You are right, I dont draft over 20 leagues for $100+ plus this far from training camp, but whatever floats your boat fella

Hopefully you play draft-and-go. Gee whiz, where would you find the time?

 

[cloppbeast]

And? Peyton Manning was still far less valuable than the top few RBs in most scoring systems,

I disagree. How did you come to this conclusion?

I used math.

Speaking to "typical" league settings -- one QB / 2+ RBs / 3+ WRs / PPR / no point-per-completion, etc. In leagues where you can start more than one QB, obviously things are different, and no one should take issue with QBs being drafted early in those formats.

I thought you used pixie dust.

Maybe I should clarify my question: can you show your work? Because, believe it or not, I used math also and came to quite the opposite conclusion.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

In leagues in which you start the same number of QBs as RBs your math would be closer to correct. That's pretty atypical though. Worst starter is a much more typical, and valuable, baseline to use. VORP makes the case for Manning 1st overall even uglier. I'd recommend reading the VBD articles that this site was essentially founded on -- they're pretty fundamental to FF understanding.

Rather than worst starter, I use average of starters, in which case Manning had the most value out of everybody last year. I didn't calculate the worst starter value, but I'd still bet Manning had more than anybody else, assuming no accounting tricks were used.

Curious on your methodology -- point totals or just QB6 etc? In practice, far more RBs / WRs get started yearly due to more injuries / byes / etc. The bell curve is steeper, and non-elite QB1 production is essentially free in most formats / leagues.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

And? Peyton Manning was still far less valuable than the top few RBs in most scoring systems,

I disagree. How did you come to this conclusion?

I used math.Speaking to "typical" league settings -- one QB / 2+ RBs / 3+ WRs / PPR / no point-per-completion, etc. In leagues where you can start more than one QB, obviously things are different, and no one should take issue with QBs being drafted early in those formats.

I thought you used pixie dust.

Maybe I should clarify my question: can you show your work? Because, believe it or not, I used math also and came to quite the opposite conclusion.

I can, but not right now from my phone. It was quick and easy using worst starter and the stats from one of my typical PPR leagues.

 

[cloppbeast]

Curious on your methodology -- point totals or just QB6 etc? In practice, far more RBs / WRs get started yearly due to more injuries / byes / etc. The bell curve is steeper, and non-elite QB1 production is essentially free in most formats / leagues.

I use point totals, and average them. It changes based on how many bench players you use. If you would like to see my methodology, I can post a LibreOffice Calc doc. If you use Excel in Windows though, I doubt you'll be able read it.

To your second point, strategy concerns often arise from ADP more than backward-looking VBD, or even forward-looking VBD. I have found, even though fantasy circles overrate RB to the extreme, it can still make a sound strategy to go after them, waiting on other positions. I have Aaron Rodgers as my 5th ranked guy in a standard scoring vacuum, but I will never draft him that high. Since QBs fall further than they should, I am often content getting Tony Romo in the 8th, biting the bullet with running backs in the first few rounds.

 

[karmarooster]

IF you start 1 QB and 1 RB ... and IF you knew with certainty that Manning would throw 5,500 yards and 55 TDs... then sure he's a solid pick at #1. But that should not be your starting point.... it should instead be closer to 5,000 yards and 40 TDs. In this projection, how would Manning's VBD score compare with Charles/McCoy/Peterson?

Essentially, where's the break-even point for Manning's stats if we assume that at least one of Charles/McCoy/Peterson is going to have a season somewhat like McCoy or Charles in 2013 or (nearly) Peterson in 2012?

My attempt at some math (.5 PPR for RBs):

Charles in 2013 = 345 points

McCoy in 2013 = 305

Peterson in 2012 = 329

(average of 326)

12th best RB averages about 200 points --> compared to the average of the 3 stud RBs above, that's about a 38% drop off.

24th best RB averages about 136 points --> compared to the above, that's about a 58% drop off

Manning's greatest season ever for a QB produced 480 in this scoring vs. 295 for QB12 --> drop off of about 38%.

This right there causes me to believe that even IF Manning had another record-breaking season, he's approximately equal to the RB 1... when you only start 1 RB, and not as valuable as the RB1 when you start 2 RBs.

Assuming that RB24 would produce 136 points and RB1 would produce 326, and assuming that QB12 will produce 295 points, Manning would need 700(!) points to give you the same VBD figure. Surely that cannot be correct?

 

[pantherclub]

And? Peyton Manning was still far less valuable than the top few RBs in most scoring systems,

I disagree. How did you come to this conclusion?

I used math.

Speaking to "typical" league settings -- one QB / 2+ RBs / 3+ WRs / PPR / no point-per-completion, etc. In leagues where you can start more than one QB, obviously things are different, and no one should take issue with QBs being drafted early in those formats.

How would your "math" show its better to pick ADP than Peyton?

Unless I am totally misreading that

 

[pantherclub]

IF you start 1 QB and 1 RB ... and IF you knew with certainty that Manning would throw 5,500 yards and 55 TDs... then sure he's a solid pick at #1. But that should not be your starting point.... it should instead be closer to 5,000 yards and 40 TDs. In this projection, how would Manning's VBD score compare with Charles/McCoy/Peterson?

Essentially, where's the break-even point for Manning's stats if we assume that at least one of Charles/McCoy/Peterson is going to have a season somewhat like McCoy or Charles in 2013 or (nearly) Peterson in 2012?

My attempt at some math (.5 PPR for RBs):

Charles in 2013 = 345 points

McCoy in 2013 = 305

Peterson in 2012 = 329

(average of 326)

12th best RB averages about 200 points --> compared to the average of the 3 stud RBs above, that's about a 38% drop off.

24th best RB averages about 136 points --> compared to the above, that's about a 58% drop off

Manning's greatest season ever for a QB produced 480 in this scoring vs. 295 for QB12 --> drop off of about 38%.

This right there causes me to believe that even IF Manning had another record-breaking season, he's approximately equal to the RB 1... when you only start 1 RB, and not as valuable as the RB1 when you start 2 RBs.

Assuming that RB24 would produce 136 points and RB1 would produce 326, and assuming that QB12 will produce 295 points, Manning would need 700(!) points to give you the same VBD figure. Surely that cannot be correct?

but you fail to factor in that over 60% of the top 15 preseason RB totally bust out. Its rarer for WR and QB

In short, its better to be safe and less risk in the first 2-3 rounds

 

[zamboni]

IF you start 1 QB and 1 RB ... and IF you knew with certainty that Manning would throw 5,500 yards and 55 TDs... then sure he's a solid pick at #1. But that should not be your starting point.... it should instead be closer to 5,000 yards and 40 TDs. In this projection, how would Manning's VBD score compare with Charles/McCoy/Peterson?

Essentially, where's the break-even point for Manning's stats if we assume that at least one of Charles/McCoy/Peterson is going to have a season somewhat like McCoy or Charles in 2013 or (nearly) Peterson in 2012?

My attempt at some math (.5 PPR for RBs):

Charles in 2013 = 345 points

McCoy in 2013 = 305

Peterson in 2012 = 329

(average of 326)

12th best RB averages about 200 points --> compared to the average of the 3 stud RBs above, that's about a 38% drop off.

24th best RB averages about 136 points --> compared to the above, that's about a 58% drop off

Manning's greatest season ever for a QB produced 480 in this scoring vs. 295 for QB12 --> drop off of about 38%.

This right there causes me to believe that even IF Manning had another record-breaking season, he's approximately equal to the RB 1... when you only start 1 RB, and not as valuable as the RB1 when you start 2 RBs.

Assuming that RB24 would produce 136 points and RB1 would produce 326, and assuming that QB12 will produce 295 points, Manning would need 700(!) points to give you the same VBD figure. Surely that cannot be correct?

but you fail to factor in that over 60% of the top 15 preseason RB totally bust out. Its rarer for WR and QB

In short, its better to be safe and less risk in the first 2-3 rounds

You still seem to be missing the supply/demand dynamic of top notch RBs vis-a-vis WRs and QBs.

 

[karmarooster]

RBs do have higher turnover, but we aren't talking about borderline RB1s or those who may or may not be in the picture... it's Charles, Peterson, and McCoy - who while they are RBs and do get injured - it's the elite of the elite. Part of my assumption here is that one of Charles/AP/McCoy will be the RB1 and Manning will be the QB1 - so using a crystal ball. You may say it's more likely that Manning is the QB1 than one of those 3 RBs is the QB1... but IIRC, last year was Manning's first finish in his career as QB1. There are other quality options, so it is a major assumption.

When considering QBs, you're also ignoring the fact that there could be up to 15-18 borderline QB1s. Most every team has "one" QB and there isn't much QBBC in the real NFL (Manziel/Hoyer aside). Point being, QB1ish production is cheap, cheap, cheap. RB2ish production outside of the top 20 or so is hard to find.

When you have to start 2 RBs, that doubles the number of bye weeks you must cover, and as mentioned above RBs are more likely to get injured... meaning that you need a 3rd RB more than you need a QB2. The drop off to RB36 is really tremendous, down at ~120 points, or a 63% drop off from the top 3 studs.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

And? Peyton Manning was still far less valuable than the top few RBs in most scoring systems,

I disagree. How did you come to this conclusion?

I used math.Speaking to "typical" league settings -- one QB / 2+ RBs / 3+ WRs / PPR / no point-per-completion, etc. In leagues where you can start more than one QB, obviously things are different, and no one should take issue with QBs being drafted early in those formats.

How would your "math" show its better to pick ADP than Peyton?Unless I am totally misreading that

I'm not going to take the time to fully regurgitate information that's pretty easily found in the archives here for you. Compare a reasonable projection for Manning's value over QB12 with a reasonable projection for Peterson / Charles / McCoy / Forte over RB28 or so (number of flex spots will effect where you set this baseline). Then look at your projection for Manning + a 9th round RB vs Charles + Romo / Rivers / etc. Finally, check out Manning's current ADP of 3.01.

All of this makes it pretty HUGELY obvious why Manning is a terrible pick 1st overall.

 

[pantherclub]

IF you start 1 QB and 1 RB ... and IF you knew with certainty that Manning would throw 5,500 yards and 55 TDs... then sure he's a solid pick at #1. But that should not be your starting point.... it should instead be closer to 5,000 yards and 40 TDs. In this projection, how would Manning's VBD score compare with Charles/McCoy/Peterson?

Essentially, where's the break-even point for Manning's stats if we assume that at least one of Charles/McCoy/Peterson is going to have a season somewhat like McCoy or Charles in 2013 or (nearly) Peterson in 2012?

My attempt at some math (.5 PPR for RBs):

Charles in 2013 = 345 points

McCoy in 2013 = 305

Peterson in 2012 = 329

(average of 326)

12th best RB averages about 200 points --> compared to the average of the 3 stud RBs above, that's about a 38% drop off.

24th best RB averages about 136 points --> compared to the above, that's about a 58% drop off

Manning's greatest season ever for a QB produced 480 in this scoring vs. 295 for QB12 --> drop off of about 38%.

This right there causes me to believe that even IF Manning had another record-breaking season, he's approximately equal to the RB 1... when you only start 1 RB, and not as valuable as the RB1 when you start 2 RBs.

Assuming that RB24 would produce 136 points and RB1 would produce 326, and assuming that QB12 will produce 295 points, Manning would need 700(!) points to give you the same VBD figure. Surely that cannot be correct?

but you fail to factor in that over 60% of the top 15 preseason RB totally bust out. Its rarer for WR and QB

In short, its better to be safe and less risk in the first 2-3 rounds

You still seem to be missing the supply/demand dynamic of top notch RBs vis-a-vis WRs and QBs.

I am not missing anything, what does supply and demand have to do with the turnover for the top 15 running backs? Just because everyone else is making a run on them doesnt mean you have to. Look at the past 3 years of top running backs and see where they were drafted or even picked up in some cases (morris, etc)

 

[pantherclub]

And? Peyton Manning was still far less valuable than the top few RBs in most scoring systems,

I disagree. How did you come to this conclusion?

I used math.Speaking to "typical" league settings -- one QB / 2+ RBs / 3+ WRs / PPR / no point-per-completion, etc. In leagues where you can start more than one QB, obviously things are different, and no one should take issue with QBs being drafted early in those formats.

How would your "math" show its better to pick ADP than Peyton?Unless I am totally misreading that

I'm not going to take the time to fully regurgitate information that's pretty easily found in the archives here for you. Compare a reasonable projection for Manning's value over QB12 with a reasonable projection for Peterson / Charles / McCoy / Forte over RB28 or so (number of flex spots will effect where you set this baseline). Then look at your projection for Manning + a 9th round RB vs Charles + Romo / Rivers / etc. Finally, check out Manning's current ADP of 3.01.

All of this makes it pretty HUGELY obvious why Manning is a terrible pick 1st overall.

for starters how can you accurately gauge his adp at this point in the year? No way in your head do you honestly think he is lasting until the 3 round. That is just crazy talk

Secondly I would rather have a solid consistent qb then to roll the dice on a top rb. Thats just me. If I had the #1 pick and if Graham has looked good in the preseason then thats my pick. If not I would gauge between Rodgers, Brees or Manning depending on what happens in the preseason. Drafting this far out is ludicrous, insanity and quite frankly for amateurs.

 

[cloppbeast]

RBs do have higher turnover, but we aren't talking about borderline RB1s or those who may or may not be in the picture... it's Charles, Peterson, and McCoy - who while they are RBs and do get injured - it's the elite of the elite. Part of my assumption here is that one of Charles/AP/McCoy will be the RB1 and Manning will be the QB1 - so using a crystal ball. You may say it's more likely that Manning is the QB1 than one of those 3 RBs is the QB1... but IIRC, last year was Manning's first finish in his career as QB1. There are other quality options, so it is a major assumption.

When considering QBs, you're also ignoring the fact that there could be up to 15-18 borderline QB1s. Most every team has "one" QB and there isn't much QBBC in the real NFL (Manziel/Hoyer aside). Point being, QB1ish production is cheap, cheap, cheap. RB2ish production outside of the top 20 or so is hard to find.

When you have to start 2 RBs, that doubles the number of bye weeks you must cover, and as mentioned above RBs are more likely to get injured... meaning that you need a 3rd RB more than you need a QB2. The drop off to RB36 is really tremendous, down at ~120 points, or a 63% drop off from the top 3 studs.

Because they get injured more frequently, I understand why you extend the population of running backs for your baseline. I get it. But you'll also need to correspondingly knock them some at the top, lest you add value to Adrian Peterson for higher likelihood of injury.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

And? Peyton Manning was still far less valuable than the top few RBs in most scoring systems,

I disagree. How did you come to this conclusion?

I used math.Speaking to "typical" league settings -- one QB / 2+ RBs / 3+ WRs / PPR / no point-per-completion, etc. In leagues where you can start more than one QB, obviously things are different, and no one should take issue with QBs being drafted early in those formats.

How would your "math" show its better to pick ADP than Peyton?Unless I am totally misreading that

I'm not going to take the time to fully regurgitate information that's pretty easily found in the archives here for you. Compare a reasonable projection for Manning's value over QB12 with a reasonable projection for Peterson / Charles / McCoy / Forte over RB28 or so (number of flex spots will effect where you set this baseline). Then look at your projection for Manning + a 9th round RB vs Charles + Romo / Rivers / etc. Finally, check out Manning's current ADP of 3.01.All of this makes it pretty HUGELY obvious why Manning is a terrible pick 1st overall.

for starters how can you accurately gauge his adp at this point in the year? No way in your head do you honestly think he is lasting until the 3 round. That is just crazy talkSecondly I would rather have a solid consistent qb then to roll the dice on a top rb. Thats just me. If I had the #1 pick and if Graham has looked good in the preseason then thats my pick. If not I would gauge between Rodgers, Brees or Manning depending on what happens in the preseason. Drafting this far out is ludicrous, insanity and quite frankly for amateurs.

If you want to completely ignore the hard math, that's certainly up to you. Taking Manning at 1.01 is still a mistake though -- you yourself are unsure if you want Manning, or Brees, or Rodgers. And one of the three will almost certainly be there for you at the 2/3 turn in any decent 1 QB PPR league. And that's even too early for a QB considering that Romo / Rivers / Brady / etc can be taken 6 rounds or more later.