2012 Rookie 1.04 (1 Viewer)

[Faust]

2012 Rookie 1.01

2012 Rookie 1.02

2012 Rookie 1.03

Standard Scoring

1.01 RB Trent Richardson Browns (98%)

1.02 RB Doug Martin Buccaneers (50%)

1.03 QB Andrew Luck Colts (46%)

PPR Scoring

1.01 RB Trent Richardson Browns (97%)

1.02 RB Doug Martin Buccaneers (39%)

1.03 WR Justin Blackmon Jaguars (41%)

Start 2 QB Scoring

1.01 QB Andrew Luck Colts (46%)

1.02 QB Robert Griffin III Redskins (77%)

1.03 RB Trent Richardson Browns (88%)

TE Heavy Scoring

1.01 RB Trent Richardson Browns (95%)

1.02 RB Doug Martin Buccaneers (41%)

1.03 QB Andrew Luck Colts (43%)

 

[Shawnky]

How is ppr and te heavy different?

 

[Faust]

How is ppr and te heavy different?

They usually award 1.5 PPR to TE players in those leagues while a WR would only be awarded 1.0 PPR

 

[Hoosier16]

How is ppr and te heavy different?

I think ppr is assumed to be 1 point (or 0.5) per reception for all and TE heavy is 0.5 for RBs, 1 for WR, and 1.5 for TEs.

 

[Shawnky]

How is ppr and te heavy different?

They usually award 1.5 PPR to TE players in those leagues while a WR would only be awarded 1.0 PPR

No, I get that part. How in the world could the rankings be different? It makes no sense.

 

[cusefan115]

How is ppr and te heavy different?

They usually award 1.5 PPR to TE players in those leagues while a WR would only be awarded 1.0 PPR

No, I get that part. How in the world could the rankings be different? It makes no sense.

The top end fantasy tight ends should come into consideration earlier.Best,Jake

 

[Shawnky]

How is ppr and te heavy different?

They usually award 1.5 PPR to TE players in those leagues while a WR would only be awarded 1.0 PPR

No, I get that part. How in the world could the rankings be different? It makes no sense.

The top end fantasy tight ends should come into consideration earlier.Best,Jake

Really? You're not doing it right.

 

[cusefan115]

How is ppr and te heavy different?

They usually award 1.5 PPR to TE players in those leagues while a WR would only be awarded 1.0 PPR

No, I get that part. How in the world could the rankings be different? It makes no sense.

The top end fantasy tight ends should come into consideration earlier.Best,Jake

Really? You're not doing it right.

Well I'm definitely not doing anything different this early in the draft. But I would probably move Fleener up 4-5 picks higher under te heavy scoring. So instead of early-mid second round, I might pick him late first-early second.

 

[Bamac]

How is ppr and te heavy different?

They usually award 1.5 PPR to TE players in those leagues while a WR would only be awarded 1.0 PPR

No, I get that part. How in the world could the rankings be different? It makes no sense.

I believe the question (s)he's asking is this: "why are the top four spots different in this vote since no TEs have been taken?" And the answer must be one of the following (I think): (1) some people are assuming TE heavy means something other than 1.0ppr for WR/RB, 1.5 for TE, or (2) some people are voting differently just because.

 

[Frank Costanza's Lawyer]

In other words, people are being forced to vote in the 2QB and TE-heavy polls when they dont understand those leagues. Faust continues to refuse to include null-vote options for those leagues despite this. I dont get why he thinks owners in those leagues want this bad data.

 

[cusefan115]

How is ppr and te heavy different?

They usually award 1.5 PPR to TE players in those leagues while a WR would only be awarded 1.0 PPR

No, I get that part. How in the world could the rankings be different? It makes no sense.

I believe the question (s)he's asking is this: "why are the top four spots different in this vote since no TEs have been taken?" And the answer must be one of the following (I think): (1) some people are assuming TE heavy means something other than 1.0ppr for WR/RB, 1.5 for TE, or (2) some people are voting differently just because.

That is interesting. The only explanation that I have for the disparity is that people are playing in leagues with 2 wr and a flex. With the flex position(and the tight end heavy scoring), the relative need for receivers would drop. Its convoluted but possible.

 

[Bamac]

Not a bad explanation. And consistent with the Luck-Blackmon difference. I'm particularly impressed if you came up with this *without* trying to explain that difference.

How is ppr and te heavy different?

They usually award 1.5 PPR to TE players in those leagues while a WR would only be awarded 1.0 PPR

No, I get that part. How in the world could the rankings be different? It makes no sense.

I believe the question (s)he's asking is this: "why are the top four spots different in this vote since no TEs have been taken?" And the answer must be one of the following (I think): (1) some people are assuming TE heavy means something other than 1.0ppr for WR/RB, 1.5 for TE, or (2) some people are voting differently just because.

That is interesting. The only explanation that I have for the disparity is that people are playing in leagues with 2 wr and a flex. With the flex position(and the tight end heavy scoring), the relative need for receivers would drop. Its convoluted but possible.

 

[cusefan115]

Not a bad explanation. And consistent with the Luck-Blackmon difference. I'm particularly impressed if you came up with this *without* trying to explain that difference.

How is ppr and te heavy different?

They usually award 1.5 PPR to TE players in those leagues while a WR would only be awarded 1.0 PPR

No, I get that part. How in the world could the rankings be different? It makes no sense.

I believe the question (s)he's asking is this: "why are the top four spots different in this vote since no TEs have been taken?" And the answer must be one of the following (I think): (1) some people are assuming TE heavy means something other than 1.0ppr for WR/RB, 1.5 for TE, or (2) some people are voting differently just because.

That is interesting. The only explanation that I have for the disparity is that people are playing in leagues with 2 wr and a flex. With the flex position(and the tight end heavy scoring), the relative need for receivers would drop. Its convoluted but possible.

Haha nope I had to work backwards.

 

[Faust]

In other words, people are being forced to vote in the 2QB and TE-heavy polls when they dont understand those leagues. Faust continues to refuse to include null-vote options for those leagues despite this. I dont get why he thinks owners in those leagues want this bad data.

I have explained it a few times, but here it goes again:If you look back at the votes last year for the later polls (Rookie 2.11 in particular - there was just over 40 votes in a few days), there were very few votes in those polls. If I include a "don't play" option and if half or three quarters of the votes go into that category, then we will end up with a poll where 3 or 4 choices will be either tied or within 1 vote of each other for a long time and I can't move the polls forward in a timely fashion. I checked back several times last year on several of the polls and they were frequently tied or very close between several players.I don't get paid to create and manage these polls on the FBG message boards and I don't have time to keep checking them and bumping them all day long to secure enough votes to create decent separation so that we can establish a true consensus player for each poll.Next year I will drop the TE Heavy polls as they always seem to be the ones that cause the most issues. I wasn't too worried about the data being skewed on the early polls as only 2 people voted for Fleener out of 150+ votesI am a little surprised that people are having a hard time fathoming the value of QBs in those leagues that start 2 QBs -- when you have 12 teams and you are starting 24 QBs every week, is it that surprising that Luck and RG III would be grabbed before Richardson? I also wouldn't take Tannehill before Richardson either.

 

[Frank Costanza's Lawyer]

I have explained it a few times, but here it goes again:

If you look back at the votes last year for the later polls (Rookie 2.11 in particular - there was just over 40 votes in a few days), there were very few votes in those polls. If I include a "don't play" option and if half or three quarters of the votes go into that category, then we will end up with a poll where 3 or 4 choices will be either tied or within 1 vote of each other for a long time and I can't move the polls forward in a timely fashion. I checked back several times last year on several of the polls and they were frequently tied or very close between several players.

Ive read this explanation from you before and I just dont agree that its better to have more datapoints when most of them come from people who dont play in those specialized leagues. I wouldnt ever bother reading an IDP poll where most of the voters dont play IDP. That might be too extreme an example, but I really dont know where Tannehill and Weeden should be taken in 2 QB leagues. I can make an educated guess but I dont see how that is helpful to those who do play in 2 QB leagues.I think there are many people who are grateful that you take the time to make these polls. I also think they are much better than the ones from years ago that didnt split up votes for standard, ppr, 2 QB, etc.

 

[Faust]

I have explained it a few times, but here it goes again:

If you look back at the votes last year for the later polls (Rookie 2.11 in particular - there was just over 40 votes in a few days), there were very few votes in those polls. If I include a "don't play" option and if half or three quarters of the votes go into that category, then we will end up with a poll where 3 or 4 choices will be either tied or within 1 vote of each other for a long time and I can't move the polls forward in a timely fashion. I checked back several times last year on several of the polls and they were frequently tied or very close between several players.

Ive read this explanation from you before and I just dont agree that its better to have more datapoints when most of them come from people who dont play in those specialized leagues. I wouldnt ever bother reading an IDP poll where most of the voters dont play IDP. That might be too extreme an example, but I really dont know where Tannehill and Weeden should be taken in 2 QB leagues. I can make an educated guess but I dont see how that is helpful to those who do play in 2 QB leagues.I think there are many people who are grateful that you take the time to make these polls. I also think they are much better than the ones from years ago that didnt split up votes for standard, ppr, 2 QB, etc.

I can compromise. What does everyone think if I add the "Don't Play" option for the polls at 1.05 and beyond, but reserve the right to cut that option if we get to the point where the votes decline and it becomes too difficult to produce decent separation in the polls?

BTW - I will be ready to move this on to Rookie 1.05 tonight when I get home, so get your votes in now for Rookie 1.04 while you still can!

 

[mjr]

I'm going to try something different in this thred by actually discussing my picks....

Standard: Came down to Griffen or Blackmon/Floyd. I think it's best to pick by need here vs. BPA, unless you already have a playoff team and some decent depth. I went with Griff at 4 because he should put up more FF points than either reciever and his stock is valued higher for the time being, making for better trade bait.

PPR: Luck hands down. I wouldn't be able to pass up on him if he was there at 4, even if I had holes to fill elsewhere on my team. No other player available at this spot, short of maybe Richardson (who wouldn't be available here in 99% of drafts anyway), can give you more in points and value that Luck can.

Start 2 QB: Went with Martin here. It's certainly possible Tannehill and Weeden could end up being starters as soon as this year, but even then I can't see either one performing much better than what you could pick up off the waiver wire in a 2 QB league. Martin, Blackmon or Floyd should be considered here instead, and of the three I think Martin will most likely end up being that every week fantasy starter before the other 2, barring injury or other related setbacks of course.

TE Heavy: My main league is TE heavy (1.5 PPR), but a half of a point isn't worth using the 4th overall pick on a TE. If Griffen is available here I'd take him easily.

 

[Faust]

I'm going to try something different in this thred by actually discussing my picks....

Standard: Came down to Griffen or Blackmon/Floyd. I think it's best to pick by need here vs. BPA, unless you already have a playoff team and some decent depth. I went with Griff at 4 because he should put up more FF points than either reciever and his stock is valued higher for the time being, making for better trade bait.

PPR: Luck hands down. I wouldn't be able to pass up on him if he was there at 4, even if I had holes to fill elsewhere on my team. No other player available at this spot, short of maybe Richardson (who wouldn't be available here in 99% of drafts anyway), can give you more in points and value that Luck can.

Start 2 QB: Went with Martin here. It's certainly possible Tannehill and Weeden could end up being starters as soon as this year, but even then I can't see either one performing much better than what you could pick up off the waiver wire in a 2 QB league. Martin, Blackmon or Floyd should be considered here instead, and of the three I think Martin will most likely end up being that every week fantasy starter before the other 2, barring injury or other related setbacks of course.

TE Heavy: My main league is TE heavy (1.5 PPR), but a half of a point isn't worth using the 4th overall pick on a TE. If Griffen is available here I'd take him easily.

mjr,

I want to thank you for your posting as this is the type of information that adds tremendous value to the discussion.

Cheers,

Faust

 

[Faust]

CLOSED