Auction draft: studs vs depth p II (1 Viewer)

[BigRed]

I heard someone say they read an idea where, since the top QB and WR(s) go a good bit cheaper than the RBs, going away from taking a top RB or two and taking say Manning and not one but 2 top WRs then filling out best you can on RBs w/what's left, the idea being you have distanced yourself far enough from others at the QB and WR positions so can afford riskier/lesser RBs, maybe even end up w/better depth. eg (using rough estimates I'm seeing around sites, mags, general opinions etc):

Best RBs cost say $35-40 (or more according to a lot of people here) - that's maybe $75-85 for top 2, or more...

but

Top QB = $20

Top WRs = $15-20 ea

That's maybe $60 or so for the top QB and top 2 WRs. Even if you bump Manning to $25 and the WRs a bit more, you're still getting those top 3 players for less than the RBs.

I understand the whole "RB stud" idea but IMO this or some variation of it is worth considering.

 

[MLBrandow]

I was going to call you an idiot, but with the rd5-7 depth at RB, I think it's a great idea.... QB WR WR WR/RB RB RB RB .....

I'll have to try that next draft I do.... It would work well for any position 8 or later IMO. Before that would be a big gamble

 

[BigRed]

I was going to call you an idiot,

You would, of course, be the first.Speaking of which, we're talking auction drafts here Einstein

 

[volball]

Interesting theory; however, I do not buy it. First, you need to account for VBD where Peyton is not that much better than the 10th or 12th best QB in comparison to a top RB vs the 20th or 24th best RB. Second, it is easier to project the top RBs from year-to-year in comparsion to the top WRs. In the pre-season rankings from 2005 I think you would say that the top 5 WRs would have been R. Moss, Holt, Harrison, TO & Chad Johnson; however, the top 5 WRs ended up being Steve Smith, Fitzgerald, Holt, Chad Johnson & Anquan Boldin. So unless you correctly bought Holt and Johnson, you would have been toast not to mention Peyton ended up being the 2nd or 3rd best QB. Somebody who had identified Carson Palmer, Anquan Boldin, and Steve Smith (all ranked in the 13-17 range for 2005 preseason) as values and got them in the auction along with one of LT, Shaun Alexander or Priest Holmes (especially if they were able to hamstring LJ) would have faired much better.

I can also vouch for the depth at RB is not as great as it seems. In 2004, I got Chris Brown, Curtis Martin, Thomas Jones, Michael Bennett and Duce Staley at good values; however, I was very rarely able to figure out which two to play each week and was able to work some trades to get better, but I still missed the playoffs due to my inability to figure out my RB situation.

 

[MLBrandow]

I was going to call you an idiot,

You would, of course, be the first.Speaking of which, we're talking auction drafts here Einstein

do you have any more numbers to look at?

 

[BigRed]

bump

 

[T Man]

In my main league, the top RBs generally go for about 30% of the cap. (We can keep up to five players).

However, the team that drafts the top players generally do not fare well in the league.

 

[bostonfred]

Somebody who had identified Carson Palmer, Anquan Boldin, and Steve Smith (all ranked in the 13-17 range for 2005 preseason) as values and got them in the auction along with one of LT, Shaun Alexander or Priest Holmes (especially if they were able to hamstring LJ) would have faired much better.

It doesn't matter who you drafted early, or in this case spent the most money on. The team that selects the surprise standout performers is usually going to fare better than the team that doesn't. In an auction, if you wanted Boldin, Smith and Fitzgerald last year, you could have gotten all three for about the same price as a top RB. This year, the same is true of the second tier WRs, it's just a matter of picking the right ones.

 

[GregR_2]

I heard someone say they read an idea where, since the top QB and WR(s) go a good bit cheaper than the RBs, going away from taking a top RB or two and taking say Manning and not one but 2 top WRs then filling out best you can on RBs w/what's left, the idea being you have distanced yourself far enough from others at the QB and WR positions so can afford riskier/lesser RBs, maybe even end up w/better depth. eg (using rough estimates I'm seeing around sites, mags, general opinions etc):

Best RBs cost say $35-40 (or more according to a lot of people here) - that's maybe $75-85 for top 2, or more...

but

Top QB = $20

Top WRs = $15-20 ea

That's maybe $60 or so for the top QB and top 2 WRs. Even if you bump Manning to $25 and the WRs a bit more, you're still getting those top 3 players for less than the RBs.

I understand the whole "RB stud" idea but IMO this or some variation of it is worth considering.

You really need to ask yourself if the RBs you are going to end up with, at the prices you'll get them, plus those top QB/WRs, are going to outscore a balanced spending approach. And in doing that, you have to keep in mind that the last few RBs often go for more than you'd like to pay since a few teams in a 12+ team league are scrambling to get an adequate starter at that point as they see not much is left.And weigh into that the risk you feel when you have a Barlow as your starter. Now you need to spend even more on backups than you would if you'd gotten better starters who may not lose the job outright, or suck so bad they aren't worth starting.

I'm not saying it's a bad way to go. In Survivor II's auction draft a few years ago, I thought Rudnicki put the best team together, using this strategy. I used the same strategy too, but it was my first auction and I failed to get my money in play in time to get adequate RBs. I had Tiki (who blew up that year), but really had nothing else at RB worth starting. A lot of guys with potential that didn't pan out.

 

[BigRed]

you have to keep in mind that the last few RBs often go for more than you'd like to pay since a few teams in a 12+ team league are scrambling to get an adequate starter at that point as they see not much is left.

And weigh into that the risk you feel when you have a Barlow as your starter. Now you need to spend even more on backups than you would if you'd gotten better starters who may not lose the job outright, or suck so bad they aren't worth starting.

Good points, and probably why not many people try this. Very risky.