Brand new dynasty with IDP - where to draft Watt? (1 Viewer)

[matttyl]

In a brand new start up dynasty, where would one thinking about drafting Watt?  Would he still be the first IDP off the board?

Specifics - 10 team, qb, rb, wr, wr, flex, flex, te, k, dl, dl, lb, lb, db, db - non PPR, pretty standard scoring, 1 point per tackle, .5 for assisted 3 points for each of FF, FR, sack or INT.

 

[massraider]

Big guys with back injuries are a no-go for me.  I've never owned him, so I don't know the full injury history, but you should look it up.  

 

[matttyl]

Big guys with back injuries are a no-go for me.  I've never owned him, so I don't know the full injury history, but you should look it up.  

last year was the first game he'd missed since high school. 

 

[massraider]

last year was the first game he'd missed since high school. 

Has two back surgeries in past year.  Need to investigate before drafting early.

 

[Gally]

I wouldn't necessarily stay away from him but I wouldn't risk a high draft pick on him.  I also don't think that scoring helps his overall ranking.  I would rather have a consistent tackle producing LB on the high end for a stable start to my IDP team. 

 

[jhexel]

I'd focus more on guys making plays (tackles) rather than "big plays" (sack) with this type of scoring system...even so, anyone with a back-related injury tends to scare me a bit.

 

[Hankmoody]

I'd focus more on guys making plays (tackles) rather than "big plays" (sack) with this type of scoring system...even so, anyone with a back-related injury tends to scare me a bit.

Say what now?  1 point per tackle and 3 per sack is a very significant big play scoring system, my leagues are all 2 per tackle and all turnovers and 3 per sack.  Chopping tackle scoring in half would be a huge impact on those 3 down LB types.

Watt's only question in this or any scoring system is his back.  If he were fully healthy I'd use a 1st on him in a startup with no hesitation.  His back calls into question not only his immediate production but also his longevity.  How long will he be willing to endure that pain and risk, and how long will he physically hold up?  I don't think I can take him before the 7th/8th round or so, there are just too many other solid options.  Gimmie a couple RB, WR, and safe/solid IDP first.  After that I'll roll the dice on his upside before I'd take a guy like Martavis Bryant etc because the scoring delta he can provide vs. the rest of the position is absolutely broken.

 

[Arodin]

If we define "big play heavy" as a system with enough weight on sacks and turnovers that guys who arent tackle machines still sit atop the FP rankings, the 1:3 isn't enough,  (I play mostly in 1:3 settings and the tackle producers still outscore the sack specialists.)  I'd put 1:3 in the "balanced scoring" category, put your 2:3 solidly in the "tackle heavy" range, and consider 1:4" to be the edges of bigplay heavy...

 

[Hankmoody]

If we define "big play heavy" as a system with enough weight on sacks and turnovers that guys who arent tackle machines still sit atop the FP rankings, the 1:3 isn't enough,  (I play mostly in 1:3 settings and the tackle producers still outscore the sack specialists.)  I'd put 1:3 in the "balanced scoring" category, put your 2:3 solidly in the "tackle heavy" range, and consider 1:4" to be the edges of bigplay heavy...

Fair enough.  I just sim'd this out of curiosity.  Going from 2 per tackle, 2 per TO, 3 per sack to 1/3/3 saw the following:

Khalil Mack goes from LB38 at 12.7 per game to LB10 at 9.2.  Kuechley was #1 with 19.8 vs. 11.4.
Von Miller goes from LB39 to LB20

So I tend to agree with you, it's more balanced and mine would be considered more "tackle heavy" for sure.

 

[matttyl]

If we define "big play heavy" as a system with enough weight on sacks and turnovers that guys who arent tackle machines still sit atop the FP rankings, the 1:3 isn't enough,  (I play mostly in 1:3 settings and the tackle producers still outscore the sack specialists.)  I'd put 1:3 in the "balanced scoring" category, put your 2:3 solidly in the "tackle heavy" range, and consider 1:4" to be the edges of bigplay heavy...

To clarify (maybe), since a sack is also considered to be a tackle (unless the QB also fumbles it while being sacked), every sack without a fumble is worth 4 points (3 for the sack and one for the solo tackle - or 2 points for half a sack).  If the QB fumbles it, the sack-fumble is worth 6 points (3 for the sack, and another 3 for the forced fumble). 

All in, Watt scored about 40 more points than the next best DL in 2015 (Fletcher Cox).  That same difference was the swing between LB1 last year (Kwon Alexander) and LB11 (Thomas Davis) - or on the offensive side the difference between WR1 (Beckham) and WR8 (Davante Adams). 

 

[Miro Z]

In a brand new start up dynasty, where would one thinking about drafting Watt?  Would he still be the first IDP off the board?

Specifics - 10 team, qb, rb, wr, wr, flex, flex, te, k, dl, dl, lb, lb, db, db - non PPR, pretty standard scoring, 1 point per tackle, .5 for assisted 3 points for each of FF, FR, sack or INT.

He certainly should not be the first IDP off the board. At his age, regardless of the injury, his value is already declining steeply in dynasty. I would look at guys like Khalil Mack (if he is a DL in your league) or Kwon Alexander to be the first IDP off the board, probably in rounds 5-6. I think Watt probably goes several rounds later.

 

[Gally]

He certainly should not be the first IDP off the board. At his age, regardless of the injury, his value is already declining steeply in dynasty. I would look at guys like Khalil Mack (if he is a DL in your league) or Kwon Alexander to be the first IDP off the board, probably in rounds 5-6. I think Watt probably goes several rounds later.

I don't think that is a proper statement.  There are scoring systems that could lead to making Watt worthwhile as the 1st IDP off the board.   I would agree that Watt isn't the clear cut, head and shoulders above everyone else IDP player he once was but I would still have him in the conversation for 1st pick.  I probably wouldn't be taking him where he would likely go but I could see someone taking that chance.  He is now a year removed form the surgery so baring something new should be a top tier DL.   

 

[Joe Bryant]

Hey Guys. Just to be clear - we had someone report this post that it needed to be assistant coach but this kind of stuff is definitely good here. The assistant coach is for stuff specific to your team with a "who should I keep?" or "who do I start?" type stuff. Basically stuff that is only of interest to the person asking the question. For general stuff about a player and how he projects, that can go here. Thanks.

 

[Miro Z]

I don't think that is a proper statement.  There are scoring systems that could lead to making Watt worthwhile as the 1st IDP off the board.   I would agree that Watt isn't the clear cut, head and shoulders above everyone else IDP player he once was but I would still have him in the conversation for 1st pick.  I probably wouldn't be taking him where he would likely go but I could see someone taking that chance.  He is now a year removed form the surgery so baring something new should be a top tier DL.   

No, advancing age and major injury history ought to be major red flags for an experienced dynasty owner, regardless of the scoring system.

I ran two IDP dynasty inaugural drafts this off-season with a scoring format that ought to favor Watt, here are the players who went before Watt in each one:

League 1: Khalil Mack, Joey Bosa, Landon Collins, Luke Kuechly, Kwon Alexander, Bobby Wagner, Danielle Hunter, JJ Watt (nearly four rounds after Mack)

League 2: Landon Collins, Kwon Alexander, Khalil Mack, Bobby Wagner, Sean Lee, Alec Ogletree, JJ Watt (nearly three rounds after Collins)

Both these leagues featured super experienced IDP dynasty owners. I think it is reasonable to conclude that Watt is not in the conversation for being the top IDP. He is however still a top 10 IDP. 

 

[Gally]

No, advancing age and major injury history ought to be major red flags for an experienced dynasty owner, regardless of the scoring system.

I ran two IDP dynasty inaugural drafts this off-season with a scoring format that ought to favor Watt, here are the players who went before Watt in each one:

League 1: Khalil Mack, Joey Bosa, Landon Collins, Luke Kuechly, Kwon Alexander, Bobby Wagner, Danielle Hunter, JJ Watt (nearly four rounds after Mack)

League 2: Landon Collins, Kwon Alexander, Khalil Mack, Bobby Wagner, Sean Lee, Alec Ogletree, JJ Watt (nearly three rounds after Collins)

Both these leagues featured super experienced IDP dynasty owners. I think it is reasonable to conclude that Watt is not in the conversation for being the top IDP. He is however still a top 10 IDP. 

I can understand your point.   I haven't been in a startup dynasty in about 15 years as mine have been going strong for that long.  My statement above strayed a bit from the original post in this thread.  I had forgotten this was specifically referring to a dynasty format.  I was speaking more to a redraft.  My mistake. 

In my experience with dynasty formats I have found that many owners go for the new unproven toy way too much and leave some of the older proven players.  I tend to try and look at 2 yr increments in dynasty because too many factors change year to year to make planning longer than that detrimental.  I think that is one of the biggest mistakes dynasty owners tend to make.  Looking at 4-5 years down the road when too much can happen to change a player's value tends to make an owner always looking to rebuild.               

 

[Miro Z]

I can understand your point.   I haven't been in a startup dynasty in about 15 years as mine have been going strong for that long.  My statement above strayed a bit from the original post in this thread.  I had forgotten this was specifically referring to a dynasty format.  I was speaking more to a redraft.  My mistake. 

In my experience with dynasty formats I have found that many owners go for the new unproven toy way too much and leave some of the older proven players.  I tend to try and look at 2 yr increments in dynasty because too many factors change year to year to make planning longer than that detrimental.  I think that is one of the biggest mistakes dynasty owners tend to make.  Looking at 4-5 years down the road when too much can happen to change a player's value tends to make an owner always looking to rebuild.               

So that is true about some dynasty owners over-obsessing on young players and ignoring older players. But the principle has to be that it is only worth investing in older players in dynasty if you can get them for a significant discount. It would be unwise to pay full price for them.

For example, I got Larry Fitzgerald in one of the above dynasty inaugural drafts in round 17, at the same time as players like Mike Wallace and Tahir Whitehead were going. I think that was worth it because I will hopefully get at least a season of WR1 production out of him, maybe two if I'm lucky. But it wouldn't have been smart to have drafted Fitzgerald at the same time as Corey Davis 14 rounds earlier.

Similarly, if you can get JJ Watt relatively cheap, by all means take him. But it wouldn't be wise to make him the first IDP off the board, bearing in mind he probably has only got 2-3 years left max.

 

[Crippler]

Value comes down to starting requirements. 

Have to start 2 of each for D but 2 Rb or Wr and the so value will be huge. It is economics of supply and demand. Scoring is important also. If non PPR and 5 per tackle(very unrealistic) than D is way more value. I know most leagues try for balance but O usually ranks higher than comes corn to requirements. If 2 team with 1 DT and 2 de and 4 lb than supply overall is good with 32. If anything with 4 wr or more, 2 Rb or more, 2 te or QB or more than O takes over as supply is way less. 

In the 10 team league, non PPR with starting 2 Dl. Is Rodgers to Cousins greater than Watt to Wilkerson or when you go to backups where the drop at QB is even greater. Rb is the most valuable by far. But change to Ppr and than Wr value would be huge and Te bonus would make them very valuable. Superflex would go QB most times. Why I don't like the non PPR format at all

i think first D would be DL in this format as Alexander to a Burflictis not big gap and down to a Timmons at 30 is not big either. I would be drafting LB only after my O starters are in place. Db is an afterthought. 

The list with Collins that high seems like huge mistake. DB has most change from year to year IMO. First overall seems incorrect for IDP guys.