Bye weeks make a difference? (1 Viewer)

[TheWinz]

If the mods want to move this thread to the Assistant Coach forum, that's fine.  I just thought it may be better served here.

Scenario...

10-team league, you have the 7th pick.  At 1.7 you choose Saquon Barkley, who has a bye in week 9.  The next picks go WR heavy, and at 2.4 you want to go RB again.  The options are Fournette and Cook.  Now, you have them rated just as I typed, but Fournette has the same bye week as Barkley.  If you have them projected not too far apart, do you still take Fournette, or do you go for Cook?  For the purpose of this exercise, please don't say why you like one RB over the other.  I only want to know if bye weeks would play a factor in your decision, thanx.

 

[Interseptopus]

If the mods want to move this thread to the Assistant Coach forum, that's fine.  I just thought it may be better served here.

Scenario...

10-team league, you have the 7th pick.  At 1.7 you choose Saquon Barkley, who has a bye in week 9.  The next picks go WR heavy, and at 2.4 you want to go RB again.  The options are Fournette and Cook.  Now, you have them rated just as I typed, but Fournette has the same bye week as Barkley.  If you have them projected not too far apart, do you still take Fournette, or do you go for Cook?  For the purpose of this exercise, please don't say why you like one RB over the other.  I only want to know if bye weeks would play a factor in your decision, thanx.

they do to some degree for me. 

in this case I may take Cook to avoid the double bye week. If I take fournette I'm likely taking my rb4 earlier than I want to, throwing off my draft. if my other option is someone further away from Fournette than Cook then I take Fournette. I have Fournette and Cook one after the other. 

the other side to that coin is to just count on that week being a loss

 

[Elevencents]

Yes it would factor in but not a huge amount. 

 

[NYRAGE]

I always want the best available players, especially early.  If the difference is negligible, then sure the bye week might be the difference between the 2. To me, bye weeks mean more once I start looking at my depth.

 

[Interseptopus]

I always want the best available players, especially early.  If the difference is negligible, then sure the bye week might be the difference between the 2. To me, bye weeks mean more once I start looking at my depth.

yes this. 

Sometimes I've made it through the first 4 or 5 rounds and then I'm thinking, oh man week 8 is a gift for someone 

 

[Shrugs]

I don't worry about it because by week nine I expect to trade them both away, trade back for each and then trade one away again.

 

[SameSongNDance]

If it were up to me a majority of my players would have a bye on the same week and I would just "throw" that week although I'd still find a way to win. In my anecdotal experience I've always liked when my players' bye weeks have been heavily clustered because I'd be near full power for a majority of the season and ff is high variance enough that I'd find a way to win with some combo of my bench and the ww on the weeks I'm supposed to be handicapped. So I guess I'd take Fournette but the truth is during drafts I don't pay attention to bye weeks unless it's the ffpc players championship (week 12 playoffs begin when KC and LA are on bye).

 

[barackdhouse]

It matters to me a bit in some situations more than others, and I think I give it more credence than most.  I tinker with my tiers throughout the offseason and do a ton of MFL10s and other low stakes drafts such that I have a pretty good handle on the value guys that I really want to target. Some years, these players I'm targeting overlap a lot in terms of bye weeks, and if it is more than just two players, it really can eff you up for that week.

I tend to go against the idea of gifting a win to my opponent. Of course I will play the wire and try to trade to improve, but I strongly prefer not to. Especially since I play in so many leagues and hate chasing my tail trying to catch up for that heavy bye week. Picking two starters at the same position with the same bye means you have to find *two* starters to replace them. I absolutely will avoid that if I can, but not at the expense of giving up talent. 

For me, since I like Cook and Fournette about the same, I would go Cook first without question. Finding *two* replacement RBs, if you care about winning that week, is going to be tough. I think it also forces you to chase those RBs for the remainder of your draft and your roster might suffer elsewhere for it. 

Final note, FBG teams have to make the playoffs based on 11 week regular seasons, and only the top 4 of 12 teams make it. So *gifting* a victory to my opponent is simply not in my toolbox. And draft day is a much better time to deal with such scenarios than from the wire (no trading in FBG).

 

[Snorkelson]

I agree with @SameSongNDance that having them all in the same week is ok with me. I really don’t care, I want the guys I want. 

Often times your lineup week 1 and week 7 are going to look quite different anyway. You’ll have an injury, someone will be over performing from your bench, you’ll have some stud that is struggling, so take who you think is better. If it’s between 2 guys you like look at schedule/bye week. 

 

[barackdhouse]

To add quickly to my post above, I haven't seen as many "conflicts" in the byes of guys I am targeting this year as in years past. One set of combos that comes to mind this year, though, is if I go WR heavy, with A Brown, D Adams, and A Cooper, all having byes week 7. That's a WR corps I like better than most options at their respective 1st, 2nd and 3rd round positions. But I would most likely not draft them that way simply because of their byes. However, WRs are much easier to replace than RBs, so maybe that one wouldn't be so bad.

 

[-OZ-]

yes this. 

Sometimes I've made it through the first 4 or 5 rounds and then I'm thinking, oh man week 8 is a gift for someone 

If that happens I'm taking a kicker and defense with week 8 byes and giving Falcons, Cowboys, Chargers, and Titans slight bumps up. 

 

[-OZ-]

To add quickly to my post above, I haven't seen as many "conflicts" in the byes of guys I am targeting this year as in years past. One set of combos that comes to mind this year, though, is if I go WR heavy, with A Brown, D Adams, and A Cooper, all having byes week 7. That's a WR corps I like better than most options at their respective 1st, 2nd and 3rd round positions. But I would most likely not draft them that way simply because of their byes. However, WRs are much easier to replace than RBs, so maybe that one wouldn't be so bad.

Haven't done redraft yet other than the mock forum, but week 9 could be the big week. 

Arizona Cardinals, Cincinnati Bengals, Indianapolis Colts, Jacksonville Jaguars, New York Giants, Philadelphia Eagles

All of those have players I like in the first few rounds or top at their position.

 

[TheWinz]

It seems from the masses that either bye weeks don't matter at all, or taking a guy with a negligible difference in your projections are the most likely options.  I think Dr. Dan and Barack summed up my preference.  I do not want to gift wrap a win for any opponent, and I do not want to be forced into drafting a position earlier than I planned.  For the record, I do prefer Fournette over Cook, but in this scenario I would take Cook, simply because I have their projections close enough.  Ideally, in a league where you can start 3RB's or WR's, I would prefer if my top 4 at each position have differing byes.  Just wanted to add though, I don't compare bye weeks when drafting different positions - If my top QB, RB, WR, TE, K, and D all end up with the same bye week, so be it.  I only look at bye weeks within that position.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

I don't consider bye weeks except as a tie breaker or if my roster starts to get ridiculously stilted toward one week. I prefer Fournette and would take Fournette. I would argue that it is a bigger gift to my league to play the lesser of the two (assuming I'm right  )all season than to replace a 1st round RB with a bench player for just one week. And the bench/replacement player will still score some points.

 

[TheWinz]

I don't consider bye weeks except as a tie breaker or if my roster starts to get ridiculously stilted toward one week. I prefer Fournette and would take Fournette. I would argue that it is a bigger gift to my league to play the lesser of the two (assuming I'm right  )all season than to replace a 1st round RB with a bench player for just one week. And the bench/replacement player will still score some points.

Are you saying that if your own projections had your RB2 only 1 fantasy point ahead of the next RB, you would still take your RB2, even with the bye week conflict?  I chose to omit Fournette and Cook's names, as this thread is not about them, but the strategy.  And, if you chose to take the lesser RB2, how many fantasy points would you be willing to give up to not have a bye week conflict?  I think that's really the question here.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

I don't do projections, so if you're looking for a quantified answer, I'm not much help. I guess one point could be considered a tiebreaker situation Tiebreakers aside, I'm putting my preferred player on my team without regard to bye. It's one week and I'm not getting a zero at the position   By the time most bye weeks roll around, player rankings/projections will probably look a lot different than now, as could your team.  
.

 

[Hawkeye21]

I never factor in bye weeks in a managed league. I would probably use it if I had two players rated even though.  Can’t remember the last time I had that happen though. 

 

[ghostguy123]

What is the playoff setup?  Just head to head?  Victory points?  Which weeks do you play your division and does this decision need to take that into account?

Not enough info to answer yet, but in general, I do not care when bye weeks are because in my leagues the way they are set up it generally doesnt matter.