Defense Team By Committee (DTBC) for 2007 (1 Viewer)

[robb]

If you want a copy, e-mail me at: robbaustin@comcast.net

Based on this, it looks like the best Defensive Combo for 2007 is SD/KC. Indy has 4 matching teams with low scores, so Indy and Miami is another great choice.

I now have the 2007 version available. The formulas were originally developed by Mike Sweeney, and I have put in the 2007 Offensive Team Strength numbers and the 2007 NFL schedule.

Copy these Instructions for use after I send you the matrix:

1. Click on the "Comparison" tab at the bottom

2. Under Team 1, input a team number (1-32), see to the right for numbers

3. Under Team 2, input a team number (1-32), see to the right for numbers

4. Move your cursor off that cell, and "Presto", here are the combined rankings

of these 2 teams showing which team to play each week!

5. You can put in different numbers, for different teams, and see how it changes.

You want to use the lowest number as that shows a poorer offensive team

which you are playing against that week.

Sum of Weeks 1-13 gives you the total of the weakest team for the 2 teams you

have selected in weeks 1-13.

Sum of Weeks 14-16 gives you the total of the weakest team for the 2 teams you

have selected in weeks 14-16.

Sum of Weeks 1-16 gives you the total of the weakest team for the 2 teams you

have selected in weeks 1-16. Week 17 is not included, but you could change the

formula to include it if you like.

On the "input" tab, if you change the championship week to "16", the week 17

rankings on the "NFL_RANK" tab will be zeroed out. The matrix numbers

will then match the comparison numbers. The "Comparison" tab right now

only works with 16 weeks, the 17th week isn't included.

The "Matrix" tab will show you all 32 teams and how their combinations score.

The "NFL Rank" tab shows how each team matches up on a weekly basis against

their opponent’s offensive strength. The lower the total (last column), the better!

The "Offense Strengths" tab shows how I calculated each of the 32 teams on a

relative scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the strongest offensive team (i.e. Indy)

You can plug in different values, but I got a consensus from the Forum board and

used these.

Added was a drop-down choice, and also made the sheet a little more dynamic so someone can use it throughout the year... For example, a user can tweak the offensive strengths mid-season and adjust the "current week" on the "INPUT" tab to 8. The sheet will only look at weeks 8-16 for computing matchups, etc...

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you can really use a top end defensive team for a committee approach - that sort of defeats the purpose.

SD is Top 5 on most lists. Miami is climbing, but not quite there yet.

As an aside - how did Philly / Tenn look to you?

 

[Bri]

ITYM can't

 

[robb]

Hi Jeff:

I agree, using a Top "D" does defeat the purpose, that is why I don't consider the #2 scoring combo of Chicago/Oakland a good bet.

If San Diego is too high for one, then use Indy/Miami or Denver/Houston.

Philly/Tennessee was in the middle of the rankings, scoring a 78. KC/SD scored a 65 with others in the low 90's. Tennessee/Oakland was a strong 3rd with a score of 66 so be on the lookout for that combination. Would be my defensive "Sleeper Combo" pick here! Go see how they match up, it's good every week except week 2 (play against Denver).

Robb

 

[robb]

I have sent this out to 13 people, so if you would like a copy, just let me know.

You must "enable the macros" to make this work. Go ahead and play with this and see what other matchups you see as desirable. The "Matrix" puts it all on one sheet to see the combined scores for each combo.

You can change the Offensive Team rankings based on what you believe is your rankings. And, per the instructions, after mid-year you can do week-to-week changes.

Let me know if you found it useful or not.

I would welcome your input also, both as to how to make it better and the Best Combos to use. Do you like the SD/KC combo?

Robb

 

[robb]

Sixteen replies and counting. I am getting loads of great feedback, and folks believing they will use this in their drafting this year. Thanks everyone!

Let me know if you'd like a copy sent to you,.

 

[moleculo]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you can really use a top end defensive team for a committee approach - that sort of defeats the purpose.SD is Top 5 on most lists. Miami is climbing, but not quite there yet. As an aside - how did Philly / Tenn look to you?

What's wrong with pairing a great D with a complementary back-up D? I like to carry 2 team D's (sometimes even 3) anyhow for bye-week / games vs Indy situations. IMO, DTBC should aways be considered, not simply to compensate for neglecting to draft a top D. If you did draft SD top 5, looking at KC towards the end of the draft would be a much better move than a back-up TE.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you can really use a top end defensive team for a committee approach - that sort of defeats the purpose.SD is Top 5 on most lists. Miami is climbing, but not quite there yet. As an aside - how did Philly / Tenn look to you?

What's wrong with pairing a great D with a complementary back-up D? I like to carry 2 team D's (sometimes even 3) anyhow for bye-week / games vs Indy situations. IMO, DTBC should aways be considered, not simply to compensate for neglecting to draft a top D. If you did draft SD top 5, looking at KC towards the end of the draft would be a much better move than a back-up TE.

There's nothing wrong with it, but the point of DTBC is to avoid having to draft an early / Top 5 defense and sluffing defenses until late in your draft - then picking two mediocre (or even bad) D's with great schedule alignments is the true DTBC approach.That's why I said you can't say you're doing DTBC if you pick San Diego. I'd say Chicago, Baltimore, SD, NE and either Pitt or Miami would have to be not on your list for this approach in a redraft league.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you can really use a top end defensive team for a committee approach - that sort of defeats the purpose.

SD is Top 5 on most lists. Miami is climbing, but not quite there yet.

As an aside - how did Philly / Tenn look to you?

What's wrong with pairing a great D with a complementary back-up D? I like to carry 2 team D's (sometimes even 3) anyhow for bye-week / games vs Indy situations. IMO, DTBC should aways be considered, not simply to compensate for neglecting to draft a top D. If you did draft SD top 5, looking at KC towards the end of the draft would be a much better move than a back-up TE.

There's nothing wrong with it, but the point of DTBC is to avoid having to draft an early / Top 5 defense and sluffing defenses until late in your draft - then picking two mediocre (or even bad) D's with great schedule alignments is the true DTBC approach.That's why I said you can't say you're doing DTBC if you pick San Diego. I'd say Chicago, Baltimore, SD, NE and either Pitt or Miami would have to be not on your list for this approach in a redraft league.

That was my first thought

 

[ImTheScientist]

The idea of DTBC is to find two D's that you can get in the last 2-3 rounds of your draft and combine them to score like a top-5 D. This way you do not have to spend a high pick on a Top 5 D and can use that pick to take a position player.

I think I may combine Chicago/Ravens this year

 

[perry147]

I have KC/SD in my dynasty this year. I picked up KC because on SD's bye week KC plays OAKLAND.

Oakland is going to be like an expansion team this year - play their opponents defense every week if possible.

 

[moleculo]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you can really use a top end defensive team for a committee approach - that sort of defeats the purpose.SD is Top 5 on most lists. Miami is climbing, but not quite there yet. As an aside - how did Philly / Tenn look to you?

What's wrong with pairing a great D with a complementary back-up D? I like to carry 2 team D's (sometimes even 3) anyhow for bye-week / games vs Indy situations. IMO, DTBC should aways be considered, not simply to compensate for neglecting to draft a top D. If you did draft SD top 5, looking at KC towards the end of the draft would be a much better move than a back-up TE.

There's nothing wrong with it, but the point of DTBC is to avoid having to draft an early / Top 5 defense and sluffing defenses until late in your draft - then picking two mediocre (or even bad) D's with great schedule alignments is the true DTBC approach.That's why I said you can't say you're doing DTBC if you pick San Diego. I'd say Chicago, Baltimore, SD, NE and either Pitt or Miami would have to be not on your list for this approach in a redraft league.

i get that. The point I'm trying to make is that DTBC is worth considering even if you did choose to pick up a top 5 D - This excel sheet still has quite a bit of value even if you draft a defense highly. Maybe DTBC is the wrong name for what I am posing - maybe "complementary backup" is more accurate - "DTCB"?More to the point, pairing SD and KC may turn a top 5 D into the equivalent of a top 2 D - consider 3 games vs Oakland, 2 vs Houston, 2 vs Minn, and you never have to play any of the powerhouse offenses. I'd say this is a pretty powerful notion - more powerful than simply drafting SD to start with.

 

[robb]

36 fantasy football owners requested this tool. If anyone else is interested, just e-mail me and I'll send it to you! Happy Fourth!!

Robb