Depth or Loaded Starters? (1 Viewer)

[J Perusse]

I was able to have a draft (12 team, half PPR) in which I can't find a spot for Willis McGahee and Steve Johnson in my starting lineup.

I immediately thought that I had great trade bait on my hands to get a sure thing at QB (RGIII, Luck, Locker...I have 3 QBs, I know) or TE (I have Celek, Rudolph).

Then I thought about whether or not it would be smart to trade away the depth on my bench. I love the idea of having such quality insurance at the RB and WR position in case of injury. Then again, my starters could stay healthy and I have solid players rotting away on my bench all year.

So what do you guys think? High quality starters with no bench or solid starters mixed with some upside plays and a deep bench?

 

[DoubleG]

I was able to have a draft (12 team, half PPR) in which I can't find a spot for Willis McGahee and Steve Johnson in my starting lineup. I immediately thought that I had great trade bait on my hands to get a sure thing at QB (RGIII, Luck, Locker...I have 3 QBs, I know) or TE (I have Celek, Rudolph). Then I thought about whether or not it would be smart to trade away the depth on my bench. I love the idea of having such quality insurance at the RB and WR position in case of injury. Then again, my starters could stay healthy and I have solid players rotting away on my bench all year. So what do you guys think? High quality starters with no bench or solid starters mixed with some upside plays and a deep bench?

It depends on several factors (which you don't list). First off, starting reqs. If you need to start 3 WR - then you have to cover 3 WR bye weeks. Same is true if you have multiple RB/flex spots to cover. HOWEVER - if you have a couple of flex spots and you have decent RB depth to cover the flexes and even flex and RB byes, you can by with a thinner WR bench.In general, I prefer better frontline starters - except I always like to have an extra RB in my back pocket, as RBs are injured more often. Even minor tweaks that leave them out a game or two. In summary - high quality starters, with at least an extra RB just in case is where I fall on this argument.

 

[Kleck]

I'll go with loaded starters. It's easier to acquire depth than starters.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

In redraft I feel about the same as DoubleG.

In general, I have been pretty good at drafting quality depth after starters are gone. Not everybody seems to be good at this. It is usually good to draft for RB depth (after having stud RBs... stud RBs are gold in most leagues), because that is going to be your best trade bait when RBs start to get hurt.

Around midseason, maybe after your bye week issues are past (though bye weeks can be a good time to trade depth for better players or players with better playoff schedules) you need to get as good a starting lineup as possible. Depth does you no good in the playoffs.

 

[Abraham]

Depth first, stars second at the beginning of the year.

Stars at the expense of depth at the end of the year.

Managing the transition from the former to the latter is one of the keys to a great team ad great season.

 

[Shawn]

Depth first, stars second at the beginning of the year. Stars at the expense of depth at the end of the year. Managing the transition from the former to the latter is one of the keys to a great team ad great season.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Both can work well, but I often go with loaded starters. You can always get depth through pickups and whatnot, but if you draft or buy (in an auction) a bunch of good to very good players, and have almost no studs, you basically need all or most of those players to pan out close to their ceilings to have a shot at winning it all. Granted, having that instant depth makes it easier to have an average at worst team, vs. having loaded starters (where your team could fall apart if one of the studs gets hurt or busts), but you have to take chances to win it, I say. But I generally do both strategies since I am always in multiple leagues.

 

[ponchsox]

A little bit of both. In a competitive league, you are going to have a weakness (maybe just a slight weakness) in at least one position. I like to fill out my starters in the first 7 rounds and take high quality backups in rounds 8-10. You can actually overdraft starters and end up weak at another position. A few teams did this in my last draft and ended up with guys like Eric Decker and DJax on their bench. I would much rather be in a position where I used the draft to upgrade at other positions, use someone like Decker as a WR2 or Flex, and have Titus Young or Nate Washington on the bench as my reserve WR.