Do You Draft Need or Value in Rookie Drafts? (1 Viewer)

[Synesthesia]

What's wrong with trying to trade/move around so that the BPA is at your postion of need? Ideally...that's the answer.

Nothing's wrong with trying, but sometimes you can't get fair value when trying to move. Making a trade that loses value so that BPA fits a position of need isn't any different than just ignoring BPA and drafting for need in the first place.

 

[beerbarron]

This isn't an AC thread. Not looking for advise as I already know what I'm going to do but I'm curious as to exactly what most of the SP would do in this situation.Through some nice trading I've acquired picks 1.02, 1.03, 1.04, 1.06, 1.08, 1.12, and 2.03 in an upcoming 12 team rookie draft.I have two solid QB's (Stafford and Cutler) and start QB/3WR/2RB/FLEX/TE/DEF/K but my RB's and WR's are a WASTELAND now. Assume this is a standard scoring PPR league.So let's say this is how the draft plays out...1.01 - Trent1.02 - Blackmon1.03 - Doug Martin1.04 - David Wilson1.05 - Andrew Luck1.06 - Floyd1.07 - Miller1.08 - ???So in this scenario RGIII has fallen to 1.08. I don't NEED RGIII I need WR's/RB's. In this position do you draft NEED (Taking Wright, Hill or Jeffrey) or do you draft VALUE and take RGIII?

Each situation is different and to say there is a blanket approach that you use to cover every situation might not be the best way to maximize your drafting value. Be fluid in drafts seems like the best overall approach. In this situation.. I take RG3 based on upside and position, QB. If RG3 hits you have a great qb and if you choose to will either have either a great player for years to come or enormous trading value, which to me outweighs taking wright, hill even if they hit.

 

[GreatLakesMike]

Now here's the real question, you got Rodgers as your dynasty QB and RGIII is the best player available at say...1.07. You still go BPA knowing RGIII will be sitting on your bench for the next X years? Personally, the ONLY way I take RGIII is if I'm in a league where I'm convinced I can trade him. I usually exclude QB's from my BPA strategy b/c most of the time I have a top 5 QB that won't ever see my bench.

I own Rodgers and Rothlisberger, traded back into the 1st round so I could draft Luck.

 

[lbouchard]

Now here's the real question, you got Rodgers as your dynasty QB and RGIII is the best player available at say...1.07. You still go BPA knowing RGIII will be sitting on your bench for the next X years? Personally, the ONLY way I take RGIII is if I'm in a league where I'm convinced I can trade him. I usually exclude QB's from my BPA strategy b/c most of the time I have a top 5 QB that won't ever see my bench.

I own Rodgers and Rothlisberger, traded back into the 1st round so I could draft Luck.

Why?

 

[ZWK]

What's wrong with trying to trade/move around so that the BPA is at your postion of need? Ideally...that's the answer.

I have no problem with going need over (perceived) value, as long as the player selected isn't an obviously inferior prospect. I'm not passing on an NFL draft 2nd round WR to take a 5th round RB even if I'm fat at WR and desperate at RB.

I don't think either extreme (always need or always "value") is the right answer. Every situation is unique, some needs are more desperate than others, some drafts are deeper than others at the need position, some prospects are elite and should always go first regardless of need, and some needs are so desperate only an elite prospect can sway me to go against my need (in SOME leagues...in others, trade partners are easier to find and needs are never so desperate!)

Call it 50-50 need-value.

There are actually 2 different kinds of value, not reaching and drafting underrated players. Trading/moving around can help you avoid reaching, so that you can draft need without sacrificing value, but if there are underrated players at a non-need position then you can't get around that need vs. value conflict.Not reaching for players means not drafting someone much earlier than where he is conventionally rated. You can solve that by moving around. If you have the 6th pick and really need a RB, and the top 3 RBs are off the board, then drafting Pead then would be a bad move. As long as you can get decent value in your trade, then it would be a good move to trade up to get Martin or Wilson, or to trade down to get Pead a few picks later + extra stuff.

The other kind of value is identifying which players other owners are underrating, and getting them for less than they should cost. If you think that Griffin should already be the #5 dynasty QB, then getting him with rookie pick 1.06 is an amazing value (even though that's about where he's typically going). If you trade away that pick then you probably won't be able to find a similar steal at another position, and even if you don't need a QB it could be worth it to try to trade for that pick to take advantage of that value.

4 different draft strategies you could take:

1. make trades to set yourself up to draft underrated players (close to where they are conventionally rated)

2. make trades to set yourself up to draft players at positions of need (close to where they are conventionally rated)

3. stay put and draft BPA

4. stay put and draft positions of need

These are ranked in order - ideally you'd mostly use strategy #1 - but you need to use at least a little bit of each of them (only trading if you can get a reasonable deal on the trade, and giving a slight bonus to positions of need so that you favor need when value is close).

 

[Donsmith753]

Now here's the real question, you got Rodgers as your dynasty QB and RGIII is the best player available at say...1.07. You still go BPA knowing RGIII will be sitting on your bench for the next X years? Personally, the ONLY way I take RGIII is if I'm in a league where I'm convinced I can trade him. I usually exclude QB's from my BPA strategy b/c most of the time I have a top 5 QB that won't ever see my bench.

I took him at 1.3 when I have Rodgers. Traded my other backup and if RG3 does a Cam I'm not scrambling for a qb down the line.

 

[Banemorth]

For those of you whom are curious here's how I played out this draft.

To kick it off...

Traded 1.02 and 1.08 for 1.01 and 3.01

Then here's the draft. My picks are bolded. I went BPA.

1.01 Trent

1.02 Luck

1.03 Martin

1.04 RGIII

1.05 Blackmon

1.06 Wilson

1.07 Floyd

1.08 Hillman

1.09 Wright

1.10 Pead

1.11 Jeffery

1.12 Fleener

2.01 Miller

2.02 Hill

2.03 Broyles

2.04 Quick

2.05 Randle

2.06 Jenkins

2.07 James

2.08 Tannehill

2.09 Childs

2.10 Sanu

2.11 Givens

2.12 Pierce

3.01 Marvin Jones

 

[UKColt]

I really like that draft, and it's almost exactly what I'd have done.

Only difference is I'd have taken Quick over Broyles, but that's more a personal preference than anything else.

 

[Mario Kart]

Just came into this thread since there is not much to read tonight. Any chance the guy takes Luck at 1.01 since he took him at 1.02? Also, lets break the trade down more:

Old team equals =

1.02 - Blackmon

1.03 - Doug Martin

1.04 - David Wilson

1.06 - Floyd

1.08 - RG III

1.12

Actual team =

1.01 Trent

1.03 Martin

1.04 RGIII

1.06 Wilson

1.12 Fleener

So, no Blackmon or Floyd. RB's are an upgrade but WR's are still a wasteland with these picks. So, you traded for Trent Richardson at the "cost" of Blackmon and Floyd. I think that is pretty much a toss up.

I kind of like the old team without the trade for Trent.

 

[GreatLakesMike]

Now here's the real question, you got Rodgers as your dynasty QB and RGIII is the best player available at say...1.07. You still go BPA knowing RGIII will be sitting on your bench for the next X years? Personally, the ONLY way I take RGIII is if I'm in a league where I'm convinced I can trade him. I usually exclude QB's from my BPA strategy b/c most of the time I have a top 5 QB that won't ever see my bench.

I own Rodgers and Rothlisberger, traded back into the 1st round so I could draft Luck.

Why?

Hopefully to grab the next Peyton Manning. Stockpile talent and worry about the rest later.