What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Dodds on the clock at 5.02 FanEx FAD (1 Viewer)

David Dodds

David Dodds

Administrator
Having traded my 3rd and 4th round picks for "magic beans", I begin the start of many picks in the middle.

FAD Draft

I have the following players on my team:

RB Fred Taylor

RB Tiki Barber

RBs have screamed off the board and the best that remain are:

Emmitt Smith

Garrison Hearst

Michael Pittman

Stacey Mack

Jerome Bettis

WRs that are still on the board are:

Peerless Price

Amani Toomer

Jerry Rice

Marty Booker

Laveranues Coles

Donald Driver

QBs next up are:

Drew Bledsoe

Tom Brady

Aaron Brooks

Trent Green

Brett Favre

Steve McNair

I also have the following picks:

5.12

6.01

6.03

6.09

7.04

7.12

8.01

Here are the scoring rules:

FanEx FAD Rules

 
David,I know it is all important to have that 3rd back in fanex, but toomer would be my pick here and then take whatever rb from your list with your next pick. You can still wait on your qb's until you get into your later picks in 6 and 7.

 
I'd go w/ Toomer as your 1WR in this case. He put up some monster games this last year at the end and things are looking up for the G'ints right now. There will be plenty of value left for you with the other picks you have. Not sure if your trade was good or not until the draft is finished. It's risky but it might pay off in value for ya considering the rules of the game. I suggest you go for some high upside / high risk picks with at least one of the upcoming ones you have in rounds 5 and 6 though.

 
I dont know what he does but I take Pittman. His receptions make up for lack of other opportunities. He should feel more comfortable after a year with the team. When looking purely at upside he has the most of any running back listed. While there are some good QBs here he has plenty of picks coming up to grab one or more good ones yet. Most of the WRs listed are not even worth consideration yet IMO.

 
if you go WR i go driver here... then take one of the QB's left with your next pick... or take brooks and be strong at QB and weak at WR or be, as of right now, mediocre at both. Minimalist WR Theory

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Quite frankly, I don't like the value of any of the WRs or QBs at this point. Not that I like any of the RBs you've listed either.EDIT - after looking over the draft, I'd probably trade down again if you could. I haven't made my draft board yet, but I don't like the value here. Some WRs that I like will probably be available later. Same with the QBs.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Brooks is not a value pick in this spot. Qb's are so deep this year and in this format a committee approach works really well. I would just as soon have t green paired with mcnair or hassellback paired with kitna.

 
Or did he go at 4.12 (I see the helmet now)?If he's gone I'd bet you are going with Toomer unless Ken was the one who hyped him up to #7 (albeit with a different scoring system).I'm thinking you will hold out for Bledsoe or Green at 7.04 since Brooks will certainly be taken before then.

 
I also would have to go with Toomer with this pick...If running backs have screamed off the board then one of the five you listed should still be available with your 5.12 pick, for a backup...You have 2 excellent starters at running back and I don't think either Toomer or Driver would be available for your next pick and I value them above the other wide receivers you listed...Too early for a QB...If not a WR then Emmitt Smith might be worth the pick as I expect him to have a better year than most predict...But what to heck do I know...Good luck whatever path you take...

 
looking at the teams that draft between your 2 and 12 pick, the majority have 3 RBs. Only Cahil's (wr stud theorist??) team has one RB, I would imagine he would go RB again this time around. I think Houlet/Houston, Hansen, Engel, and Holm (with at least one of his picks between yours) all will look WR. I say you take a WR here, toomer probably, and then with 5.12 nd 6.01 RBs of the caliber that are available now will still be there. The only teams I can see debating a QB are hansen, houlet/houston, cahil, holm and kaldec, but at least a few of these teams will go WR. I say take toomer and then go with a couple RBs and a QB with 5.12, 6.01, 6.03. and maybe you can get a TE or another WR.

 
i would not take a rb(none left are worth grabbing here anyway)...im thinking ur taking chances and id have to think with the early run on rb's the other owners have to be looking at qb, wr, te5.12Amani Toomer6.01Jerry Rice6.03Donald Driverno change in offense or coaches or qb's for any of these three...i think they could put up super numbers7 teams have qb's...leaving theseDrew BledsoeTom BradyAaron BrooksTrent GreenBrett FavreSteve McNaironly 5 more need starters and i would thin they also need other positions which woul dleave great picks at the 7+ spot...i think maddox, hasselbeck, possibly plumer, ramsey and alot of others could fill the bill...take the wr's and watch um sweat 7.047.128.01edit to say it would be 2 of the top 11 wr's from fbgs and if you throw in rice(that doesnt even sound right)...you have 3 of the top 16 that the pros and boards picked...thats f-in excellent considering the time you waited for picks...i think the backs you could be looking at will be there...the reason 3 of the top 16 wr's are left are cause this draft already took rb's...those rb's will be there...this round and further

 
Last edited by a moderator:
With 1 point per reception, Pittman looks mighty tempting as (IMO) the best RB left on the board, but there are just too many potential gamebreakers out there at WR to pass them up, and I'd imagine they'll be flying off the board now anyway.With that in mind, I'd go with Peerless Price here. Toomer is the guy I'd rather have in a regular fantasy league, but with the setup of the FAD, Price seems more likely to post the big weeks here and there that can propel you to the top. You can find your RB3 with your next picks, and don't look to loose that much at the position between now and then, if anything.

 
There's still good value at all the other positions - I think you better grab either Toomer or your RB3 now while you have the pick of the litter that's remaining. Grabbing a RB3 is not VBD, but, as I recall, you get your best players' scores - no lineup problems - so I'd go with Hearst on the assumption that he'll give you 3 or 4 games of good production, especially catching the ball. Hearst will be in the game on passing downs since Barlow is still learning that part of the game. The suggestion of Pittman is good since he's the "between the 20s" back and has had a year to mature in Gruden's offense. I think Pittman could be a steal if he ends up gaining Gruden's confidence this year and starts playing the feature back, over the RBBC, role.Don't forget to handcuff Taylor to his backup later in the draft. At your 2 picks at the turn, and at the 6.03 pick, grab WR all the way if you go RB3 here. Then, at the bottom of the 6th, start a QBBC. If you go Toomer at 5.02 (not a bad start - Taylor, Tiki and Toomer), you need to grab an RB3 at the turn - Pittman could still be there.

 
I'd select Brooks here. WR's are so plentiful, and so inconsistant, yet explosive. In this format, from my understanding, you can pile up on WRs and the best 2 will start on any given "big week." Unless you think Driver or Toomer will explode a great deal more than later WRs, I'd just go with the best talent on Board. My vote says thats Brooks.

 
Don't forget to handcuff Taylor to his backup later in the draft.
Click to expand...
Labrandon Toefield is why I liked his Fred Taylor pick sooo much. He probably won't be trusted with the goal line plunges but is a solid RB for his replacement in case of injury. The biggest benefit is that he can be had real late even with all the RB hounds necessitated by this format.BTW: I wasn't :rotflmao: at your trade but was :rotflmao: at my Hee Haw reference.When are you picking? Tonight??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't forget to handcuff Taylor to his backup later in the draft.
Click to expand...
I disagree with the notion of handcuffing anybody to anybody in this format. You get your best two or three RB scores each week, and to produce two good scores every week, you need to have four guys playing each week. You can't afford to waste a roster spot on a guy who will not play most weeks.Try this experiment at home: Grab three top 15 RBs, and take the top two scores each week from last year. Now add a fourth top 20 RB, and take two of the top four scores each week from last year. There will be a non-trivial difference in the total. (And the difference is much bigger when taking the top three scores each week.)You want at least four RBs and four WRs who should start every week (barring injury) for their NFL teams. There are a lot more starting WRs in the league (roughly 64) than starting RBs (roughly 24, since RBBC kills some of them), so RBs are at a huge premium.I'd grab Pittman here. (Edit: Or maybe Hearst.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:ph34r: Waiting On Dodds For The Next Pick :yes:Timer Expires In About 15 hours, 54 minutes
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must take a rb. This will continue the run on rb's because people will want four from the remaining list- and you have oodles of picks. Hearst or Pittman- both of whom I like more than Hambrick.

 
you cannot...ill repeat..YOU CANNOT handcuff in this format....there is not enuff space..i still cant believe peeps have coments and have no idea of the rules ...anyway...anyone that wants to handcuff...go read the fanex rules and get back to us..

 
Try this experiment at home: Grab three top 15 RBs, and take the top two scores each week from last year. Now add a fourth top 20 RB, and take two of the top four scores each week from last year. There will be a non-trivial difference in the total. (And the difference is much bigger when taking the top three scores each week.)
Click to expand...
MTThe guys you mentioned aren't projected top 20. That ship sailed in the second round. Handcuffing seems to me to be an economical way to insure your top pick will suit up (albeit vicariously). I don't think that the experiment you offered up would hold for the 30 something group. For the few times that Hearst or Pittman would score for your team, you may have these WRs hitting the nut regularly.I wasn't advocating taking the handcuffed guy now (or even close to now).
 
Pittman hasn't done jack besides catch passes. Selecting him here throws away any advantage that you gained with the trade IMO. Your picks allow you to wait on a runner, since they're all the same, and grab the best value at receiver. I'd go Toomer and Price here, possibly picking up Hearst at 6.03.

 
You are waiting because I want resolution of which set of rules we are drafting to...
Click to expand...
Bombshell. :yes: On another note:OK you anti-handcuffing types, keep Taylor without Toefield, Holmes without Johnson, and Faulk without Gordon. What could possibly go wrong?
 
I don't think that the experiment you offered up would hold for the 30 something group.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I did that experiment lots of different ways last year when I was in the "Ekspurts" draft (similar format), and having any four guys who play every week versus any subset of three of those guys made a huge difference.RB scores tend to look like this from week to week: 10, 6, 24, 4, 14, 6, 8, 6, 20, 5, 7, 17 . . .

The top 10 guys will generally be higher than #20 through #25, of course -- but all NFL starters fluctuate significantly from week to week. Once you start drafting NFL backups, they are consistent. Consistently below 6.

I think you need four starters, and there are only a few left. If you can grab a fifth, you can probably trade him for a top 10 WR later in the draft (once RBs are gone) because several teams will be desperate.

 
hey brave or anyone else that hasnt played a survivor league...you cant waste the spots...sorry...you have to hope...you need scoring from any and all positions...lemme know what survivor league you've been in and won...i won last years survivor on the mocks and it was mostly luck but it had nuthing to do with backing up players...here is something for anyone that dosent know: THIS IS NOT UR FASTASY LEAGUE...THIS IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT FORMAT...YOU HAVE NO ROSTER SPACE FOR BACKUPS...KNOW THIS...anyway...ill expect more bs from those that have never done this type of format...lets hear it

 
OK you anti-handcuffing types, keep Taylor without Toefield, Holmes without Johnson, and Faulk without Gordon. What could possibly go wrong?
Click to expand...
Since you will have four starting RBs, if one gets hurt, you will still have three.If you have four RBs including a handcuff situation, you will only have three RBs playing even when they are all healthy.

If you handcuff Faulk and Gordon (for example), you are guaranteeing that you will be using a roster spot on a 0-pt RB each week. I'd rather snag an extra defense or kicker in this scoring system at the end of the draft. Defenses and kickers will play each week, and are just as volatile from week to week as RBs, so depth is just as important.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess there's a dispute about roster sizes? I thought I read somewhere else that rosters would expand to 18 players this year. If that's the case, I would do this:3 QBs4 RBs5 WRs3 TEs2 PKs3 DsWith only 4 RBs, they all must be NFL starters. If you can't get 4 NFL starters, I'd go with 5 RBs and either 4 WRs or 2 TEs.I think 3 QBs (if you can get 3 starters) and 3 Ds are both important since they vary a lot from week to week.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll concede the point of not playing in a survivor format as the learning curve for playing FF (any form) is quite steep. I don't want to drop this idea though with what both MT and Dallas have offered up just yet.

MT-4 RBs and not one is a backup? That's 48 of them if everyone goes that way and 42 if just half of 'em go that way. I understand there are RBBCs but I think you are supporting the idea of back ups but just not handcuffing?

I understand the weekly 0s are bad. Those are the same 0s you risk from your top back if they get hurt. So you have a lesser starter coming in and picking up that 0 and pushing it higher. I got it. But doesn't a back up almost guarantee you top back doesn't get hurt? Now there are only some RBs I'd handcuff (the ones I listed and maybe the one for A. Green). I say this not just for the injury factor for these RBs but for the capability of their back ups. Granted, Johnson and Toefield are unproven but the Jaguars like two RBs. In this format, having Mack and Taylor last year would have been a Martha Stewart thing.

I guess I'd be satisfied w/your responses if it weren't for the complete overvaluation of the RBs in this draft. Man, it's hard to pass on some of these WRs for the likes of Pittman and to a lesser extent, Hearst. Dodds' spot and trade almost forces him to be one of the owners who is just SOL on starting RB depth beyond three. So when dealt lemons, make lemonade on other positions.

I still don't see the harm in taking Toefield much later.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gotta pick BROOKS! he's too explosive to pass at this juncture. you'll be able to load up on WRs and RB with your next 3 picks... Brooks is your best value here.

 
MT-4 RBs and not one is a backup? That's 48 of them if everyone goes that way and 42 if just half of 'em go that way.
Click to expand...
Not everyone can do it (that's why RBs are at such a premium), but Dodds may be in a position to if he so chooses.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oxymoron, seeing as how Brooks is a quarterback
Click to expand...
cracka, i just don't think there is much separation between toomer or driver and the other WRs that will be left on the board for his next pick. i like brooks much better than the other available QBs.
 
I still don't see the harm in taking Toefield much later.
Click to expand...
It depends on what's left at the end of the draft. If there are no starting QBs left (there won't be), there are no WRs you like (or you feel like you're already set there), and you've already got 3 Ds & 2 PKs, taking Toefield may be the right thing to do.I just think it should be a backup plan rather than something you're hoping for.
 
I have Brooks in a league, and I don't think he is explosive at all. It is rare that he has a 3 or 4 td game. He is steady. Green, Hasselbeck and Brady are not as good IMO but are far more explosive than Brooks.Remember:You do not start players in this league and there are 2 starting rbs and a potential rb flex. HEarst, who put up 1200 and 9 has much more seperation between himself and other backs than any WR at this point.

 
I'd grab Rice for two reasons....(One) that offense is still going to put up PHAT stats and Rice is Rice. (Two) this is probably the last shot for the Raiders AND Rice, he'll go out with a bang! Then grab Brady in the 6th. I don't like Toomer.......never have. Later,DD

 
Hearst, who put up 1200 and 9 has much more seperation between himself and other backs than any WR at this point.
Click to expand...
Point conceded on Hearst. Still don't know about Pittman. Toomer seems to be Dodds' boy (ranked #7). I too don't see the separation for the WRs but the quantity needs to start here.
 
Still don't know about Pittman.
Click to expand...
To pick Pittman here, you have to believe that the Bucs' offense will be improved this year. Brad Johnson really started to come on at the end of last season, and Gruden's offense is complicated, so I think it's fair to think the team never really had it down for most of last year and they will improve this year.If the offense in general is better, I think Pittman improves on his 3.5 yards per carry (giving him more rushing yards than last year) and his one TD. A back who gets 250+ touches and just one TD is quite an aberration, and I really doubt that will happen again. I know Alstott is the man at the goal line, but still . . .

Pittman's ability as a receiver makes him a potential bargain here if you believe he will improve his rushing numbers and TD total. If you don't believe he'll improve in those areas, a guy like Emmitt Smith would be preferable.

 
The Commissioner has suspended all FanEx FAD drafting while we investigate a member's request. More info ASAP ~TC~

 
I'd say that the pick should be between Mack, Pittman, and Emmitt. If David is going to stick to his draft strategy, he needs at least 3 starting NFL RB and he really wants 4. The 3 I listed above are the guys that have the best chances to be the primary back on their teams. After having to sit through Texans games this past year, I'd say that Mack is the pick. The line cant get any worse, and neither Wells or Allen is much of a concern. Of the other players listed, only Toomer and Booker jump out at me. They finished 7th and 9th respectively last year in FAD. Toomer gets the added bonus of posting some monster games (inconsistency is good in this format) and that his second half was very impressive.

 
I have Brooks in a league, and I don't think he is explosive at all. It is rare that he has a 3 or 4 td game.
Click to expand...
This may be true, but he did league the league last year in 2+ TD games.(In typical cracKer fashion, I'm arguing against myself)
 
Wow, another trade down by Dodds. I guess that's good here, but I really liked Toomer. I think he'll be fantastic this year. I guess if you still snag Driver or Price you'll still be OK.

 
Your choices at RB are limited especially if you are looking for that every day player. I would think that Mack and Pittman offer you the best RB options but other players are going to carve into their numbers and there is going to be a potential RBBC in HOU and you will definitely see Alstott steal carries and TDs from Pittman. Mack has upside but he is another risk with Taylor out of the picture and a heavy load to handle within a troubled offense. You know that you need value here especially after trading down. No WRs on the roster- this is where I would be going. Price is solid but I like him more as a second receiver. Rice shares the ball with many so he can qualify as a solid second WR at this point in the draft. On the flip side, Toomer and Booker are players that will be the number one options at WR on thir respective teams. Toomer is on the upward slope and Booker was derailed after a tough season last year with the BEARS. Booker may just rebound if the BEARS can stay healthy. Knowing that you have Tiki I would grab either Booker or Rice here...Good luck!

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Work League Draft Today
Replies
14
Views
953
VaTerp
VaTerp
Banemorth
Starting A Dynasty League
Replies
21
Views
1K
Banemorth
Banemorth
whodeywhodey
Rotoworld's Midseason Mock
Replies
16
Views
2K
None_More_Black
None_More_Black

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top