Draft Strategy for Dynasty Startups (1 Viewer)

[Instinctive]

What it means is that RBs are less stable and more of a variable from a production standpoint. Some get injured and are out of a few games, others get hurt and end up losing long-term value because someone else came in and performed well. It happens less in the passing game world.

Because RBs are less stable, the stable ones are worth more.The fact that RBBCs are so prevalant and there is so much turnover ONLY creates a bigger gap between elite RBs and averge RB. A bigger gap means more value over replacement.

Not to be rude, but your research does the opposite of suggesting that top RBs are worth less.

ONLY IF YOU CAN PREDICT WHO THE STABLE RBs WILL BE.Should I repeat that, but bigger?

The nature of the position makes this very difficult to predict. It makes it so that the guys how are the top 10 RBs come from all over the draft. It makes it so that I can maximize my VORP, total, across all positions, at each position individually, added up - by drafting WRs early and RBs late. Because the RBs who end up with the most VORP won't come in mid-late round 1. They'll come from all ####### over the place, because about a third of the guys how did it last year won't come close the next year simply due to injury. Then there's more turnover from tough schedules, breakout rookies and PS guys, OLine decline, playing from behind...

To sum: High RB = less likely to repeat means that Low RB = more likely to finish high

High WR = more likely to repeat means Low WR = less likely to finish high

Round 1

RBA - 70% chance of 100 VORP - 70

WRA - 90% chance of 100 VORP - 90

Round 6

RBB - 20% chance of 100 VORP - 20

WRB - 10% chance of 100 VORP - 10

WR1 and RB2 (110) are SAFER and SMARTER picks than RB1 and WR2 (80). Because you MUST ACCOUNT FOR RISK.

 

[zilladog]

What it means is that RBs are less stable and more of a variable from a production standpoint. Some get injured and are out of a few games, others get hurt and end up losing long-term value because someone else came in and performed well. It happens less in the passing game world.

Because RBs are less stable, the stable ones are worth more.The fact that RBBCs are so prevalant and there is so much turnover ONLY creates a bigger gap between elite RBs and averge RB. A bigger gap means more value over replacement.

Not to be rude, but your research does the opposite of suggesting that top RBs are worth less.

Is Aaron Rodgers more valuable than Adrian Peterson if I can get Tom Brady in the 6th, but the only RBs on the board are Cedric Benson and Ryan Grant? Who is more likely to win a championship in a 5 year period? AP/TB or AR/CB? The obvious choice is the team that got value early - the team that drafted Adrian Peterson.

You are comparing accross positions and that does nothing to estabish value between possitions.

5 years of RB1 production is worth a lot more than 5 years of QB1 production.

Coop,

I and others have asked this question of you and you have dodged it. Who are the RB's that you consider stable? Please provide a list of names and then we can have a more fruitful discussion about this.

It doesn't matter who I consider stable. I have answered this question. The answer to that question is that it doesn't matter how I grade players. It is a universal concept. Even if you think RBA has a 50% stability score, he is worth more than QBA (90%) in this example:

RBA - 50%

RBB - 40%

RBC - 30%

QBA - 90%

QBB - 87%

QBC - 85%

If you had to roll the dice, making any combination you wanted, the team with RBA wins, even if he has the less stable QB.

Could you please elaborate on this for me? Not sure I follow your example. Are you saying that no matter what combo of QB and RB I take, I'm always going to have a higher stability score if I take RBA? Do I understand that correctly?If I understand correctly, then any QB on any team is going to increase your stability score, but the best you can hope for at RB is 50%. So wouldnt it be smarter to take the highest scoring QB as early in the draft as possible(Knowing that he will be stable for you) and roll the dice more at RB (Knowing you only have a 50% chance at him lasting all year)?

 

[zilladog]

Let's not forget that on most teams, there is a capable if not good RB behind the starter. This means that if/when the starter goes down, the backup often equlas or even outproduces the starter. Hence, the starter risks losing both his job and all fantasy value from then on. Alot of Rb's in the NFL can be productive in teh right situation. This isn't the case with WR's and QB's and even to a lesser degree TE's. So even if your WR1 or QB1 goes down for a few games, he's way less likely to lose his job and/or role on the team. Hence, retaining his fantasy value. There is a very very small number of RB's who, if injured for a time, will not have to re-compete for his starting job.

I get that you'll argue that this makes those RB's who won't lose thier job worth more in Fantasy/dynasty. Point is not lost on me. And while I agree, There is literally MAYBE 2 of those guys in the entire league. Many of the RB's that most ppl would draft in the top of round 1 don't fit this criteria at all. McCoy? Nope. Charles? Doubt it. MJD? We all saw how Jennings produced in his place, and MJD may have already lost touches because of it. DMC? Obviously not. Rice? can anyone say Jalen Parmele? A.P? yes, for sure, he's entrenched. CJ2K? I lean towards yes, but I haven't seen how his replacement would do in his place, and considering how little the Titans wanted to pay him, even that's not certain.

All said, I'm still taking my chances with Rodgers/Brees/Manning/Brady/Rivers.

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

What it means is that RBs are less stable and more of a variable from a production standpoint. Some get injured and are out of a few games, others get hurt and end up losing long-term value because someone else came in and performed well. It happens less in the passing game world.

Because RBs are less stable, the stable ones are worth more.The fact that RBBCs are so prevalant and there is so much turnover ONLY creates a bigger gap between elite RBs and averge RB. A bigger gap means more value over replacement.

Not to be rude, but your research does the opposite of suggesting that top RBs are worth less.

Is Aaron Rodgers more valuable than Adrian Peterson if I can get Tom Brady in the 6th, but the only RBs on the board are Cedric Benson and Ryan Grant? Who is more likely to win a championship in a 5 year period? AP/TB or AR/CB? The obvious choice is the team that got value early - the team that drafted Adrian Peterson.

You are comparing accross positions and that does nothing to estabish value between possitions.

5 years of RB1 production is worth a lot more than 5 years of QB1 production.

Coop,

I and others have asked this question of you and you have dodged it. Who are the RB's that you consider stable? Please provide a list of names and then we can have a more fruitful discussion about this.

It doesn't matter who I consider stable. I have answered this question. The answer to that question is that it doesn't matter how I grade players. It is a universal concept. Even if you think RBA has a 50% stability score, he is worth more than QBA (90%) in this example:

RBA - 50%

RBB - 40%

RBC - 30%

QBA - 90%

QBB - 87%

QBC - 85%

If you had to roll the dice, making any combination you wanted, the team with RBA wins, even if he has the less stable QB.

It matters to the numerous people in this thread who have asked you the question. It would give us much better insight into your thought process and strategy. You seem to be employing a moving target here. You are not directly answering anyones questions, just redirecting things to a red herring. It's no wonder that people are having a hard time following your position.

 

[thriftyrocker]

Even if you think RBA has a 50% stability score, he is worth more than QBA (90%) in this example:RBA - 50%RBB - 40%RBC - 30%QBA - 90%QBB - 87%QBC - 85%If you had to roll the dice, making any combination you wanted, the team with RBA wins, even if he has the less stable QB.

If I devote my first 6 picks to QB, TE, and WR with 90% stability scores, and then devote the next 20 picks to RBs with 5% stability scores, I have 64% of having 1 good RB.

 

[zilladog]

What it means is that RBs are less stable and more of a variable from a production standpoint. Some get injured and are out of a few games, others get hurt and end up losing long-term value because someone else came in and performed well. It happens less in the passing game world.

Because RBs are less stable, the stable ones are worth more.The fact that RBBCs are so prevalant and there is so much turnover ONLY creates a bigger gap between elite RBs and averge RB. A bigger gap means more value over replacement.

Not to be rude, but your research does the opposite of suggesting that top RBs are worth less.

Is Aaron Rodgers more valuable than Adrian Peterson if I can get Tom Brady in the 6th, but the only RBs on the board are Cedric Benson and Ryan Grant? Who is more likely to win a championship in a 5 year period? AP/TB or AR/CB? The obvious choice is the team that got value early - the team that drafted Adrian Peterson.

You are comparing accross positions and that does nothing to estabish value between possitions.

5 years of RB1 production is worth a lot more than 5 years of QB1 production.

Coop,

I and others have asked this question of you and you have dodged it. Who are the RB's that you consider stable? Please provide a list of names and then we can have a more fruitful discussion about this.

It doesn't matter who I consider stable. I have answered this question. The answer to that question is that it doesn't matter how I grade players. It is a universal concept. Even if you think RBA has a 50% stability score, he is worth more than QBA (90%) in this example:

RBA - 50%

RBB - 40%

RBC - 30%

QBA - 90%

QBB - 87%

QBC - 85%

If you had to roll the dice, making any combination you wanted, the team with RBA wins, even if he has the less stable QB.

Coop, In light of how much you're stance has been attacked on this thread, I must say that you've defended you're position valiantly and you obviously have a ton of patience. But it looks like you haven't changed anyone's mind at all. By the way, where are all the people who AGREE with you? I thought the concept of waiting on an RB was THE MINORITY POSITION?! Surely youre not the only one.

As far as those % stats above, If you assume that an RBA has only a 50% chance of making it through the year. Without even considering anything else at all, why would you want to flip a coin in the first round? The advantage in year end points or PPG would have to be astronomical for me to take that gamble. By the way, thats the problem with arbitrary, made up numbers....You can make them say anything you want, and can analyze them from any perspective.

 

[Concept Coop]

Another example:Eli Manning is more likely to finish in the top 10, consistantly, over the next 5 years than about 95% of the RBs in the NFL today. Would you take him over Frank Gore, Steven Jackson, Peyton Hillis, or even CJ Spiller?No. You wouldn't. Why? Because having a top 6-10 QB for 5 years offers you little to ZERO advantage. Having a top 10 RB for ONE season, is worth more than having the QB8 for 10 seasons in a row. QB8 is not an advantage.Another flaw in your argument: You start 2+ RBs. Meaning that finishing in the top 20 for a RB is equal to finishing in the top 10 for a QB. That is assuming you only start two RBs and have no flex spots.

Noone is advocating taking Eli in round 1. Rodgers/Rivers/Brees/Peyton is a different story. Even when they finish QB8 in one year, they usually bounce right back the next.

You think Rivers, Brees and Peyton are 1st round draft picks in most formats? Unless it is a start 2/superflex, that is terrible value for the reasons I have given. And the "study" did suggest that Eli Manning was more valuable. He finishes in the top 10 more and more consistantly than the LARGE majority of position players. If the study shows that QBs are more valuable because of that, Eli Manning falls in that catagory. You need a top 5 QB to have any advantage. Even then, it is not a great advantage. You only start 1 QB. You usually start 2 RBs and have 1-2 flex options. Meaning, even the 24th ranked RB can give you an advantage, if you start him at the flex spot.

 

[Concept Coop]

What it means is that RBs are less stable and more of a variable from a production standpoint. Some get injured and are out of a few games, others get hurt and end up losing long-term value because someone else came in and performed well. It happens less in the passing game world.

Because RBs are less stable, the stable ones are worth more.The fact that RBBCs are so prevalant and there is so much turnover ONLY creates a bigger gap between elite RBs and averge RB. A bigger gap means more value over replacement.

Not to be rude, but your research does the opposite of suggesting that top RBs are worth less.

Is Aaron Rodgers more valuable than Adrian Peterson if I can get Tom Brady in the 6th, but the only RBs on the board are Cedric Benson and Ryan Grant? Who is more likely to win a championship in a 5 year period? AP/TB or AR/CB? The obvious choice is the team that got value early - the team that drafted Adrian Peterson.

You are comparing accross positions and that does nothing to estabish value between possitions.

5 years of RB1 production is worth a lot more than 5 years of QB1 production.

Coop,

I and others have asked this question of you and you have dodged it. Who are the RB's that you consider stable? Please provide a list of names and then we can have a more fruitful discussion about this.

It doesn't matter who I consider stable. I have answered this question. The answer to that question is that it doesn't matter how I grade players. It is a universal concept. Even if you think RBA has a 50% stability score, he is worth more than QBA (90%) in this example:

RBA - 50%

RBB - 40%

RBC - 30%

QBA - 90%

QBB - 87%

QBC - 85%

If you had to roll the dice, making any combination you wanted, the team with RBA wins, even if he has the less stable QB.

Coop, In light of how much you're stance has been attacked on this thread, I must say that you've defended you're position valiantly and you obviously have a ton of patience. But it looks like you haven't changed anyone's mind at all. By the way, where are all the people who AGREE with you? I thought the concept of waiting on an RB was THE MINORITY POSITION?! Surely youre not the only one.

As far as those % stats above, If you assume that an RBA has only a 50% chance of making it through the year. Without even considering anything else at all, why would you want to flip a coin in the first round? The advantage in year end points or PPG would have to be astronomical for me to take that gamble. By the way, thats the problem with arbitrary, made up numbers....You can make them say anything you want, and can analyze them from any perspective.

1. The concept is the minority position. Look at the startup drafts. People can say what they want now. But give them the 1.01 and see who they take.2. That 50% was just an example. But to answer your question, you would flip the coin because a 50% chance gives you the best advantage over your completion. Come up with any combination you want - whoever has the 50% chance that you downplay, wins. It is about winning.

3. The arbitrary numbers only reflect the arguments being made against VOPR: Most running are not consistently productive and healthy. I agree. But because there are in fact consistently productive and healthy RBs, they get a bump in value, due to the short comings of their peers. Some seem to think it is the opposite.

4. Pennies are worth a penny. But if you destroyed all but 50 - those fifty would be more valuable than any paper bill - supply and demand. The more workhorse backs become a thing of the past, the more valuable those that buck the trend are.

5. Thanks.

 

[Concept Coop]

To sum: High RB = less likely to repeat means that Low RB = more likely to finish highHigh WR = more likely to repeat means Low WR = less likely to finish highRound 1RBA - 70% chance of 100 VORP - 70WRA - 90% chance of 100 VORP - 90Round 6RBB - 20% chance of 100 VORP - 20WRB - 10% chance of 100 VORP - 10WR1 and RB2 (110) are SAFER and SMARTER picks than RB1 and WR2 (80). Because you MUST ACCOUNT FOR RISK.

I posted actual VORP scores for last year. RBs have more VORP. That is where your example falls short. You would need TWO Roddy Whites to match what Foster did. Foster was more valuable than double the best WR. WRs might last longer. But they do not have a higher, per/season, shot at 100 VORP. Roddy White had less than 100.

 

[zilladog]

What it means is that RBs are less stable and more of a variable from a production standpoint. Some get injured and are out of a few games, others get hurt and end up losing long-term value because someone else came in and performed well. It happens less in the passing game world.

Because RBs are less stable, the stable ones are worth more.The fact that RBBCs are so prevalant and there is so much turnover ONLY creates a bigger gap between elite RBs and averge RB. A bigger gap means more value over replacement.

Not to be rude, but your research does the opposite of suggesting that top RBs are worth less.

Is Aaron Rodgers more valuable than Adrian Peterson if I can get Tom Brady in the 6th, but the only RBs on the board are Cedric Benson and Ryan Grant? Who is more likely to win a championship in a 5 year period? AP/TB or AR/CB? The obvious choice is the team that got value early - the team that drafted Adrian Peterson.

You are comparing accross positions and that does nothing to estabish value between possitions.

5 years of RB1 production is worth a lot more than 5 years of QB1 production.

Coop,

I and others have asked this question of you and you have dodged it. Who are the RB's that you consider stable? Please provide a list of names and then we can have a more fruitful discussion about this.

It doesn't matter who I consider stable. I have answered this question. The answer to that question is that it doesn't matter how I grade players. It is a universal concept. Even if you think RBA has a 50% stability score, he is worth more than QBA (90%) in this example:

RBA - 50%

RBB - 40%

RBC - 30%

QBA - 90%

QBB - 87%

QBC - 85%

If you had to roll the dice, making any combination you wanted, the team with RBA wins, even if he has the less stable QB.

Coop, In light of how much you're stance has been attacked on this thread, I must say that you've defended you're position valiantly and you obviously have a ton of patience. But it looks like you haven't changed anyone's mind at all. By the way, where are all the people who AGREE with you? I thought the concept of waiting on an RB was THE MINORITY POSITION?! Surely youre not the only one.

As far as those % stats above, If you assume that an RBA has only a 50% chance of making it through the year. Without even considering anything else at all, why would you want to flip a coin in the first round? The advantage in year end points or PPG would have to be astronomical for me to take that gamble. By the way, thats the problem with arbitrary, made up numbers....You can make them say anything you want, and can analyze them from any perspective.

1. The concept is the minority position. Look at the startup drafts. People can say what they want now. But give them the 1.01 and see who they take.2. That 50% was just an example. But to answer your question, you would flip the coin because a 50% chance gives you the best advantage over your completion. Come up with any combination you want - whoever has the 50% chance that you downplay, wins. It is about winning.

3. The arbitrary numbers only reflect the arguments being made against VOPR: Most running are not consistently productive and healthy. I agree. But because there are in fact consistently productive and healthy RBs, they get a bump in value, due to the short comings of their peers. Some seem to think it is the opposite.

4. Pennies are worth a penny. But if you destroyed all but 50 - those fifty would be more valuable than any paper bill - supply and demand. The more workhorse backs become a thing of the past, the more valuable those that buck the trend are.

5. Thanks.

Pretty sure this has been said before, but I believe Mike Vick gave owners the biggest advantage over thier competition(standard scoring), With maybe Arian Foster coming in a distant second? Isn't Vick just about as stable as any RB? Tell me why you wouldn't take him 1st overall again?The example about your destroyed pennies is actually the exact same argument I made about QB and TE. It seems like your proposing that only RB's have an elite, rare tier. Obviously not so. And the fact is that the elite RB tier changes from year to year more often than QB or TE. Thats the rub. So taking an elite RB over an elite QB is actually a losing proposition because the risk of meeting his potential is much less.

The elite tier of Rb's, while giving you a larger ppg advantage, is almost a complete revolving door. Not the case with QB and TE. The field of "consistent, startable" producers is larger at RB than any other position. Much larger. That's been my argument all along. A guy like McCoy may be elite now, but theres a huge likelihood that he's just an average RB1 down the road. Which nets you absolutely no advantage at all. In fact, now your at a disadvantage because the ppg differential between your team and mine has shifted in my QB and TE's favor.

Can't speak for the rest of you, but give me the 1.01 and it's Arodg 10 times out of 10.

 

[zilladog]

You know what would be cool? If Cecil, Sig and Matt weighed in on this on the audible tonight

 

[pretender]

You know what would be cool? If Cecil, Sig and Matt weighed in on this on the audible tonight

I agree As for me - I have 1.1 in a startup and I was going to go Calvin Johnson - I ended up after trades with 1.1 1.2 and 1.3 and will be drafting Aaron Rodgers number 1 Cal Johnson 2 and Ray Rice 3. I traded so I could have Rodgers as the person in between 1.1 and 1.3 was going to take Rodgers. Just 2 cents edit to add - start 1 QB -5 pts per TD - start 1 RB 3 WR 1 TE and 2 flex RB/WR/TE and TE get 1.5 - RB and WR ppr only

 

[Concept Coop]

Pretty sure this has been said before, but I believe Mike Vick gave owners the biggest advantage over thier competition(standard scoring), With maybe Arian Foster coming in a distant second? Isn't Vick just about as stable as any RB? Tell me why you wouldn't take him 1st overall again?The example about your destroyed pennies is actually the exact same argument I made about QB and TE. It seems like your proposing that only RB's have an elite, rare tier. Obviously not so. And the fact is that the elite RB tier changes from year to year more often than QB or TE. Thats the rub. So taking an elite RB over an elite QB is actually a losing proposition because the risk of meeting his potential is much less. The elite tier of Rb's, while giving you a larger ppg advantage, is almost a complete revolving door. Not the case with QB and TE. The field of "consistent, startable" producers is larger at RB than any other position. Much larger. That's been my argument all along. A guy like McCoy may be elite now, but theres a huge likelihood that he's just an average RB1 down the road. Which nets you absolutely no advantage at all. In fact, now your at a disadvantage because the ppg differential between your team and mine has shifted in my QB and TE's favor.Can't speak for the rest of you, but give me the 1.01 and it's Arodg 10 times out of 10.

I don't think Vick did. You have to remember that Vick would have to score more than the #12 QB by a wider margin than Foster outscored the #24RB. And that is if there are no flex spots. I am not talking about elite or rare talent. I am talking about numbers.You can take Aaron Rodgers 1.01, but it is an awful pick. You surrender a huge advantage to the rest of your league. Tom Brady is going in the 6th. Manning, Vick and Brees in the 3rd-4th. Romo and Ben in the 5th.

 

[thriftyrocker]

I don't think Vick did. You have to remember that Vick would have to score more than the #12 QB by a wider margin than Foster outscored the #24RB.

That happened last year, who is more likely to repeat?

Tom Brady is going in the 6th. Manning, Vick and Brees in the 3rd-4th. Romo and Ben in the 5th.

Best, Moreno, Ingram in the 3rd-4th. Hillis, Wells in the 5th. Do you think the difference between Hillis and Foster is bigger than the difference between Brady and Vick? (Edit: I mean Brady and Rodgers)

 

[Instinctive]

To sum: High RB = less likely to repeat means that Low RB = more likely to finish highHigh WR = more likely to repeat means Low WR = less likely to finish highRound 1RBA - 70% chance of 100 VORP - 70WRA - 90% chance of 100 VORP - 90Round 6RBB - 20% chance of 100 VORP - 20WRB - 10% chance of 100 VORP - 10WR1 and RB2 (110) are SAFER and SMARTER picks than RB1 and WR2 (80). Because you MUST ACCOUNT FOR RISK.

I posted actual VORP scores for last year. RBs have more VORP. That is where your example falls short. You would need TWO Roddy Whites to match what Foster did. Foster was more valuable than double the best WR. WRs might last longer. But they do not have a higher, per/season, shot at 100 VORP. Roddy White had less than 100.

And where was Foster drafted? You're using a 5th-7th round ADP (started 7th and rose to early 5th around the start of the season) to prove the point that you should take a RB in the first round.Yes, the best RBs are more valuable. Yes, if you could accurately predict who they would be, I would take one. No, you cannot accurately predict that.You say I need 2 Roddy White's to match Foster. Well I took AJ and Roddy in the first and second. AND Foster later. That's my strategy. You absolutely 100% cannot use Foster to prove your point because he wasn't drafted there. Foster proves my point. The point that it makes more sense to take wideouts early because the RBs who end up at the top, with the most VBD, weren't drafted there.

 

[gandalas]

To sum: High RB = less likely to repeat means that Low RB = more likely to finish highHigh WR = more likely to repeat means Low WR = less likely to finish highRound 1RBA - 70% chance of 100 VORP - 70WRA - 90% chance of 100 VORP - 90Round 6RBB - 20% chance of 100 VORP - 20WRB - 10% chance of 100 VORP - 10WR1 and RB2 (110) are SAFER and SMARTER picks than RB1 and WR2 (80). Because you MUST ACCOUNT FOR RISK.

I posted actual VORP scores for last year. RBs have more VORP. That is where your example falls short. You would need TWO Roddy Whites to match what Foster did. Foster was more valuable than double the best WR. WRs might last longer. But they do not have a higher, per/season, shot at 100 VORP. Roddy White had less than 100.

But why are you using Arian Foster? He was not a 1st round pick in any startup last season, so he is not relevant to your proposal. In fact, he is a much bigger example of waiting late.Why not use the numbers from the #1 at both positions? Chris Johnson vs Andre Johnson (in most cases).To bring the position that drafting a RB early is the best strategy and then using Arian Foster as an example defeats your position from the start. At least Roddy was a borderline 1st rounder (definitely top-3 rounds)

 

[Tau837]

And where was Foster drafted? You're using a 5th-7th round ADP (started 7th and rose to early 5th around the start of the season) to prove the point that you should take a RB in the first round.Yes, the best RBs are more valuable. Yes, if you could accurately predict who they would be, I would take one. No, you cannot accurately predict that.You say I need 2 Roddy White's to match Foster. Well I took AJ and Roddy in the first and second. AND Foster later. That's my strategy. You absolutely 100% cannot use Foster to prove your point because he wasn't drafted there. Foster proves my point. The point that it makes more sense to take wideouts early because the RBs who end up at the top, with the most VBD, weren't drafted there.

This is the entire point that multiple posters have been arguing all along.

 

[Steed]

The only guy relevant to Coop's point is adrian Peterson since he's finished top 5 every year in the league. After him and maybe Chris Johnson, good luck b\c it's a crapshoot.

 

[Go deep]

And where was Foster drafted? You're using a 5th-7th round ADP (started 7th and rose to early 5th around the start of the season) to prove the point that you should take a RB in the first round.Yes, the best RBs are more valuable. Yes, if you could accurately predict who they would be, I would take one. No, you cannot accurately predict that.You say I need 2 Roddy White's to match Foster. Well I took AJ and Roddy in the first and second. AND Foster later. That's my strategy. You absolutely 100% cannot use Foster to prove your point because he wasn't drafted there. Foster proves my point. The point that it makes more sense to take wideouts early because the RBs who end up at the top, with the most VBD, weren't drafted there.

This is the entire point that multiple posters have been arguing all along.

Yep, the thing I think Coop if missing is we all understand that a RB is more valuable than other positions IF you are lucky enough to guess which ones they are. If we didnt draft actual players, but just positions and where they rank by years end we would all take RB1 over WR1.

 

[Instinctive]

The only guy relevant to Coop's point is adrian Peterson since he's finished top 5 every year in the league. After him and maybe Chris Johnson, good luck b\c it's a crapshoot.

And if I were stuck with a top 2 pick, I'd grab one of them. I'd probably take Charles 1.03. I might even take McCoy at 1.04, but I doubt it.Of course, the bottom line for me is that if I got stuck with any pick before the 8th or so...I'd be doing all I could to trade back and pick up extras. Because it's great to get extras and because I would rather be drafting in the back area anyway and starting with 2 receivers and Rivers or Rodgers in the first three rounds.

Of course, if I missed on those two, I would keep going receiver and an elite TE before trying to tandem Freeman and Bradford. Then just shotgun RBs the rest of the draft.

 

[I was in the pool]

That was my point. Yes if I had a top two pick, johnson and peterson would be the choices. Outside of that...high crap shoot percentage. Give me elite players at any of the other positions in the other spots in the first round...which would be the situation for most owners in the league.

 

[Concept Coop]

The only guy relevant to Coop's point is adrian Peterson since he's finished top 5 every year in the league. After him and maybe Chris Johnson, good luck b\c it's a crapshoot.

That is based on your projections. I project McCoy to do it, as well as a few others. It is based on your projections. After you have your projections, compare them to other RBs, not other WRs.

 

[Concept Coop]

And where was Foster drafted? You're using a 5th-7th round ADP (started 7th and rose to early 5th around the start of the season) to prove the point that you should take a RB in the first round.Yes, the best RBs are more valuable. Yes, if you could accurately predict who they would be, I would take one. No, you cannot accurately predict that.You say I need 2 Roddy White's to match Foster. Well I took AJ and Roddy in the first and second. AND Foster later. That's my strategy. You absolutely 100% cannot use Foster to prove your point because he wasn't drafted there. Foster proves my point. The point that it makes more sense to take wideouts early because the RBs who end up at the top, with the most VBD, weren't drafted there.

This is the entire point that multiple posters have been arguing all along.

My point is Arian Foter this year. I can buy a lottery ticket and win Millions. Is it still a sound investment?Oh. And Miles Austin.

 

[Concept Coop]

And where was Foster drafted? You're using a 5th-7th round ADP (started 7th and rose to early 5th around the start of the season) to prove the point that you should take a RB in the first round.Yes, the best RBs are more valuable. Yes, if you could accurately predict who they would be, I would take one. No, you cannot accurately predict that.You say I need 2 Roddy White's to match Foster. Well I took AJ and Roddy in the first and second. AND Foster later. That's my strategy. You absolutely 100% cannot use Foster to prove your point because he wasn't drafted there. Foster proves my point. The point that it makes more sense to take wideouts early because the RBs who end up at the top, with the most VBD, weren't drafted there.

This is the entire point that multiple posters have been arguing all along.

Yep, the thing I think Coop if missing is we all understand that a RB is more valuable than other positions IF you are lucky enough to guess which ones they are. If we didnt draft actual players, but just positions and where they rank by years end we would all take RB1 over WR1.

You don't have to guess. Watch the games, judge talent, do your projections, and so on.A 50% chance at $100 is a more valuable option than a sure $40. But if the $40 helps you sleep better at night, more power to you.And you have A LOT of adjustments to make in your rankings. You have the top RBs ranked well above the other positions. If the others are safer, and I am missing that point, your rankings are wrong too.

 

[Go deep]

And where was Foster drafted? You're using a 5th-7th round ADP (started 7th and rose to early 5th around the start of the season) to prove the point that you should take a RB in the first round.Yes, the best RBs are more valuable. Yes, if you could accurately predict who they would be, I would take one. No, you cannot accurately predict that.You say I need 2 Roddy White's to match Foster. Well I took AJ and Roddy in the first and second. AND Foster later. That's my strategy. You absolutely 100% cannot use Foster to prove your point because he wasn't drafted there. Foster proves my point. The point that it makes more sense to take wideouts early because the RBs who end up at the top, with the most VBD, weren't drafted there.

This is the entire point that multiple posters have been arguing all along.

Yep, the thing I think Coop if missing is we all understand that a RB is more valuable than other positions IF you are lucky enough to guess which ones they are. If we didnt draft actual players, but just positions and where they rank by years end we would all take RB1 over WR1.

You don't have to guess. Watch the games, judge talent, do your projections, and so on.A 50% chance at $100 is a more valuable option than a sure $40. But if the $40 helps you sleep better at night, more power to you.And you have A LOT of adjustments to make in your rankings. You have the top RBs ranked well above the other positions. If the others are safer, and I am missing that point, your rankings are wrong too.

If my RB1 is a 50% chance at $100 and my WR a 100% chance of $40 I take the RB. However, in my rankings, my RB1 is a 50% of $100 and my WR1 is a 60% chance of $98. Also, my PPR rankings are still a work in progress, but they accurately reflect how my first round would go. Calvin world be my 1.1, followed by 4 RBs(CJ, Charles, AD, MJD) before I would consider another WR. ETA, I dont now about you, but watching games, judging talent, doing projections and so on doesnt mean i always get it right. Like i said though, if you somehow know whats going to happen, then yes, RB is probably the way to go.

 

[Instinctive]

And where was Foster drafted? You're using a 5th-7th round ADP (started 7th and rose to early 5th around the start of the season) to prove the point that you should take a RB in the first round.Yes, the best RBs are more valuable. Yes, if you could accurately predict who they would be, I would take one. No, you cannot accurately predict that.You say I need 2 Roddy White's to match Foster. Well I took AJ and Roddy in the first and second. AND Foster later. That's my strategy. You absolutely 100% cannot use Foster to prove your point because he wasn't drafted there. Foster proves my point. The point that it makes more sense to take wideouts early because the RBs who end up at the top, with the most VBD, weren't drafted there.

This is the entire point that multiple posters have been arguing all along.

My point is Arian Foter this year. I can buy a lottery ticket and win Millions. Is it still a sound investment?Oh. And Miles Austin.

The chances of winning the lottery are significantly lower than picking the right RB and you know it. This year meaning in a redraft? Dynasty: I suppose if I really had to pick at say, 1.5, and I couldn't trade, in a dynasty...I would hope for Charles. And if he wasn't there, and AD/CJ are gone, I would consider Foster and McCoy. But I'd probably take Calvin. And I'd only take Calvin because I think Nicks might make it back to me and doubt Calvin would.ETA: And I bet Foster isn't in the top 5 this year. And Calvin is. And Calvin will have more VORP than Foster. Sig bet or something? Difficult since we don;t know about a season yet, but I'm sure we could work something out. Calvin is a better value this year, and every year after, than Foster. Purely based on VORP.

 

[Dez]

I forgot to mention my # 1 draft rule that so many owners do NOT go by: Never ever ever ever draft a kicker until your very last pick and just take one that has the latest bye week. Every year I see owners take kickers in the teen rounds while I take sleeper backs and receivers. Last season I waited until the last round and took Janikowski in most of my leagues since his bye was Week 10. Worked out just fine.

If that is your #1 rule you have problems. The kicker is the least of my worries. Also since you only have 1 start up draft who cares when the kicker byes it isn't like he is going to bye in the last week every single season.To each its own though.

 

[thriftyrocker]

You don't have to guess. Watch the games, judge talent, do your projections, and so on.

How do you judge being healthy? Where are teams who took DeAngelo Williams in the 1st 2 years ago? Where are teams who took Ronnie Brown in the 1st 5 years ago? The league is littered with Rd 1 talent backs who haven't been able to put 10 game stretches together let alone 3 or 4 years.

 

[Steed]

The only guy relevant to Coop's point is adrian Peterson since he's finished top 5 every year in the league. After him and maybe Chris Johnson, good luck b\c it's a crapshoot.

That is based on your projections. I project McCoy to do it, as well as a few others. It is based on your projections. After you have your projections, compare them to other RBs, not other WRs.

That's all fine and good for this year. Now project 2,3,4 and 5 years out. The numbers will catch up to your expensive RB stable much faster than my low budget WRs.

 

[eaglesfan7]

I forgot to mention my # 1 draft rule that so many owners do NOT go by: Never ever ever ever draft a kicker until your very last pick and just take one that has the latest bye week. Every year I see owners take kickers in the teen rounds while I take sleeper backs and receivers. Last season I waited until the last round and took Janikowski in most of my leagues since his bye was Week 10. Worked out just fine.

If that is your #1 rule you have problems. The kicker is the least of my worries. Also since you only have 1 start up draft who cares when the kicker byes it isn't like he is going to bye in the last week every single season.To each its own though.

Half joking. But I do that in every league.

 

[zilladog]

Let's talk a little about value. I wanted to go back to 2010 and figure out what the best value for getting the best team possible would have been. I went and found an ADP for all 2010 draft picks (MFL ADP 12 team non-ppr keeper league list). Remember, I'm trying not only to get the team that scored the most points, but also maximize the value of each draft pick. I wanted to keep it simple so I used these criteria:

scoring (1 pt for every 25 yds passing. -2 for INT. 1 pt for every 10 yds rushing and recieving, 6 pts for all TD's. -2 for Fumble lost) Standard defense and kicker scoring)

12 teams, non-ppr

1 QB

2 RB

2 WR

1 TE

1 Flex (RB, WR, TE)

1 K

1 DEF

This is just the best starting lineup. No bench players were factored in (For simplicity)

In order to get the best possible 2010 team, you would've had to have drafted like this:

1 - Jamaal Charles (ADP 3.10)

2 - Antonio Gates (ADP 4.09)

3 - Arian Foster (ADP 4.12)

4 - Mike Wallace (ADP 6.11)

5 - Steelers DEF (ADP 12.06)

6 - Mason Crosby (ADP. 15.04)

7 - Peyton Hillis (ADP 19.06)

8 - Brandon Lloyd (ADP Undrafted)

9 - Mike Vick (ADP Undrafted)

The thing that stands out as a complete anomaly to me here is Mike Vick. I can't remember the last time a QB went undrafted in leagues and broke out to the extent that Vick did (Brady in 01?) The likelihood of that happening again is slim to none. So in the effort of fairness and to get the best idea of who should've been drafted (not claimed off of waivers), below is the same draft with the undrafted players removed.

1 - Peyton Manning (ADP 1.11)

2 - Roddy White (ADP 3.02)

3 - Jamaal Charles (ADP 3.10)

4 - Antonio Gates (ADP 4.09)

5 - Amahd Bradshaw (ADP 6.04)

6 - Mike Wallace (ADP 6.11)

7 - Steelers DEF (ADP 12.06)

8 - Mason Crosby (ADP. 15.04)

9 - Peyton Hillis (ADP 19.06)

So there ya go.

 

[zilladog]

Let's talk a little about value. I wanted to go back to 2010 and figure out what the best value for getting the best team possible would have been. I went and found an ADP for all 2010 draft picks (MFL ADP 12 team non-ppr keeper league list). Remember, I'm trying not only to get the team that scored the most points, but also maximize the value of each draft pick. I wanted to keep it simple so I used these criteria:scoring (1 pt for every 25 yds passing. -2 for INT. 1 pt for every 10 yds rushing and recieving, 6 pts for all TD's. -2 for Fumble lost) Standard defense and kicker scoring)12 teams, non-ppr1 QB2 RB2 WR1 TE1 Flex (RB, WR, TE)1 K1 DEFThis is just the best starting lineup. No bench players were factored in (For simplicity)In order to get the best possible 2010 team, you would've had to have drafted like this: 1 - Jamaal Charles (ADP 3.10) 2 - Antonio Gates (ADP 4.09) 3 - Arian Foster (ADP 4.12) 4 - Mike Wallace (ADP 6.11) 5 - Steelers DEF (ADP 12.06) 6 - Mason Crosby (ADP. 15.04) 7 - Peyton Hillis (ADP 19.06) 8 - Brandon Lloyd (ADP Undrafted) 9 - Mike Vick (ADP Undrafted) The thing that stands out as a complete anomaly to me here is Mike Vick. I can't remember the last time a QB went undrafted in leagues and broke out to the extent that Vick did (Brady in 01?) The likelihood of that happening again is slim to none. So in the effort of fairness and to get the best idea of who should've been drafted (not claimed off of waivers), below is the same draft with the undrafted players removed. 1 - Peyton Manning (ADP 1.11) 2 - Roddy White (ADP 3.02) 3 - Jamaal Charles (ADP 3.10) 4 - Antonio Gates (ADP 4.09) 5 - Amahd Bradshaw (ADP 6.04) 6 - Mike Wallace (ADP 6.11) 7 - Steelers DEF (ADP 12.06) 8 - Mason Crosby (ADP. 15.04) 9 - Peyton Hillis (ADP 19.06)So there ya go.

I encourage Coop and others to do the same and see if they come up with anything different. If my analysis is wrong, it's all good, I'd like to see how

 

[zilladog]

bump. I just want to make sure Coop see this, because I'm very interested in his take.

 

[RobertBobson]

I signed up a couple days ago to contribute to this thread, and finally my account is up and running...

I think a lot of people are making a strategic mistake if they value a player like Calvin Johnson or Aarod as the number one player over all, if they actually take them number 1 over all. The reason I say that is, most of the drafts I've participated in (or seen) the elite running backs get drafted in the top of the first. If Aarod or calvin are the players you want, there is more value in trading down in the first round, picking up a draft pick in a later round. if you take Aarod first over all, I think you are giving up significant value.

I also think people play the best case scenerio with " oh, I can just draft running backs in later rounds, it will be no big deal. " and will give arian foster in the 6th round as the example. But they never give the examples of all the mediocre backs that are taken in those rounds. People also use this argument for why you don't need to draft a QB early in the real NFL, because of guys like Brady and Romo. They never mention the legions of 6th round picks, of undrafted Qbs, who amount to nothing.

According to ADP, the 1st round running backs in ppr flex leagues were last year were Chris Johnson 1.01, AP 1.02, ray rice 1.03, MJD 1.05, Frank Gore 1.06, Michael turner 1.09 and SJax 1.11.

Last season ( and granted, one season isn't the only measure of a drat pick's worth) did any of them justify their draft ranking? Not on my PPR league. Ray Rice was the closest, drafted 3rd of out running backs, and finishing fifth in scoring. However...

Chris Johnson was 7th, AP was 6th rice 5th, mjd 13th, turner 14th, sjax 10th. So, by taking a running back in the first round, the WORST thing you'd end up with is a high RB2. There were no busts in the first round. That is what is meant by predictably.

If you wait to take running backs, you are gambling that you are going to hit with your rbs. But many are treating that gamble as if it's a sure thing you're going to draft Charles in the 3rd, Foster in the forth.. What if you drafted pierre thomas and Joseph Addai? Then where are you?

Lets say last season you are of the belief that you can wait on stud Running backs, and you decide to draft elite WRs, QB and TE.

You take Aarod with the 1.06. You take Fitz with the 2.07. You take Steve Smith Giants with the 3.06. You take jermichael finley with the 4.07. So now what? You take Knowshon Moreno, Justin Forsett and brandon jacobs? Sure, maybe you land DMC and Fred Jackson in a later round. Or maybe you end up with Laurnece Maroney and Donald Brown. Then where is your team?

I think the quality and predictability of QB's is rather deep. There are many consistent qb's that can be expected to produce as QB1's (barring injury) year after year. There is little need to reach into the top of the first to get one, when one can be gotten much later.

As a general drafting philosophy, I will take a stud RB or WR in the first, depending on who falls to me. I will do the same in the second, though if Arod specifically has fallen to a ridiculous degree, and I drafted a RB in the first, I would take him instead. I will always take a Running back in the first two rounds. I would prefer to take 2 running backs in the first 3 rounds. I would prefer to do this because I think the quality of running backs in the 4th and 5th is not as deep as the quality of the wrs. I will only take, at most, in the first 5 rounds, 1 qb or te. if I take a qb, I will wait many rounds for a TE, and take two young ones with upside. IF I take a TE in the first 5 rounds, I won't wait as long to take a QB, but I will try to get one young QB I like, and one older more reliable one.

 

[eaglesfan7]

Okay guys, I'm getting together a dynasty league for FBG forums members only based on the conversations going in this thread. I have sent out emails to specific FBG forums members that will now have a chance to back up all this talk that has been going back and forth on here. I hope you all respond and have enough guts to join. It's small money ($20 or $25 per owner) but it's more about bragging rights for these forums. Anyone who I did not invite and is interested, please send me a pm. You must have a minimum amount of posts on these forums to join. And for you all you guys/gals talking trash about how good you are in fantasy, stop talking and start walking. Otherwise, fade into oblivion.

 

[Eastwood]

Win early so you can play with house money for the next few years. But don't draft too old

 

[eaglesfan7]

And I forgot to mention we'll be drafting a week or two after the NFL draft. The NFL draft is Thursday so rookie rankings will see some change over the next couple of weeks.

 

[Instinctive]

Okay guys, I'm getting together a dynasty league for FBG forums members only based on the conversations going in this thread. I have sent out emails to specific FBG forums members that will now have a chance to back up all this talk that has been going back and forth on here. I hope you all respond and have enough guts to join. It's small money ($20 or $25 per owner) but it's more about bragging rights for these forums. Anyone who I did not invite and is interested, please send me a pm. You must have a minimum amount of posts on these forums to join. And for you all you guys/gals talking trash about how good you are in fantasy, stop talking and start walking. Otherwise, fade into oblivion.

I think it's kinda funny how under 1k posts is the guy requiring a minimum number...Other than that - I'd do it for bragging rights but not money.

 

[eaglesfan7]

Who said anything about 1000 posts? Sit on the sideline and don't back up your talk. That's fine with the rest of us.

 

[eaglesfan7]

And what's $25? Too much to handle? That's basically for bragging rights. The $25 is to pay a winner and runner up.

 

[Instinctive]

And what's $25? Too much to handle? That's basically for bragging rights. The $25 is to pay a winner and runner up.

I'm a college student. I gotta pay my housing costs and food. And gas. And a girlfriend that I treat right and fly to see every other month or so. I have a couple money leagues, and adding another isn't a priority.And I think you're a knowledgable poster and all, just though it was funny for someone who hasn't been around too long to require a minimum number of posts is all.

 

[Go deep]

And what's $25? Too much to handle? That's basically for bragging rights. The $25 is to pay a winner and runner up.

I'm a college student. I gotta pay my housing costs and food. And gas. And a girlfriend that I treat right and fly to see every other month or so. I have a couple money leagues, and adding another isn't a priority.And I think you're a knowledgable poster and all, just though it was funny for someone who hasn't been around too long to require a minimum number of posts is all.

I thought it was pretty funny too that he sets standards to get in that he didnt even qualify for. Not as funny as flying your girlfriend in every other month though, dont they have girls near where you live?

 

[eaglesfan7]

I didn't set the standard of 1k posts, instinctive just threw it out there. No biggy though. I will only invite people with more than a few posts is because I want the league to consist of fbg forums members who post on a regular basis. Is there something wrong with that?

On a side note, it seems funny that Go Deep is one of the only members who hasn't responded to the invite. For someone who talks so much all i see is bark, no bite. I guess it would look bad to draft a team that goes in the gutter while constantly updating his so called "rankings".

 

[eaglesfan7]

Instinctive,

I totally understand if you have more important things to do with your money. I have no problem with that.

 

[Instinctive]

I didn't set the standard of 1k posts, instinctive just threw it out there. No biggy though. I will only invite people with more than a few posts is because I want the league to consist of fbg forums members who post on a regular basis. Is there something wrong with that?On a side note, it seems funny that Go Deep is one of the only members who hasn't responded to the invite. For someone who talks so much all i see is bark, no bite. I guess it would look bad to draft a team that goes in the gutter while constantly updating his so called "rankings".

Yeah I just tossed that out there. And I totally understand wanting people with some experience, I agree with that. Just the thought of a minimum limit was funny to me.

Instinctive, I totally understand if you have more important things to do with your money. I have no problem with that.

Thanks - I'd love to participate if ti was free - and my competitive side says I'd kick all yall's asses!

 

[Go deep]

I didn't set the standard of 1k posts, instinctive just threw it out there. No biggy though. I will only invite people with more than a few posts is because I want the league to consist of fbg forums members who post on a regular basis. Is there something wrong with that?On a side note, it seems funny that Go Deep is one of the only members who hasn't responded to the invite. For someone who talks so much all i see is bark, no bite. I guess it would look bad to draft a team that goes in the gutter while constantly updating his so called "rankings".

I thought i did respond?Anyway, I dont have the time to commit to another dynasty league as im already in four. Thanks anyway though.

 

[ZWK]

I don't think a challenge league works very well for this debate. You'd need to get a bunch of owners that are committed (and patient) enough to continue the league for several years, since drafting players at positions with more longevity is a long-term strategy. The anti-RB side of the argument (as I understand it) is that you should go less RB-heavy in dynasty than you do in redraft leagues, so obviously going RB-heavy will be an advantage in the first season of the dynasty (since the first season is like a redraft league). You can still compete in the first year of a dynasty if you go RB-light, but the real payoff in taking players at positions with more longevity starts around year 3 or 4, and can continue for many more years if you get a young Randy Moss/Tony Gonzalez/Peyton Manning type player.

 

[griff321]

Y'know, I think the Backyard Brawl 5 draft could be a test case for a lot of different strategies.

Concept Coop was in that one. Patoons and his "young WR" theory and Cobra Kai with his "youth over all" theory.

Then there was my draft....Elite QB or bust.

Those are just 4 of the 14 that readily spring to mind...I honestly can't wait to see how it all plays out.

Linky for the lazy: Backyard Brawl V

You really don't need to form another league when this league has multiple draft strategies. It's gonna be cool to check that league out down the line.

I just did a startup a few weeks ago in a 16 team PPR league with 2RBs/3WRs with mostly footballguys people. You have teams like mine and SCD waiting until the 6th and 8th rounds to take our first RB and others like Terre Haute Tatanka using 1.01, 2.16, and 3.01 on RBs. It's fairly diverse in the number of different draft strategies owners used, so it should be a good one to follow. http://www3.myfantasyleague.com/2011/home/53186#0

 

[Dez]

Someone in my start up draft last year took Ray Rice, McCoy and Foster looks like he is set for a very long time at RB.

Really you never know how things are going to turn out. There is no right or wrong strategy.

Would I have loved to have been the guy who took McCoy and Foster at picks 28 and 72 ? Sure I would have.

I passed actually on all 3 of those players several times. Looking back it hurts. Just like the day I trade Charles for Boldin in 2009.

I took Marshall really high how is that working out ? Not so good. You just never know.

There is no right or wrong strategy really. Just finding the players who will be good and not get hurt is a big key.

 

[zilladog]

I signed up a couple days ago to contribute to this thread, and finally my account is up and running...I think a lot of people are making a strategic mistake if they value a player like Calvin Johnson or Aarod as the number one player over all, if they actually take them number 1 over all. The reason I say that is, most of the drafts I've participated in (or seen) the elite running backs get drafted in the top of the first. If Aarod or calvin are the players you want, there is more value in trading down in the first round, picking up a draft pick in a later round. if you take Aarod first over all, I think you are giving up significant value.I also think people play the best case scenerio with " oh, I can just draft running backs in later rounds, it will be no big deal. " and will give arian foster in the 6th round as the example. But they never give the examples of all the mediocre backs that are taken in those rounds. People also use this argument for why you don't need to draft a QB early in the real NFL, because of guys like Brady and Romo. They never mention the legions of 6th round picks, of undrafted Qbs, who amount to nothing. According to ADP, the 1st round running backs in ppr flex leagues were last year were Chris Johnson 1.01, AP 1.02, ray rice 1.03, MJD 1.05, Frank Gore 1.06, Michael turner 1.09 and SJax 1.11. Last season ( and granted, one season isn't the only measure of a drat pick's worth) did any of them justify their draft ranking? Not on my PPR league. Ray Rice was the closest, drafted 3rd of out running backs, and finishing fifth in scoring. However...Chris Johnson was 7th, AP was 6th rice 5th, mjd 13th, turner 14th, sjax 10th. So, by taking a running back in the first round, the WORST thing you'd end up with is a high RB2. There were no busts in the first round. That is what is meant by predictably. If you wait to take running backs, you are gambling that you are going to hit with your rbs. But many are treating that gamble as if it's a sure thing you're going to draft Charles in the 3rd, Foster in the forth.. What if you drafted pierre thomas and Joseph Addai? Then where are you? Lets say last season you are of the belief that you can wait on stud Running backs, and you decide to draft elite WRs, QB and TE. You take Aarod with the 1.06. You take Fitz with the 2.07. You take Steve Smith Giants with the 3.06. You take jermichael finley with the 4.07. So now what? You take Knowshon Moreno, Justin Forsett and brandon jacobs? Sure, maybe you land DMC and Fred Jackson in a later round. Or maybe you end up with Laurnece Maroney and Donald Brown. Then where is your team?I think the quality and predictability of QB's is rather deep. There are many consistent qb's that can be expected to produce as QB1's (barring injury) year after year. There is little need to reach into the top of the first to get one, when one can be gotten much later.As a general drafting philosophy, I will take a stud RB or WR in the first, depending on who falls to me. I will do the same in the second, though if Arod specifically has fallen to a ridiculous degree, and I drafted a RB in the first, I would take him instead. I will always take a Running back in the first two rounds. I would prefer to take 2 running backs in the first 3 rounds. I would prefer to do this because I think the quality of running backs in the 4th and 5th is not as deep as the quality of the wrs. I will only take, at most, in the first 5 rounds, 1 qb or te. if I take a qb, I will wait many rounds for a TE, and take two young ones with upside. IF I take a TE in the first 5 rounds, I won't wait as long to take a QB, but I will try to get one young QB I like, and one older more reliable one.

First of all thanks for posting your thoughts and joining the boards!Ok, on to your agument...According to most standard scoring leagues (12 team, 1 point per 25 yds passing, 1 pt per 10 yds rushing and recieving, 6 pts per all td's, -2 per fumble and int)With no week 17 or NFL playoff numbers included...QB1 (Brady) averaged 23.1 ppgQB12 (Palmer) 17.1 ppgDifference = 6 ppgRB1 (Foster) 21.3RB12 (MOJO) 12.6Difference = 8.7RB1 (Foster) 21.3RB24 (Blount) 8.4Difference = 12.9WR1 (White) 14.9WR12 (Austin) 10.9Difference = 4WR1 (White) 14.9WR24 (Boldin) 8.5Difference = 6.4TE1 (Witten) 10.9TE12 (Tamme) 6.4Difference = 4.5So, clearly, as we all already agree, the biggest difference in ppg is at RB. However, if before your 2010 draft I would have told you that MOJO would only score like an RB2 and Arian Foster would have scored almost 9 ppg better, you wouldve called me nuts and drafted MOJO in the first round anyway. But thats niether here nor there. Let's build a team that we could realistically draft, eliminating the player names and going with just the numbers (cuz the names change every year)...Team A:QB1 = 23.1/ rd 1RB24 = 8.4/round 5RB25 = 8.3/ round 6WR4 = 13.8/round 2WR6 = 12.9/ round 3TE1 = 10.9/round 4TOTAL PPG = 77.4Team B:QB12 = 17.1/ round 6RB1 = 21.3/ round 1RB12 = 12.6/ round 2WR12 = 10.9/ round 3WR20 = 9.8/ round 4TE12 = 6.4/ round 5TOTAL PPG = 78.1Difference between team A and team B = .7 ppg. T less than 1 ppg I think it's safe to say that there is virtually no difference whatsoever between the strategies. Except when you look at the fact that the #1 RB wasn't drafted until round 4 AND an RB that was taken in the top 5 only managed to finish #12, or borderline RB2. The gamble of taking these RB's too high just isn't worth the ppg advantage.Why would I take Arodg or Calvin #1 overall? Because he likely has 8+ years of QB1/WR1 production. You can't buy that level of consistency and security with a RB. I have no issues with waiting until round 3/4 for Brady, however. Like I said before, the goal is to come out of round 4 with a tier 1 QB and TE. If you don't want to wait until round 5 for an RB and grab one in round 3 instead, more power to you, it's a perfectly fine strategy in my book. But drafting an RB in rounds 1 or 2 is pretty much like rolling dice. Ask yourselves where MOJO, Foster, Charles, Gore, Bradshaw, DMC, McCoy, and to an extent CJ2K and A.P. will be in 2 years? hell even 1 year? Even previous posters on this very thread who support RB early strategies admit that they likely only have a 50% shot at retaining thier job/value after a year. If you're drafting 1st overall in a 12 or more team league, you have only 1 chance at a top 20 player (based on projections) so it's smart to get the guy with the best chance at anchoring your team for years to come (Arodg and Calvin) even if it's a bit of a reach, because by the time it gets back to you in round 2, that opportunity is gone. It's much better to reach for this type of player than to gamble on MOJO or Ray Rice or some such guy.I'm sure if you did the same exercise I did above only for ppr, you'd likely find the results even more skewed in my strategy's favor. i encourage you tod do so.