Draft Strategy for Dynasty Startups (1 Viewer)

[Concept Coop]

I'd take Team B.

How many years do you need to catch up to team B, assuming team A is just as capable of at drafting/WW?

No more than one. Worst case, it's as bad as you say in year one and you get a great rookie RB in year two that makes your RB situation a lot better immediately. In reality, I think I could draft a better team than the one you show anyway, if I went RB late, and I think that team would compete in the first year.

Team B scores 5 PPG less, using PFTs projections...and they have Nicks scoring twice as much as Rice.But I guess we are not going to prove anything. My strongest point is the FBG value calculator. Fill it out, run it, and see where it ranks the RBs in comparision to the other spots.

 

[Instinctive]

RBs are valuable to other positions, yes. But what matters is that it is easier to find that valuable RB than it is to find the most valuable receivers. The guys with Calvin, AJ, Fitz - they have all had them for 3+ years now, easy. Nicks is a guy that was drafted, did well for a rookie, and then blew up. People who drafted him in startups around where I will be drafting AJ Green are looking good.

I could have drafted Brees, Andre, Calvin 3 years ago (pre-2008 season), and I think that's a reasonable first three rounds. Maybe I get Gates in round 4, maybe he's already gone. So I take Roddy White (he is probably gone) or Greg Jennings or Colston (probably gone with Roddy).

So here is my core:

Brees

Andre or Fitz (Andre was hurt, probably easier to get him than Fitz coming off a nice year)

Calvin - young stud to be off of a decent 700 yard rookie campaign

Greg Jennings - good year with Favre, but uncertainty in GB regarding QB

Here is a core following your strategy that year, I think:

Adrian Peterson (LT if you preferred him)

Marshawn/SJax/Addai - and who knows if Lynch falls to you in the 2nd...

Housh/Plaxico/Holt/Bowe/Santonio/Roy Williams - let's assue not Plax, bec the bad luck of his gun thing takes away from the exercise

Another of the above, or perhaps a QB - Hasselbeck/Cutler/Eli/Warner look to be this area, iirc

I think that the first team has performed very well, because it has been much more able to fill in new RBs than the second team has been able to fill in new receivers. There is simply more opportunity to get RBs out of nowhere than there is at other positions. Therefore, it is best to wait on RBs. Add in injury rate as well as shorter careers...

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

I'd take Team B.

How many years do you need to catch up to team B, assuming team A is just as capable of at drafting/WW?

No more than one. Worst case, it's as bad as you say in year one and you get a great rookie RB in year two that makes your RB situation a lot better immediately. In reality, I think I could draft a better team than the one you show anyway, if I went RB late, and I think that team would compete in the first year.

Team B scores 5 PPG less, using PFTs projections...and they have Nicks scoring twice as much as Rice.But I guess we are not going to prove anything. My strongest point is the FBG value calculator. Fill it out, run it, and see where it ranks the RBs in comparision to the other spots.

Coop, I think most would agree Team A has a better shot this coming season. The topic of the thread though is draft strategy for dynasty startups. There is significant statistical evidence that shows the RB position experiences much greater turnover than the other positions. In light of that, it makes perfect sense to lock down the more secure positions with the most elite talent you possibly can. That team may be short on RB's off the bat (or they may hit with BJGE, F. Jackson, Tomlinson, Hillis, etc.), but they have a much better chance of finding an Arian Foster than you do of finding a Brandon Lloyd. I would take team B every single time in a dynasty startup.

 

[Concept Coop]

I'd take Team B.

How many years do you need to catch up to team B, assuming team A is just as capable of at drafting/WW?

No more than one. Worst case, it's as bad as you say in year one and you get a great rookie RB in year two that makes your RB situation a lot better immediately. In reality, I think I could draft a better team than the one you show anyway, if I went RB late, and I think that team would compete in the first year.

Team B scores 5 PPG less, using PFTs projections...and they have Nicks scoring twice as much as Rice.But I guess we are not going to prove anything. My strongest point is the FBG value calculator. Fill it out, run it, and see where it ranks the RBs in comparision to the other spots.

Coop, I think most would agree Team A has a better shot this coming season. The topic of the thread though is draft strategy for dynasty startups. There is significant statistical evidence that shows the RB position experiences much greater turnover than the other positions. In light of that, it makes perfect sense to lock down the more secure positions with the most elite talent you possibly can. That team may be short on RB's off the bat (or they may hit with BJGE, F. Jackson, Tomlinson, Hillis, etc.), but they have a much better chance of finding an Arian Foster than you do of finding a Brandon Lloyd. I would take team B every single time in a dynasty startup.

Nobody on team A is going to retire after one year, so it is more than one season. It is as long as it takes owner B to get TWO quality RBs using mid first round picks. The point I am trying to make, and I think is being missed, I don't need to hit on Brandon Lloyd. Unlike the RB position, there is still top talent on the board in the 3rd round. Sidney Rice is just as talented as Hakeem Nicks, as is Brandon Marshall. Austin Collie has a better chance of finishing in the top 5 than Dez Bryant does. Wes Welker could very easily score more than Brandon Jennings. DeWayne Bowe can be had in the late 2nd and is more valuable than any RB on the board at that spot. As for your Arian Foster comment, do you have ADP data to support that? Because I don't think that is accurate. Just this year we had S. Moss, B. Lloyd, S. Johnson, M. Wallace, A. Collie and even D. Bowe could have been had for very cheap. Last year we had Austin and Rice.The more turnover there is with the RB spot, the more value young, elite RBs have. That is why LeSean McCoy is more valuable than Calvin Johnson in most formats: there are less LeSean McCoys to go around. McCoy could play just as long as Calvin, in a time when most fantasy backs won't. Therefore, he gives you more of an advantage over your league mates than Calvin Johnson.

 

[Concept Coop]

RBs are valuable to other positions, yes. But what matters is that it is easier to find that valuable RB than it is to find the most valuable receivers. The guys with Calvin, AJ, Fitz - they have all had them for 3+ years now, easy. Nicks is a guy that was drafted, did well for a rookie, and then blew up. People who drafted him in startups around where I will be drafting AJ Green are looking good.I could have drafted Brees, Andre, Calvin 3 years ago (pre-2008 season), and I think that's a reasonable first three rounds. Maybe I get Gates in round 4, maybe he's already gone. So I take Roddy White (he is probably gone) or Greg Jennings or Colston (probably gone with Roddy).

That core would need either luck or foresight to come to fruition. I don't think that is realistic at all. And my strategy is not going RB/RB. It is VBD. If that is two RBs, great. If it is RB/WR/TE/RB great.Take that core and swap AJ and AP - your team is now better. No need to do anything more than that, really. You can find good WRs in round 3, good QBs in round 6. The value is later in the draft. That is my only point. In order to have a balanced roster, you need at least one RB early, or you need to get lucky and find Peyton Hillis and Arian Foster. ADP, CJ, Brees > AJ, CJ, Brees and the first group will have an easier time finding a WR2 than other will finding an RB1.

 

[Tau837]

That is why LeSean McCoy is more valuable than Calvin Johnson in most formats: there are less LeSean McCoys to go around. McCoy could play just as long as Calvin, in a time when most fantasy backs won't. Therefore, he gives you more of an advantage over your league mates than Calvin Johnson.

I think this is the crux of our disagreement. I would take Johnson over McCoy without hesitation.

 

[Concept Coop]

That is why LeSean McCoy is more valuable than Calvin Johnson in most formats: there are less LeSean McCoys to go around. McCoy could play just as long as Calvin, in a time when most fantasy backs won't. Therefore, he gives you more of an advantage over your league mates than Calvin Johnson.

I think this is the crux of our disagreement. I would take Johnson over McCoy without hesitation.

I use McCoy because he is a young, elite RB. We could replace it with another name that you are higher on. I just think a young, elite RB is worth more than a young, elite WR. And that very well could be all that our difference in opinion boils down to.

 

[thriftyrocker]

In order to have a balanced roster, you need at least one RB early, or you need to get lucky and find Peyton Hillis and Arian Foster.

It's more guys than that really. It's Blount, Ryan Torain, Tolbert LawFirm, Danny Woodhead, Chris Ivory, Goodson, Rashad Jennings, ... You don't need a true RB1 to win. Especially if your edge at QB/WR1/WR2 is significant. Especially in PPR. How many WRs in the top 36 in PPG PPR came out of nowhere? Even "were easy to trade for", let alone free on waivers. Lloyd, BMW, maybe Stevie, maybe Collie, Mark Clayton (for the few games he lasted), maybe Branch. Muuuuch harder to get lucky finding a serviceable WR than a serviceable RB. You can find a serviceable RB just by covering your bases.Also much easier to buy a RB in November than a WR or QB. What WRs will be on the market in November? Pretty much any guy at RB >= 28 is available for a late 1st if the other team is out of it.

 

[Concept Coop]

In order to have a balanced roster, you need at least one RB early, or you need to get lucky and find Peyton Hillis and Arian Foster.

It's more guys than that really. It's Blount, Ryan Torain, Tolbert LawFirm, Danny Woodhead, Chris Ivory, Goodson, Rashad Jennings, ... You don't need a true RB1 to win. Especially if your edge at QB/WR1/WR2 is significant. Especially in PPR. How many WRs in the top 36 in PPG PPR came out of nowhere? Even "were easy to trade for", let alone free on waivers. Lloyd, BMW, maybe Stevie, maybe Collie, Mark Clayton (for the few games he lasted), maybe Branch. Muuuuch harder to get lucky finding a serviceable WR than a serviceable RB. You can find a serviceable RB just by covering your bases.Also much easier to buy a RB in November than a WR or QB. What WRs will be on the market in November? Pretty much any guy at RB >= 28 is available for a late 1st if the other team is out of it.

All of the guys you listed give up 4+ PPG to a PPR RB1. That is bigger than Eli Manning gave to Philip Rivers...and you can't flex QBs.I don't think it is easier to find a RB than WR. I guess that depends on league setup. List of guys that could have been had cheap, for nothing, or came out of nowhere: S. Moss, B. Lloyd, A. Collie, D. Branch, D. Bowe, M. Wallace, T. Owens, BMW, M. Manningham (late, when he was starting), S. Johnson, D. Amendola, D. Bess, J. Ford, and on. There is a bigger pool of WRs - the NFL uses more. Therefore, there is less of a demand and they are easier to come by. And, again, if you draft a balanced roster, you shouldn't need to get lucky on the WW. You can have gone RB/RB/TE/QB and still draft two of: Welker, Collie, Lloyd, Colston, Crabtree, Harvin, S. Johnson, S.Holmes, A. Boldin and get guys like Ward, 85, S. Moss, S. Smith, late. It is not a one or the other argument I am trying to make. It is simply value. The value, at the top of most formats, is RB, because there is less value later in the draft. Simple VBD.

 

[thriftyrocker]

All of the guys you listed give up 4+ PPG to a PPR RB1. That is bigger than Eli Manning gave to Philip Rivers...and you can't flex QBs.

Pretty selective. Rodgers or Vick gives a greater edge over Eli than your 4 pts. Also, check the 5 or 6 PPG between top 5 WRs and very good guys like Maclin, Williams, Welker, Holmes.

had cheap, for nothing, or came out of nowhere: S. Moss, B. Lloyd, A. Collie, D. Branch, D. Bowe, M. Wallace, T. Owens, BMW, M. Manningham (late, when he was starting), S. Johnson, D. Amendola, D. Bess, J. Ford, and on.

Not counting a mid 1st as cheap. Those 2 were top 20 WRs going into the year.

It is not a one or the other argument I am trying to make. It is simply value. The value, at the top of most formats, is RB, because there is less value later in the draft. Simple VBD.

It's no longer simple in dynasty.

 

[Concept Coop]

All of the guys you listed give up 4+ PPG to a PPR RB1. That is bigger than Eli Manning gave to Philip Rivers...and you can't flex QBs.

Pretty selective. Rodgers or Vick gives a greater edge over Eli than your 4 pts. Also, check the 5 or 6 PPG between top 5 WRs and very good guys like Maclin, Williams, Welker, Holmes.

had cheap, for nothing, or came out of nowhere: S. Moss, B. Lloyd, A. Collie, D. Branch, D. Bowe, M. Wallace, T. Owens, BMW, M. Manningham (late, when he was starting), S. Johnson, D. Amendola, D. Bess, J. Ford, and on.

Not counting a mid 1st as cheap. Those 2 were top 20 WRs going into the year.

It is not a one or the other argument I am trying to make. It is simply value. The value, at the top of most formats, is RB, because there is less value later in the draft. Simple VBD.

It's no longer simple in dynasty.

Selective? Lets use Arian Foster and change that 4+ to a 10+. That is selective.Lets take hypotheticals out of it.

The #1 WR scored 76 more points than WR12.

The #1RB scored 151 more points than RB12.

WR12 scored 49 more points more than WR24

RB12 scored 73 more points than RB24

WR36 scored more points than RB25

26 RBs score 160+ points. 40 WRs scored 160+ points.

And no, it is not more difficult in dynasty. VORP is VORP. The only thing that changes is the definition of value. Once established, the difference in value between assets is universal.

In other words, sure, WRs last longer. But that only puts a bigger gap between young RBs and old RBs, creating even more VORP. It really is less subjective that you are making it out to be. You can do the same with health, creating more VORP between healhty RBs and injury prone RBs.

 

[Concept Coop]

The earlier RBs break down in the NFL, the more injury prone they become, the less carries the get, the MORE valuable young, healhty, workhorse backs have in comparision other positions. Not less. That is what VORP and VBD are. You can take the names away and simply use numbers - it is not subjective. It is a statistical study.

 

[Concept Coop]

To simplify even more:

The fact that Calvin Johnson will last longer than Adrian Peterson means NOTHING, value wise.

You compare Calvin Johnson to other WRs and Adrian Peterson to other RBs.

The fact that LeSean McCoy is projected to last 4 years longer than the average RB (all ages in a pool) means more than the fact that Hakeem Nicks will last 6 years longer than the average WR. The reason for this, is that 4 years is a greater percentage of an average RB span than 6 years is to the average WR span. Value over replacement player.

One step further:

If we knew that every running back drafted would last 2 years, except, for John Doe, who will last 4. John Doe is more valuable than a QB or WR that will last 10 years.

Sorry for the rant.

 

[zilladog]

All of the guys you listed give up 4+ PPG to a PPR RB1. That is bigger than Eli Manning gave to Philip Rivers...and you can't flex QBs.

Pretty selective. Rodgers or Vick gives a greater edge over Eli than your 4 pts. Also, check the 5 or 6 PPG between top 5 WRs and very good guys like Maclin, Williams, Welker, Holmes.

had cheap, for nothing, or came out of nowhere: S. Moss, B. Lloyd, A. Collie, D. Branch, D. Bowe, M. Wallace, T. Owens, BMW, M. Manningham (late, when he was starting), S. Johnson, D. Amendola, D. Bess, J. Ford, and on.

Not counting a mid 1st as cheap. Those 2 were top 20 WRs going into the year.

It is not a one or the other argument I am trying to make. It is simply value. The value, at the top of most formats, is RB, because there is less value later in the draft. Simple VBD.

It's no longer simple in dynasty.

Selective? Lets use Arian Foster and change that 4+ to a 10+. That is selective.Lets take hypotheticals out of it.

The #1 WR scored 76 more points than WR12.

The #1RB scored 151 more points than RB12.

WR12 scored 49 more points more than WR24

RB12 scored 73 more points than RB24

WR36 scored more points than RB25

26 RBs score 160+ points. 40 WRs scored 160+ points.

And no, it is not more difficult in dynasty. VORP is VORP. The only thing that changes is the definition of value. Once established, the difference in value between assets is universal.

In other words, sure, WRs last longer. But that only puts a bigger gap between young RBs and old RBs, creating even more VORP. It really is less subjective that you are making it out to be. You can do the same with health, creating more VORP between healhty RBs and injury prone RBs.

I used to subscribe to the same kind of idea. That the difference at #1 Rb and #12 is greater than any other position, therefore it's more valuable to have a top RB. Hence, draft an elite RB early. But it doesnt hold up to scrutiny because of a couple of factors...1. The turnover at RB simply cannot be understated here. There are soooo many RB's that come out of nowhere and can be had in almost any round of your draft or on waivers that end up finishing in the top 20, and out of those guys, a good number of them crack the top 10, and at least 1-3 end up right at the top of the heap. Arian Foster in the 9th round wipes the floor with A.P. in the first. Now thats value.

2. The turnover at WR is much less significant. Theres usually a good number of WR's that end up in the top 15-25 that come out of nowhere, but only 2-3 or so that make top 10, and more often than not only 1 or less that cracks the elite. It takes Fitz losing his QB to make a spot for Lloyd, imo. And since as you said yourself, the #20 RB scores higher than the #20 WR, its much less significant to have a breakout WR than a breakout RB.This makes elite WR's worth sooo much more than elite RB's, at least when it comes to where to use your earliest draft picks.

3. the turnover among elite QB's and TE's is almost non existent. Perhaps Aaron Rodgers or Manning will finish the #7 or #8 instead of #1 and #2 like laat year(this happens all the time) but they will still be at the top. Year in and year out, an elite QB is a plug and play. Whereas imo the biggest gamble you can make with your team is to wait forever to draft a QB and wind up with Flacco, Freeman, Stafford, Bradford or some such guy. This strategy is just begging for a year 2/3 rebuild, and if/when that QB gamble fails, you'll be more than willing to trade whatever rd 1 RB you drafted this year to upgrade (IF your RB is even still in the league). Same goes with TE. If you don't get an elite one or at least an elite prospect, you will forever be handicapped there and always looking to make a trade. By the way, Brady should never be there in Rd 6. if he is, youre lucky and someone dropped the ball in your draft, so take advantage. But it's not something I would ever count on going into a draft.

Like I said earlier in this thread. You've gotta come out of Rd 2 with a QB and WR, and a TE by the end of Rd 4. It's rigid. It's not very VBD, but its the most sound approach

 

[thriftyrocker]

RB12 scored 73 more points than RB24WR36 scored more points than RB2526 RBs score 160+ points. 40 WRs scored 160+ points.

PPG changes your whole argument. 41 RBs got 10+ PPG. If you somehow could filter Points Per High Use Game (filter out the weeks Goodson, Ivory, Westbrook, etc. were backups and no one would play them, for example) that number could be much higher.

 

[Concept Coop]

All of the guys you listed give up 4+ PPG to a PPR RB1. That is bigger than Eli Manning gave to Philip Rivers...and you can't flex QBs.

Pretty selective. Rodgers or Vick gives a greater edge over Eli than your 4 pts. Also, check the 5 or 6 PPG between top 5 WRs and very good guys like Maclin, Williams, Welker, Holmes.

had cheap, for nothing, or came out of nowhere: S. Moss, B. Lloyd, A. Collie, D. Branch, D. Bowe, M. Wallace, T. Owens, BMW, M. Manningham (late, when he was starting), S. Johnson, D. Amendola, D. Bess, J. Ford, and on.

Not counting a mid 1st as cheap. Those 2 were top 20 WRs going into the year.

It is not a one or the other argument I am trying to make. It is simply value. The value, at the top of most formats, is RB, because there is less value later in the draft. Simple VBD.

It's no longer simple in dynasty.

Selective? Lets use Arian Foster and change that 4+ to a 10+. That is selective.Lets take hypotheticals out of it.

The #1 WR scored 76 more points than WR12.

The #1RB scored 151 more points than RB12.

WR12 scored 49 more points more than WR24

RB12 scored 73 more points than RB24

WR36 scored more points than RB25

26 RBs score 160+ points. 40 WRs scored 160+ points.

And no, it is not more difficult in dynasty. VORP is VORP. The only thing that changes is the definition of value. Once established, the difference in value between assets is universal.

In other words, sure, WRs last longer. But that only puts a bigger gap between young RBs and old RBs, creating even more VORP. It really is less subjective that you are making it out to be. You can do the same with health, creating more VORP between healhty RBs and injury prone RBs.

I used to subscribe to the same kind of idea. That the difference at #1 Rb and #12 is greater than any other position, therefore it's more valuable to have a top RB. Hence, draft an elite RB early. But it doesnt hold up to scrutiny because of a couple of factors...1. The turnover at RB simply cannot be understated here. There are soooo many RB's that come out of nowhere and can be had in almost any round of your draft or on waivers that end up finishing in the top 20, and out of those guys, a good number of them crack the top 10, and at least 1-3 end up right at the top of the heap. Arian Foster in the 9th round wipes the floor with A.P. in the first. Now thats value.

2. The turnover at WR is much less significant. Theres usually a good number of WR's that end up in the top 15-25 that come out of nowhere, but only 2-3 or so that make top 10, and more often than not only 1 or less that cracks the elite. It takes Fitz losing his QB to make a spot for Lloyd, imo. And since as you said yourself, the #20 RB scores higher than the #20 WR, its much less significant to have a breakout WR than a breakout RB.This makes elite WR's worth sooo much more than elite RB's, at least when it comes to where to use your earliest draft picks.

3. the turnover among elite QB's and TE's is almost non existent. Perhaps Aaron Rodgers or Manning will finish the #7 or #8 instead of #1 and #2 like laat year(this happens all the time) but they will still be at the top. Year in and year out, an elite QB is a plug and play. Whereas imo the biggest gamble you can make with your team is to wait forever to draft a QB and wind up with Flacco, Freeman, Stafford, Bradford or some such guy. This strategy is just begging for a year 2/3 rebuild, and if/when that QB gamble fails, you'll be more than willing to trade whatever rd 1 RB you drafted this year to upgrade (IF your RB is even still in the league). Same goes with TE. If you don't get an elite one or at least an elite prospect, you will forever be handicapped there and always looking to make a trade. By the way, Brady should never be there in Rd 6. if he is, youre lucky and someone dropped the ball in your draft, so take advantage. But it's not something I would ever count on going into a draft.

Like I said earlier in this thread. You've gotta come out of Rd 2 with a QB and WR, and a TE by the end of Rd 4. It's rigid. It's not very VBD, but its the most sound approach

It is not the most sound. Actually, statistically, it is wrong. Again, the more turnover there is at the RB position, the shorter their careers, the MORE valuable top level RBs are than mid-level RBs. Therefore, the VORP is greater for the top RB. Therefore, they are more valuable than top level WRs. It is not subjective, no matter how much we want to make it so.

 

[Concept Coop]

There is no logic in this line of thinking:

"There are fewer RBs that will last X years. Therefore, I will wait to draft them."

 

[Dope]

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.

 

[zilladog]

Lets play another round of "which team would you rather have"?

These are based on some mock drafts that me and a leaguemate have been doing for our upcoming 14 teamer, non-ppr start up dynasty. Team A waits on RB, team B goes RB heavy

Team A.

QB - Rivers

RB - Turner (he falls cuz of age), Jacobs, Hardesty

WR - Nicks, Austin, Bowe

TE - Finley

Team B.

QB - Matt Ryan

RB - Charles, Bradshaw, Forte

WR - Holmes, Maclin, Knox

TE - Keller

With plenty of rounds left to go.

 

[zilladog]

There is no logic in this line of thinking:"There are fewer RBs that will last X years. Therefore, I will wait to draft them."

It's not about how long they will last. It's about how easy it is for late round guys to score like a top RB. Especially on a PPG basis. Which assumes youre deep at RB and are playing the matchups well, as opposed to a couple every week plug and play studs.

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

I'd take Team B.

How many years do you need to catch up to team B, assuming team A is just as capable of at drafting/WW?

No more than one. Worst case, it's as bad as you say in year one and you get a great rookie RB in year two that makes your RB situation a lot better immediately. In reality, I think I could draft a better team than the one you show anyway, if I went RB late, and I think that team would compete in the first year.

Team B scores 5 PPG less, using PFTs projections...and they have Nicks scoring twice as much as Rice.But I guess we are not going to prove anything. My strongest point is the FBG value calculator. Fill it out, run it, and see where it ranks the RBs in comparision to the other spots.

Coop,I think most would agree Team A has a better shot this coming season. The topic of the thread though is draft strategy for dynasty startups.

There is significant statistical evidence that shows the RB position experiences much greater turnover than the other positions. In light of that, it makes perfect sense to lock down the more secure positions with the most elite talent you possibly can. That team may be short on RB's off the bat (or they may hit with BJGE, F. Jackson, Tomlinson, Hillis, etc.), but they have a much better chance of finding an Arian Foster than you do of finding a Brandon Lloyd.

I would take team B every single time in a dynasty startup.

Nobody on team A is going to retire after one year, so it is more than one season. It is as long as it takes owner B to get TWO quality RBs using mid first round picks. The point I am trying to make, and I think is being missed, I don't need to hit on Brandon Lloyd. Unlike the RB position, there is still top talent on the board in the 3rd round. Sidney Rice is just as talented as Hakeem Nicks, as is Brandon Marshall. Austin Collie has a better chance of finishing in the top 5 than Dez Bryant does. Wes Welker could very easily score more than Brandon Jennings. DeWayne Bowe can be had in the late 2nd and is more valuable than any RB on the board at that spot.

As for your Arian Foster comment, do you have ADP data to support that? Because I don't think that is accurate. Just this year we had S. Moss, B. Lloyd, S. Johnson, M. Wallace, A. Collie and even D. Bowe could have been had for very cheap. Last year we had Austin and Rice.

The more turnover there is with the RB spot, the more value young, elite RBs have. That is why LeSean McCoy is more valuable than Calvin Johnson in most formats: there are less LeSean McCoys to go around. McCoy could play just as long as Calvin, in a time when most fantasy backs won't. Therefore, he gives you more of an advantage over your league mates than Calvin Johnson.

This is where I think your argument falls apart. I didn't say anything about players retiring. I said there is a lot of turnover at the top when it comes to RB. Steve Slaton, Kevin Smith, Marshawn Lynch, Cadillac Williams, Laurence Maroney, Kevin Jones, Willie Parker, Duece McAllister, Kevan Barlow, Travis Henry and Willis McGahee are all players whose value dropped off a cliff well before they were near retirement age. All of these players at one point or another fell into that range of RB's you are advocating in this thread. Outside of the top handful of elite RB's (CJ, AP, and a healthy MJD), the rest are a very risky proposition. IMO a team is much better off getting much more stable elite production at QB, WR and TE and chasing cheap RB talent. Blount, Ivory, Hillis, Foster, F. Jackson, etc. you only have to hit on a couple to be successful. You can also trade for Turner, SJax, Tomlinson, etc. at the end of their careers, when owners are practically giving them away for their last year or two.

 

[Concept Coop]

There is no logic in this line of thinking:"There are fewer RBs that will last X years. Therefore, I will wait to draft them."

It's not about how long they will last. It's about how easy it is for late round guys to score like a top RB. Especially on a PPG basis. Which assumes youre deep at RB and are playing the matchups well, as opposed to a couple every week plug and play studs.

I just showed that RBs are not easier to find. There are more WRs that score enough to be relevant, than there are RBs. If you are trying to argue that there is more VORP in drafting a WR, a quick study would debunk that. And, again, it is not relevant. I can draft WRs in the 4-6th rounds that would prevent me from needing to use the wire. The same can't be said for RBs. There is a reason that finding a good RB on the WW is so important: there are not enough good ones to go around.

 

[Tau837]

All of the guys you listed give up 4+ PPG to a PPR RB1. That is bigger than Eli Manning gave to Philip Rivers...and you can't flex QBs.

Pretty selective. Rodgers or Vick gives a greater edge over Eli than your 4 pts. Also, check the 5 or 6 PPG between top 5 WRs and very good guys like Maclin, Williams, Welker, Holmes.

had cheap, for nothing, or came out of nowhere: S. Moss, B. Lloyd, A. Collie, D. Branch, D. Bowe, M. Wallace, T. Owens, BMW, M. Manningham (late, when he was starting), S. Johnson, D. Amendola, D. Bess, J. Ford, and on.

Not counting a mid 1st as cheap. Those 2 were top 20 WRs going into the year.

It is not a one or the other argument I am trying to make. It is simply value. The value, at the top of most formats, is RB, because there is less value later in the draft. Simple VBD.

It's no longer simple in dynasty.

Selective? Lets use Arian Foster and change that 4+ to a 10+. That is selective.Lets take hypotheticals out of it.

The #1 WR scored 76 more points than WR12.

The #1RB scored 151 more points than RB12.

WR12 scored 49 more points more than WR24

RB12 scored 73 more points than RB24

WR36 scored more points than RB25

26 RBs score 160+ points. 40 WRs scored 160+ points.

And no, it is not more difficult in dynasty. VORP is VORP. The only thing that changes is the definition of value. Once established, the difference in value between assets is universal.

In other words, sure, WRs last longer. But that only puts a bigger gap between young RBs and old RBs, creating even more VORP. It really is less subjective that you are making it out to be. You can do the same with health, creating more VORP between healhty RBs and injury prone RBs.

I used to subscribe to the same kind of idea. That the difference at #1 Rb and #12 is greater than any other position, therefore it's more valuable to have a top RB. Hence, draft an elite RB early. But it doesnt hold up to scrutiny because of a couple of factors...1. The turnover at RB simply cannot be understated here. There are soooo many RB's that come out of nowhere and can be had in almost any round of your draft or on waivers that end up finishing in the top 20, and out of those guys, a good number of them crack the top 10, and at least 1-3 end up right at the top of the heap. Arian Foster in the 9th round wipes the floor with A.P. in the first. Now thats value.

2. The turnover at WR is much less significant. Theres usually a good number of WR's that end up in the top 15-25 that come out of nowhere, but only 2-3 or so that make top 10, and more often than not only 1 or less that cracks the elite. It takes Fitz losing his QB to make a spot for Lloyd, imo. And since as you said yourself, the #20 RB scores higher than the #20 WR, its much less significant to have a breakout WR than a breakout RB.This makes elite WR's worth sooo much more than elite RB's, at least when it comes to where to use your earliest draft picks.

3. the turnover among elite QB's and TE's is almost non existent. Perhaps Aaron Rodgers or Manning will finish the #7 or #8 instead of #1 and #2 like laat year(this happens all the time) but they will still be at the top. Year in and year out, an elite QB is a plug and play. Whereas imo the biggest gamble you can make with your team is to wait forever to draft a QB and wind up with Flacco, Freeman, Stafford, Bradford or some such guy. This strategy is just begging for a year 2/3 rebuild, and if/when that QB gamble fails, you'll be more than willing to trade whatever rd 1 RB you drafted this year to upgrade (IF your RB is even still in the league). Same goes with TE. If you don't get an elite one or at least an elite prospect, you will forever be handicapped there and always looking to make a trade. By the way, Brady should never be there in Rd 6. if he is, youre lucky and someone dropped the ball in your draft, so take advantage. But it's not something I would ever count on going into a draft.

Like I said earlier in this thread. You've gotta come out of Rd 2 with a QB and WR, and a TE by the end of Rd 4. It's rigid. It's not very VBD, but its the most sound approach

It is not the most sound. Actually, statistically, it is wrong. Again, the more turnover there is at the RB position, the shorter their careers, the MORE valuable top level RBs are than mid-level RBs. Therefore, the VORP is greater for the top RB. Therefore, they are more valuable than top level WRs. It is not subjective, no matter how much we want to make it so.

Are you performing your analysis based on ADP? If you want to perform some PPG comparisons, it seems to me that the appropriate thing to do would be to go back to past seasons and use ADP data to project reasonable drafts according to varying strategies such as those discussed in this thread, then compare the PPG of the different starting lineups.Obviously draft position also matters. I've said that I prefer waiting to take RBs in a dynasty startup, but if I had a top 2-3 pick I might go RB anyway. If I am picking later, I'd rather take top talent at other positions rather than chase the typical RB run.

 

[thriftyrocker]

Again, the more turnover there is at the RB position, the shorter their careers, the MORE valuable top level RBs are than mid-level RBs. Therefore, the VORP is greater for the top RB. Therefore, they are more valuable than top level WRs. It is not subjective, no matter how much we want to make it so.

If you want to talk about it in terms of VORP, the replacement for a WR is a utility infielder, much like in baseball. But the replacement for a RB is much higher value. Guys regularly come off the street or out of nowhere and put up 20 point games (Ivory, Woodhead, Westbrook not to mention Foster, Hillis).You could argue the replacement for a QB is much higher value too. Fitzpatrick, Hill, etc. - there are guys waiting in the wings who can produce fantasy stats, or mediocre guys who can be put in excellent situations and produce.

 

[Concept Coop]

Outside of the top handful of elite RB's (CJ, AP, and a healthy MJD), the rest are a very risky proposition. IMO a team is much better off getting much more stable elite production at QB, WR and TE and chasing cheap RB talent. Blount, Ivory, Hillis, Foster, F. Jackson, etc. you only have to hit on a couple to be successful. You can also trade for Turner, SJax, Tomlinson, etc. at the end of their careers, when owners are practically giving them away for their last year or two.

You just answered your own question, or countered your own argument: Because there is so much turnover, having a constant is more important or valuable than having a constant WR. It is simple Value Over Replacement. You are trying to compare RBs to WRs. That doesn't work. You compare RBs to RBs and WRs to WRs. The gap between the top RBs (age, points, health, et cetera) is bigger than the gap between WRs. Again, VORP.

 

[Concept Coop]

Are you performing your analysis based on ADP? If you want to perform some PPG comparisons, it seems to me that the appropriate thing to do would be to go back to past seasons and use ADP data to project reasonable drafts according to varying strategies such as those discussed in this thread, then compare the PPG of the different starting lineups.Obviously draft position also matters. I've said that I prefer waiting to take RBs in a dynasty startup, but if I had a top 2-3 pick I might go RB anyway. If I am picking later, I'd rather take top talent at other positions rather than chase the typical RB run.

You are 100% right. At one point, the #1 QB on the board is going to be more valuable than any RB left, even though, in general, QBs offer less VORP. Same with WR. But a stratagy based on avoiding RBs, or treating the tops ones less becuase of the issues with RBs, is seriously flawed.

 

[zilladog]

Again, the more turnover there is at the RB position, the shorter their careers, the MORE valuable top level RBs are than mid-level RBs. Therefore, the VORP is greater for the top RB. Therefore, they are more valuable than top level WRs. It is not subjective, no matter how much we want to make it so.

If you want to talk about it in terms of VORP, the replacement for a WR is a utility infielder, much like in baseball. But the replacement for a RB is much higher value. Guys regularly come off the street or out of nowhere and put up 20 point games (Ivory, Woodhead, Westbrook not to mention Foster, Hillis).You could argue the replacement for a QB is much higher value too. Fitzpatrick, Hill, etc. - there are guys waiting in the wings who can produce fantasy stats, or mediocre guys who can be put in excellent situations and produce.

I agree. But if you want to give yourself the best chance for consistently high points and limit the amount of volitility from year to year, getting a stable QB is much better than playing waivers at that position. If you, for example, rolled with Orton and/or Fitzpatrick last year, you might have had a good year at that position. But where are you now? how much of your teams' core players are you now looking to trade away for say, Rivers?

 

[Concept Coop]

Again, the more turnover there is at the RB position, the shorter their careers, the MORE valuable top level RBs are than mid-level RBs. Therefore, the VORP is greater for the top RB. Therefore, they are more valuable than top level WRs. It is not subjective, no matter how much we want to make it so.

If you want to talk about it in terms of VORP, the replacement for a WR is a utility infielder, much like in baseball. But the replacement for a RB is much higher value. Guys regularly come off the street or out of nowhere and put up 20 point games (Ivory, Woodhead, Westbrook not to mention Foster, Hillis).You could argue the replacement for a QB is much higher value too. Fitzpatrick, Hill, etc. - there are guys waiting in the wings who can produce fantasy stats, or mediocre guys who can be put in excellent situations and produce.

Show me something tangible that suggests RBs are easier to find "off the streets". I just showed you that there are more WRs that score enough to be relevant, than there are RBs. I also gave you a long list of WRs that "came of the street." I think you are wrong.If your argument is that RBs get hurt more, so replacements are more valuable - fine. But all you are doing is highlighting the value of handcuffs. Nothing more. And if you strategy is to predict when Woodhead, Ivory, Tolbert and Goodsen are going to even play, let alone score 20...good luck to you.

 

[Concept Coop]

I agree. But if you want to give yourself the best chance for consistently high points and limit the amount of volitility from year to year, getting a stable QB is much better than playing waivers at that position. If you, for example, rolled with Orton and/or Fitzpatrick last year, you might have had a good year at that position. But where are you now? how much of your teams' core players are you now looking to trade away for say, Rivers?

Nobody is arguing that you should wait so long to get a QB. You get one when the value is there. This year, it seems to be rounds 5-6 with guys like Romo and Brady. If you miss on them, there is some value in round 7 with Schaub and 10+ with Manning.If I am drafting at a certain spot and Rodgers is there, I will gladly take him. But, based on ADP, there is not a good chance of that happening.

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

Outside of the top handful of elite RB's (CJ, AP, and a healthy MJD), the rest are a very risky proposition. IMO a team is much better off getting much more stable elite production at QB, WR and TE and chasing cheap RB talent. Blount, Ivory, Hillis, Foster, F. Jackson, etc. you only have to hit on a couple to be successful. You can also trade for Turner, SJax, Tomlinson, etc. at the end of their careers, when owners are practically giving them away for their last year or two.

You just answered your own question, or countered your own argument: Because there is so much turnover, having a constant is more important or valuable than having a constant WR. It is simple Value Over Replacement. You are trying to compare RBs to WRs. That doesn't work. You compare RBs to RBs and WRs to WRs. The gap between the top RBs (age, points, health, et cetera) is bigger than the gap between WRs. Again, VORP.

Not really. I just said that there are exactly TWO RB's that I would feel comfortable that they will remain elite: CJ and AP. You are advocating taking RB's in the first two rounds. I have yet to see a startup draft yet where the same team ends up with both of them. At best you get one of CJ or AP if you have a top 2-3 pick. It's quite possible you end up with LeSean McCoy and Rashard Mendenhall. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if 2-3 years from now those two are complete fantasy afterthoughts. I think the odds of that occurring are much greater than the same thing happening to say Calvin Johnson and Miles Austin.

 

[Concept Coop]

Not really. I just said that there are exactly TWO RB's that I would feel comfortable that they will remain elite: CJ and AP. You are advocating taking RB's in the first two rounds. I have yet to see a startup draft yet where the same team ends up with both of them. At best you get one of CJ or AP if you have a top 2-3 pick. It's quite possible you end up with LeSean McCoy and Rashard Mendenhall. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if 2-3 years from now those two are complete fantasy afterthoughts. I think the odds of that occurring are much greater than the same thing happening to say Calvin Johnson and Miles Austin.

I am not advocating drafting a RB in the first two rounds. I am advocating the drafting of the player with the most value over his replacements. Early in the draft, in most formats, that is always RB. There is also guys like Forte, Hillis and McFadden who offer a lot of VORP in the 2nd round. After that, there is a big drop off. The drop off for the WR spot comes at least a round later. Therefore, it make sense to get the RBs while you can. The odds of McCoy and Mendhall being afterthoughts is higher. But that is not what VORP is. You compare WRs to WRs. So, are the odds of Miles Austin being relevant in 2-3 years and Brandon Marshall not, bigger than the odds of McCoy being relevant in 2-3 years and Ahmad Bradshaw not.You can't compare RBs to WR and get value

 

[thriftyrocker]

Show me something tangible that suggests RBs are easier to find "off the streets".

Realize you're responding to about 5 guys in this thread now, but as above, PPG and PPStart (or PP expected game of high use) would increase the number of "relevant" RBs much higher and make it pretty even with WRs.

If your argument is that RBs get hurt more, so replacements are more valuable - fine. But all you are doing is highlighting the value of handcuffs. Nothing more.

That is the gist, but you are brushing it off too quickly. It's about the depth of the talent pool. RB is less of a skill position than WR. The pool of RBs who can contribute to fantasy teams runs deep. There are 30 or 40 RBs waiting to come into the league this year who could do what Chris Ivory or Blount did last year. The pool of WRs who can contribute to fantasy teams is limited to the names you know, more or less.

And if you strategy is to predict when Woodhead, Ivory, Tolbert and Goodsen are going to even play, let alone score 20...good luck to you.

Not rocket science. If you cover enough bases, do your due diligence, you'll have plenty of startable guys and often uncover a guy with long term value. Do you think Choice is net positive (not just relevant but a positive against your opponent) if Felix is hurt? Do you think Jason Avant is a net positive if Jeremy Maclin is hurt?

 

[Concept Coop]

Show me something tangible that suggests RBs are easier to find "off the streets".

Realize you're responding to about 5 guys in this thread now, but as above, PPG and PPStart (or PP expected game of high use) would increase the number of "relevant" RBs much higher and make it pretty even with WRs.

If your argument is that RBs get hurt more, so replacements are more valuable - fine. But all you are doing is highlighting the value of handcuffs. Nothing more.

That is the gist, but you are brushing it off too quickly. It's about the depth of the talent pool. RB is less of a skill position than WR. The pool of RBs who can contribute to fantasy teams runs deep. There are 30 or 40 RBs waiting to come into the league this year who could do what Chris Ivory or Blount did last year. The pool of WRs who can contribute to fantasy teams is limited to the names you know, more or less.

And if you strategy is to predict when Woodhead, Ivory, Tolbert and Goodsen are going to even play, let alone score 20...good luck to you.

Not rocket science. If you cover enough bases, do your due diligence, you'll have plenty of startable guys and often uncover a guy with long term value. Do you think Choice is net positive (not just relevant but a positive against your opponent) if Felix is hurt? Do you think Jason Avant is a net positive if Jeremy Maclin is hurt?

First, you are not addressing the fact that plugging in back up RBs is not going to give you the PPG needed to compete with an RB1 and RB2. That is assuming that you have the right back ups, on the right weeks. Lastly, because RBs can be found on the WW and start for 3-4 random weeks of the season (with luck), means little. I can go R/R/TE/Q/W/W and still have no need to search the WW for WRs. So why you are searching for RBs on the WW, I am starting two players scoring 16-17 PPG on average. The players you find on the wire would have to have less of a gap between them and my starting RBs, as your starting WRs have over mine.Meaning, you better hope that Ivory and Goodsen (if you luck out) can stay closer to AP and Forte than Brandon Marshall and Wes Welker do to Hakeem Nicks and Brandon Jennings. Not likely. Even less likely that you can continue to do that over a season.

 

[Tau837]

Show me something tangible that suggests RBs are easier to find "off the streets".

Realize you're responding to about 5 guys in this thread now, but as above, PPG and PPStart (or PP expected game of high use) would increase the number of "relevant" RBs much higher and make it pretty even with WRs.

If your argument is that RBs get hurt more, so replacements are more valuable - fine. But all you are doing is highlighting the value of handcuffs. Nothing more.

That is the gist, but you are brushing it off too quickly. It's about the depth of the talent pool. RB is less of a skill position than WR. The pool of RBs who can contribute to fantasy teams runs deep. There are 30 or 40 RBs waiting to come into the league this year who could do what Chris Ivory or Blount did last year. The pool of WRs who can contribute to fantasy teams is limited to the names you know, more or less.

And if you strategy is to predict when Woodhead, Ivory, Tolbert and Goodsen are going to even play, let alone score 20...good luck to you.

Not rocket science. If you cover enough bases, do your due diligence, you'll have plenty of startable guys and often uncover a guy with long term value. Do you think Choice is net positive (not just relevant but a positive against your opponent) if Felix is hurt? Do you think Jason Avant is a net positive if Jeremy Maclin is hurt?

 

[thriftyrocker]

First, you are not addressing the fact that plugging in back up RBs is not going to give you the PPG needed to compete with an RB1 and RB2. That is assuming that you have the right back ups, on the right weeks.

Well, if we rewind a little bit, let's say I got CJ Spiller and Blount in 5 and 6 then backended my draft with Choice, Pierre, Ivory, MBush, and a bunch of rookies like Thomas, Taiwan Jones, Vereen.

Meaning, you better hope that Ivory and Goodsen (if you luck out) can stay closer to AP and Forte than Brandon Marshall and Wes Welker do to Hakeem Nicks and Brandon Jennings. Not likely. Even less likely that you can continue to do that over a season.

Well, using last year's stats, I'm getting 36.3 PPG from my two WRs and you're getting 28.8. You're getting 34.9 PPG from your two RBs. I only need to get 13.7 points from each RB to match you. Pierre averaged 14.7 per game played and I have his backup. Blount averaged 15.1 over the last 8 games of the year. I think I've got enough guys to field a competitive team.The goal is to make the playoffs and then get lucky, and I've got enough fuel to do that. I only have to face a team with Peterson and Forte once before then. When we get to the playoffs, your success is based entirely on two RBs who have gotten ground into the turf for 14 or 15 weeks. How many teams based on MJD and Gore fell apart in December? A lot.

 

[Instinctive]

Career length does matter. I matters because in the NFL, not fantasy, RB is generally a position that is plug and play. Most offenses can plug in any number of guys and get similar production from the RB position. Is Arian Foster really incredibly talented, or is he just another guy who is talented enough to be an NFL RB and ended up on a team with no other options and a great scheme and a ton of scoring opportunities?

On a week in, week out basis RB plays come up from the waiver wire. Players get hurt. RBs get hurt most. RB is most easily replaced production on an NFL team. Therefore, replacement RBs perform pretty well.

With a top QB and 2 top 5 WRs, and a top TE or another top 10 WR, I will always make the playoffs.

By the time the playoffs come, we're 13+ weeks into the season, RBs are getting hurt, and I can plug in guys of the wire for enough PPG that my WR advantage is bigger than your RB advantage...not to mention your RBs are more likely to go down to injury than my receivers, so who says you even have an advantage there?

Dynasty is all about making the playoffs every year and hoping for a little bit of luck. The best team doesn't always win. In fact, the best team rarely wins, in my experience. In Z56, for example, I have gone barely over .500 the past two years and reign as champion both years.

We'll look at that now and I will only go for guys I think people actually would have played. Most of these guys I DID play, because I follow my own advice on strategy

All you have to do is get there. Then Keiland Williams, Ryan Torain, Blount, Rashad Jennings, Hightower, dead old third string Westbrook, Tolbert, Leon Washington, Javarris James, and Danny Woodhead all score in the starter range in week 14, first week of playoffs. That's 10 guys, almost half the "starter" RBs that week, that you can put in.

11 guys in week 15 starter range - and I'm not counting Snelling who only got in when Turner was hurt iirc. Or Ringer who barely missed the cut (less than half a point separate the back 6 or so)

11 again in week 16, and if you look at the names I think guys like Dominic Rhodes were reaaalllllly easy to acquire even that morning.

These aren't plays who nobody saw coming either, these are guys who saw an injury to the back occur the week before or were a secondary back with a great matchup, and the first guy performed well also.

Now at the WR position:

Week 14 - I got 10 guys here, so comparable to the RBs. However, a few guys are names even I didn't recognize because they were just KRs who took one to the house.

Week 15 - I count 5 guys you could probably have gotten the week before. 2 of them are Jacoby Ford and Hester returning multiple kickoffs for TDs or an end around 70+ yards - I know how picky that is, but I'm trying to only find guys in each category who would realistically be started by somebody.

In week 16, I count 8 guys at the WR position. And 3 of them were just KRs like Ted Ginn who I doubt anybody was starting anyway, similar to Snelling who I didn't count above.

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

Show me something tangible that suggests RBs are easier to find "off the streets".

Realize you're responding to about 5 guys in this thread now, but as above, PPG and PPStart (or PP expected game of high use) would increase the number of "relevant" RBs much higher and make it pretty even with WRs.

If your argument is that RBs get hurt more, so replacements are more valuable - fine. But all you are doing is highlighting the value of handcuffs. Nothing more.

That is the gist, but you are brushing it off too quickly. It's about the depth of the talent pool. RB is less of a skill position than WR. The pool of RBs who can contribute to fantasy teams runs deep. There are 30 or 40 RBs waiting to come into the league this year who could do what Chris Ivory or Blount did last year. The pool of WRs who can contribute to fantasy teams is limited to the names you know, more or less.

And if you strategy is to predict when Woodhead, Ivory, Tolbert and Goodsen are going to even play, let alone score 20...good luck to you.

Not rocket science. If you cover enough bases, do your due diligence, you'll have plenty of startable guys and often uncover a guy with long term value. Do you think Choice is net positive (not just relevant but a positive against your opponent) if Felix is hurt? Do you think Jason Avant is a net positive if Jeremy Maclin is hurt?

First, you are not addressing the fact that plugging in back up RBs is not going to give you the PPG needed to compete with an RB1 and RB2. That is assuming that you have the right back ups, on the right weeks. Lastly, because RBs can be found on the WW and start for 3-4 random weeks of the season (with luck), means little. I can go R/R/TE/Q/W/W and still have no need to search the WW for WRs. So why you are searching for RBs on the WW, I am starting two players scoring 16-17 PPG on average. The players you find on the wire would have to have less of a gap between them and my starting RBs, as your starting WRs have over mine.Meaning, you better hope that Ivory and Goodsen (if you luck out) can stay closer to AP and Forte than Brandon Marshall and Wes Welker do to Hakeem Nicks and Brandon Jennings. Not likely. Even less likely that you can continue to do that over a season.

As to your first point, nobody here is suggesting waiting on RB's is going to allow you to get the same production at RB1 and 2 as a team that takes them with the first two picks. Sure it is possible if you hit the right ones (Hillis, Foster), but likely you will be operating at a disadvantage at RB. The point being that you will have a significant advantage at QB, WR and TE over the other team in exchange for that. To your second point, I don't think anyone here is suggesting ignoring the RB position entirely and just playing the waiver wire. This strategy means targeting RB's in the 5th-7th rounds, which means RB's like DWill, Greene, SJax, Turner, Blount, Hillis, F. Jones, Spiller, etc., depending on your league. This strategy uses the WW (and later draft picks) to supplement those players you drafted in these rounds. Representing the "late RB drafters" with Ivory and Goodson is not a relevant example.

 

[Concept Coop]

Career length does matter. I matters because in the NFL, not fantasy, RB is generally a position that is plug and play. Most offenses can plug in any number of guys and get similar production from the RB position. Is Arian Foster really incredibly talented, or is he just another guy who is talented enough to be an NFL RB and ended up on a team with no other options and a great scheme and a ton of scoring opportunities?

You are not understanding Value Over Replacement. You compare WRs to WRs and RBs to RBs. The less RBs that contribute consistantly and have long careers, the more valuable the ones that do, are. I don't mean to be condescending - I really don't. But until that is understood by both of us, there is not point in going back and forth.

 

[Concept Coop]

Well, if we rewind a little bit, let's say I got CJ Spiller and Blount in 5 and 6 then backended my draft with Choice, Pierre, Ivory, MBush, and a bunch of rookies like Thomas, Taiwan Jones, Vereen.

You really think Spiller and Blount are going to score enough to keep it close? If you want use last years stats, change my WRs to Brandon Lloyd and Santana Moss, both can be had later than that. Marshall had a down year and Welker wasn't 100%. Lets use their 2009 numbers and see what you need from your low level RBs.

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

Career length does matter. I matters because in the NFL, not fantasy, RB is generally a position that is plug and play. Most offenses can plug in any number of guys and get similar production from the RB position. Is Arian Foster really incredibly talented, or is he just another guy who is talented enough to be an NFL RB and ended up on a team with no other options and a great scheme and a ton of scoring opportunities?

You are not understanding Value Over Replacement. You compare WRs to WRs and RBs to RBs. The less RBs that contribute consistantly and have long careers, the more valuable the ones that do, are. I don't mean to be condescending - I really don't. But until that is understood by both of us, there is not point in going back and forth.

I don't think you are understanding everyone else's argument either Coop. Who are these RB's that will contribute consistantly and have long careers? As I said in another post I am quite confident that CJ and AP are. What names are you adding to that list?

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

Well, if we rewind a little bit, let's say I got CJ Spiller and Blount in 5 and 6 then backended my draft with Choice, Pierre, Ivory, MBush, and a bunch of rookies like Thomas, Taiwan Jones, Vereen.

You really think Spiller and Blount are going to score enough to keep it close? If you want use last years stats, change my WRs to Brandon Lloyd and Santana Moss, both can be had later than that. Marshall had a down year and Welker wasn't 100%. Lets use their 2009 numbers and see what you need from your low level RBs.

Thats the thing, it isn't just Spiller and Blount. It's Spiller and Blount and Ivory and F. Jackson and Starks and BJGE. Some combination of mid level draft picks, late round flyer picks, and waiver wire pickups. You play the matchups, play the hot hand, and you get production. You can't do that with WR's in the same manner.

 

[thriftyrocker]

Career length does matter. I matters because in the NFL, not fantasy, RB is generally a position that is plug and play. Most offenses can plug in any number of guys and get similar production from the RB position. Is Arian Foster really incredibly talented, or is he just another guy who is talented enough to be an NFL RB and ended up on a team with no other options and a great scheme and a ton of scoring opportunities?

You are not understanding Value Over Replacement. You compare WRs to WRs and RBs to RBs. The less RBs that contribute consistantly and have long careers, the more valuable the ones that do, are. I don't mean to be condescending - I really don't. But until that is understood by both of us, there is not point in going back and forth.

I would trade tier 1 WR for a 23 yo Adrian Peterson after he ran for 296/3 on SD in 2007. At this point his career, is half spent. He is not the same asset at 26 that Calvin Johnson is at 25 or Nicks at 23.Other than maybe Charles and McCoy which RB has a long career ahead of him?

 

[Concept Coop]

Career length does matter. I matters because in the NFL, not fantasy, RB is generally a position that is plug and play. Most offenses can plug in any number of guys and get similar production from the RB position. Is Arian Foster really incredibly talented, or is he just another guy who is talented enough to be an NFL RB and ended up on a team with no other options and a great scheme and a ton of scoring opportunities?

You are not understanding Value Over Replacement. You compare WRs to WRs and RBs to RBs. The less RBs that contribute consistantly and have long careers, the more valuable the ones that do, are. I don't mean to be condescending - I really don't. But until that is understood by both of us, there is not point in going back and forth.

I don't think you are understanding everyone else's argument either Coop. Who are these RB's that will contribute consistantly and have long careers? As I said in another post I am quite confident that CJ and AP are. What names are you adding to that list?

Again, we are comparing RBs to WRs here. We can't do that. If you knew that ADP and CJ were the only two that could do it, you had better be trading up to get them - Nicks and Calvin if needed.Lets assume that the percentage next to the player indicates the likelyhood that the RB will have 4 years of RB 1 production:RB A - 90%RB B - 85%RB C - 80%RB D - 70%RB E - 65%RB A would have a 25% value over replacement, compared to RB E. Now lets use WRs for 6 years:WR A - 95%WR B - 95 %WR C - 92.5%WR D - 90%WR E - 85%WR A has less of an advantage over his peers than RB A, even though WR A lasts longer and has a higher percentage. Your argument that there are not many RBs likely to last, only adds major value to those that should. Again, you are arguing for the high VORP value of the top RB - in your mind the top 2.

 

[Concept Coop]

Thats the thing, it isn't just Spiller and Blount. It's Spiller and Blount and Ivory and F. Jackson and Starks and BJGE. Some combination of mid level draft picks, late round flyer picks, and waiver wire pickups. You play the matchups, play the hot hand, and you get production. You can't do that with WR's in the same manner.

Yes you can, you just don't have to. There are more to go around on a weekly basis. If I draft Welker, Colston, S. Moss, and Anquan Boldin, all after round 4 or 5, I am no more likely to need to search the WW than you, if you have Fitz, Bowe, and Marshall.

 

[Concept Coop]

A very simple way to prove me wrong - 2 steps:

1. Acknowledge that, in most formats, the top RBs have more value than the top WRs. FBG has plenty of resources suggesting this, as does any level fantasy resource.

2. Tell me what it is about dynasty formats that makes the gap between top RBs and average RBs SMALLER than in redrafts.

If you can't to the 2nd, but still claim WRs have more VORP, then you are claiming that the FBG calc is wrong, as is every fantasy resource I have seen.

 

[Concept Coop]

Thrify:

VORP drafting requires a baseline value, then the measuring of players against that value. I have never seen a baseline value so low that a weekly injury replacement would come into play. There is a reason for that. They would have negative, to no value scores and are only suitable in emergencies. And that is assuming you happen to have the guy whose starter (better player) got hurt during that week. Having a negative value at both of your RB spots is a huge disadvantage, and would require luck (i.e. Hillis, McFadden) to win long term.

 

[Instinctive]

Career length does matter. I matters because in the NFL, not fantasy, RB is generally a position that is plug and play. Most offenses can plug in any number of guys and get similar production from the RB position. Is Arian Foster really incredibly talented, or is he just another guy who is talented enough to be an NFL RB and ended up on a team with no other options and a great scheme and a ton of scoring opportunities?

You are not understanding Value Over Replacement. You compare WRs to WRs and RBs to RBs. The less RBs that contribute consistantly and have long careers, the more valuable the ones that do, are. I don't mean to be condescending - I really don't. But until that is understood by both of us, there is not point in going back and forth.

No, I understand the concept. I'm saying it's useless to apply it here because the replacement isn't going to be RB12. It's going to be RB3's backup.Value Over Replacement doesn't matter here like you think it does. If I only have to replace my WRs every 5 or 6 years, and my QB once a decade, then almost every single year I am getting a new young RB. I'm getting a shot at the next Chris Johnson, Matt Forte, Jamaal Charles. And then they produce immediately.

 

[Concept Coop]

That doesn't make sense to me. Using that logic, every year I draft a WR, I have a shot at the next Calvin Johnson, Hakeem Nicks, and Dez Bryant. So I shouldn't draft a WR in a startup.

I very well could be missing something and sound stupid. So again, I don't mean to sound condescending. But if I do understand your point (I might not), it is moot.

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

Coop,

We won't ever see eye to eye on this I don't think. We agree that RB turnover is high, you think that makes RB's more valuable, I think it makes them less valuable. No reason both strategies can't produce championship teams, just a matter of preference and what you are more comfortable with.

 

[Concept Coop]

Coop,We won't ever see eye to eye on this I don't think. We agree that RB turnover is high, you think that makes RB's more valuable, I think it makes them less valuable. No reason both strategies can't produce championship teams, just a matter of preference and what you are more comfortable with.

I would agree. If you can draft a team loaded at QB/WR/TE in a startup, and hit big on RBs later, like you have, obviously you are in great shape. I didn't mean to suggest that you couldn't. I suppose it is a level of comfort and preference.