Draft Strategy for Dynasty Startups (1 Viewer)

[Instinctive]

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.

It's a lot easier to hit on RBs than on WRs though.That's really my point. It's really tough to find a QB who will vault into the top 5. It's really tough to find receivers who will vault into the top 5. It's not that tough to find RBs who jump that high. It's easily the position with the most year to year fluctuation. I would rather just grab a ton of studs at QB/WR and only have to worry about RB than have to worry about those other positions. And in addition to that, the longevity of those positions also means I have to worry less about replacing them, because I can take 2nd round rookie shots every year and maybe 1/5 hits...but that's all I need.It's just a whole heckuva lot easier to find startable RBs throughout the season, that produce comparably to the top RBs, than it is to find receivers or QBs.

 

[eaglesfan7]

Last year I drafted Andre Johnson, fitz, Rivers, crabtree and nicks. I got smoked every week because of my running backs. I had JStew, DMC and Felix jones and then some average backs behind them. Now I have the number 2 rookie pick and I guess I'll take Julio jones since I don't like Ingram. The point is, waiting on backs gets you questionable injury prone liabilities.

 

[Instinctive]

Last year I drafted Andre Johnson, fitz, Rivers, crabtree and nicks. I got smoked every week because of my running backs. I had JStew, DMC and Felix jones and then some average backs behind them. Now I have the number 2 rookie pick and I guess I'll take Julio jones since I don't like Ingram. The point is, waiting on backs gets you questionable injury prone liabilities.

That team should make the playoffs...and DMC was a monster. And JStew was a monster in the playoffs. That's exactly the team that I win with year in and year out. Dominance at two positions and luck at RB. YOu must have really played some hot teams or played the wrong starters to mess up that team's playoff chances.And with that team you take the RB or trade the pick with a lesser player to get a RB. You aren;t following the strategy if you take Julio...so you can hardly fault the strategy there.

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

Last year I drafted Andre Johnson, fitz, Rivers, crabtree and nicks. I got smoked every week because of my running backs. I had JStew, DMC and Felix jones and then some average backs behind them. Now I have the number 2 rookie pick and I guess I'll take Julio jones since I don't like Ingram. The point is, waiting on backs gets you questionable injury prone liabilities.

Is that a 6 team league?

 

[wiscstlatlmia]

Last year I drafted Andre Johnson, fitz, Rivers, crabtree and nicks. I got smoked every week because of my running backs. I had JStew, DMC and Felix jones and then some average backs behind them. Now I have the number 2 rookie pick and I guess I'll take Julio jones since I don't like Ingram. The point is, waiting on backs gets you questionable injury prone liabilities.

Is that a 6 team league?

 

[eaglesfan7]

12 team league suckers. I took nicks earlier than anyone expected. Same goes for DMC and JStew. I played those wideouts every week but the problem was my backs were hurt every week, even with DMC blowing up. My opponent just blew up every week.

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

12 team league suckers. I took nicks earlier than anyone expected. Same goes for DMC and JStew. I played those wideouts every week but the problem was my backs were hurt every week, even with DMC blowing up. My opponent just blew up every week.

That has to be one of the worst 12 team leagues I have seen.You somehow ended up with this roster...Fitz (1st round ADP)AJ (1st round ADP) Stewart (2nd round ADP)Crabtree (2nd round ADP)Nicks (3rd round ADP)Felix (4th round ADP)Rivers (5th round ADP)Not sure who you are playing with in that league but I'm assuming they aren't too sharp.

 

[Instinctive]

12 team league suckers. I took nicks earlier than anyone expected. Same goes for DMC and JStew. I played those wideouts every week but the problem was my backs were hurt every week, even with DMC blowing up. My opponent just blew up every week.

That has to be one of the worst 12 team leagues I have seen.You somehow ended up with this roster...Fitz (1st round ADP)AJ (1st round ADP) Stewart (2nd round ADP)Crabtree (2nd round ADP)Nicks (3rd round ADP)Felix (4th round ADP)Rivers (5th round ADP)Not sure who you are playing with in that league but I'm assuming they aren't too sharp.

And yet he managed to lose.....

 

[zilladog]

I agree its not a VORP thing. I also don't think its about backup RB's. It's about finding RB's that have talent aswell as a good chance of an increase in workload. Sometimes it's a clear backup,but often its about recognizing both talent and opprotunity and drafting a player late in the draft who will meet both criteria.

It all comes down to simple supply and demand, not value based on a "draft by number" system. Sorry if I just commited FBG heresy by not standing behind VBD. But the fact is that there are so many more RB's that get quality touches than there ever usedto be. Its no longer a starter/backup situation for most teams. Its often a tandem. However the amount of WR's and QB's and TE's has remained the same.

And for the record, I think VBD and VORP and other similar systems are great tools and totally have their uses. I just think a draft requires much more nuance and foresight and timing than any premade list or system could give you.

 

[Concept Coop]

It all comes down to simple supply and demand, not value based on a "draft by number" system. Sorry if I just commited FBG heresy by not standing behind VBD. But the fact is that there are so many more RB's that get quality touches than there ever usedto be. Its no longer a starter/backup situation for most teams. Its often a tandem. However the amount of WR's and QB's and TE's has remained the same.

You are making my point for me!!! Because more teams are using RBBC - the RBs that do get full loads, have more value over replacement. And VORP is not some number system, as you suggest. It is a very simple concept. I don't know how the idea that you draft the player that best helps you win is not complete and needs more nuance and foresight .I don't know how to explain it any better.

If 5 of the top 10 RBs retired tomorrow, how does that affect the remaining 5? You seem to be suggesting that it hurts them.

 

[eaglesfan7]

Yeah they're not that sharp that I landed in 2nd to last. And by the way crabtree and Felix did not have those adp's. My leaguemates obviously know something you don't.

 

[eaglesfan7]

Yes I'm admitting it was bad luck and seeing the wrong teams at the wrong time.

 

[Instinctive]

It all comes down to simple supply and demand, not value based on a "draft by number" system. Sorry if I just commited FBG heresy by not standing behind VBD. But the fact is that there are so many more RB's that get quality touches than there ever usedto be. Its no longer a starter/backup situation for most teams. Its often a tandem. However the amount of WR's and QB's and TE's has remained the same.

You are making my point for me!!! Because more teams are using RBBC - the RBs that do get full loads, have more value over replacement. And VORP is not some number system, as you suggest. It is a very simple concept. I don't know how the idea that you draft the player that best helps you win is not complete and needs more nuance and foresight .I don't know how to explain it any better.

If 5 of the top 10 RBs retired tomorrow, how does that affect the remaining 5? You seem to be suggesting that it hurts them.

He's not suggesting that it hurts them. He's suggesting that only a couple teams will have that advantage. And I don't want the top 3 pick it will take to have one of the guys that matter. I only have to beat the team with AD/CJ one time or two times. If I play both, I have to beat both. If they play each other, I only have to beat one of them.The top RB has more VOR in a vacuum. But when I can get a bunch of committee guys and play matchups, I can basically equal that production from AD/CJ. I can just prey on the weak run defense teams, win enough games to go to the playoffs and continue to combine weak defenses with one week wonder guys because STARTERS GET HURT.

It doesn't matter who has the top 10 RBs when a couple of them are hurt in any given week and I've got the backups. All the sudden, I'm starting Keiland Williams for FOUR TDs. I'm starting Ryan Torain...and oh my goodness he ran with the job and now it's even less of a worry.

Talent is such a greater factor at the WR and QB positions that you simply cannot expect or hope for that. When Andre Johnson goes down, Jacoby Jones may move up in weekly rankings...but he doesn't jump to the top 10 like Rashad Jennings does if/when MJD gets hurt. Nate Burleson doesn't become a top 5 play, like Jonathan Stewart does when DWill goes down, if Calvin is injured.

VOR doesn't matter in this context. I'm not playing RB35 for the season. I'm playing a bunch of different RB30-40s that, week in and week out playing matchups and injuries to increase workloads...turns into a couple of top 15 backs. You can't do that with WRs.

Not to mention, even if you have the top RB, and I have my RB9 and 18 for the week, my point deficit there is offset by the fact that I'm also starting WR1, WR4, and WR6. Not "a WR1" mind you, but THE WR1. My advantage over you in that department is enough to overcome weaker RBs. And the WRs are more consistent year to year - the guy you draft as your top back now isn't anywhere near as likely to stay in the top 5 as a top 5 WR is.

 

[Concept Coop]

Not to mention, even if you have the top RB, and I have my RB9 and 18 for the week, my point deficit there is offset by the fact that I'm also starting WR1, WR4, and WR6. Not "a WR1" mind you, but THE WR1. My advantage over you in that department is enough to overcome weaker RBs. And the WRs are more consistent year to year - the guy you draft as your top back now isn't anywhere near as likely to stay in the top 5 as a top 5 WR is.

Edit: Nevermind. You keep comparing Wrs to Rbs. We are going in circles. I think you should read this: http://www.footballguys.com/bryantvbd.htm

 

[Instinctive]

Not to mention, even if you have the top RB, and I have my RB9 and 18 for the week, my point deficit there is offset by the fact that I'm also starting WR1, WR4, and WR6. Not "a WR1" mind you, but THE WR1. My advantage over you in that department is enough to overcome weaker RBs. And the WRs are more consistent year to year - the guy you draft as your top back now isn't anywhere near as likely to stay in the top 5 as a top 5 WR is.

Edit: Nevermind. You keep comparing Wrs to Rbs. We are going in circles. I think you should read this: http://www.footballguys.com/bryantvbd.htm

Right. Because the goal of your team is to score the most points TOTAL, not the most at every position individually. If I score 100 and you score 90, and I had 10 from my RBs and you had 50 from yours, who wins?It's like you aren't reading. VOR doesn't matter because I am not starting RB20 against RB1 every week. I'm starting a bunch of different RBs that, over the course of a season, aren't really scoring much lower than the top guys. Try to read it again, but this time start by not assuming I don't understand your point. Start by assuming I totally understand it because I used to use it, long before you began posting here. Then assume there *might* be a reason why I have adopted a different strategy. Read for actual comprehension, rather than to simply confirm what you believe is the best strategy.

 

[Instinctive]

Also, I use VBD. I'm going to acquire more VBD because I will be staring the WR1 as my WR1. Then I'll start the WR3 as my WR2. Then I'll start the WR7 as my WR3. And you know what? Everyone else can have guys who fit in. They'll have a 2-15 WR as their WR1, a 16-28 WR as their WR2, and a 29-40 WR as their WR3. That gives me a MASSIVE advantage at that position. Enough to overcome a disadvantage elsewhere.

If my 3rd best wideout is about as good as everyone else's first best, I'm more ahead of the game there than I am behind the game by not having similar RBs.

 

[Concept Coop]

Not to mention, even if you have the top RB, and I have my RB9 and 18 for the week, my point deficit there is offset by the fact that I'm also starting WR1, WR4, and WR6. Not "a WR1" mind you, but THE WR1. My advantage over you in that department is enough to overcome weaker RBs. And the WRs are more consistent year to year - the guy you draft as your top back now isn't anywhere near as likely to stay in the top 5 as a top 5 WR is.

Edit: Nevermind. You keep comparing Wrs to Rbs. We are going in circles. I think you should read this: http://www.footballguys.com/bryantvbd.htm

Right. Because the goal of your team is to score the most points TOTAL, not the most at every position individually. If I score 100 and you score 90, and I had 10 from my RBs and you had 50 from yours, who wins?

You do. Now lets assume that I have:

QB6

RB1

WR12

TE6

And you have:

QB6

RB12

WR1

TE6

Who wins? I do. Why? Because the R1B scores TWICE as much over replacement as WR1 does over WR12. Just look at the stats.

It's like you aren't reading. VOR doesn't matter because I am not starting RB20 against RB1 every week. I'm starting a bunch of different RBs that, over the course of a season, aren't really scoring much lower than the top guys. Try to read it again, but this time start by not assuming I don't understand your point. Start by assuming I totally understand it because I used to use it, long before you began posting here. Then assume there *might* be a reason why I have adopted a different strategy. Read for actual comprehension, rather than to simply confirm what you believe is the best strategy.

Show me a combination that scored close to Foster, that you chould have gotten in the 6th round, that that doesn't includ Hillis or McFadden.

 

[Concept Coop]

If my 3rd best wideout is about as good as everyone else's first best, I'm more ahead of the game there than I am behind the game by not having similar RBs.

How do you not understand that this is wrong? Numbers show very clearly that this is wrong. Do a VORP excersise and see that Foster gives you twice the VORP as the #1 WR. You would need two 2010 Roddy White's to make up for what Foster did.

 

[Concept Coop]

A: My WRs will make up for it.

B: No they won't, look at the stats.

A: Well I will find Foster or Hillis.

B: That is relying on luck. You are no more likely to get them than me, even if I do draft RB early.

A: But RBs get hurt more and not many get full loads.

B: Vorp shows that this helps the elite one, not hurts them. You are comparing WRs to RBs.

A: Vorp isn't everything.

B: ...

A: My WRs will make up for it.

 

[Go deep]

Not to mention, even if you have the top RB, and I have my RB9 and 18 for the week, my point deficit there is offset by the fact that I'm also starting WR1, WR4, and WR6. Not "a WR1" mind you, but THE WR1. My advantage over you in that department is enough to overcome weaker RBs. And the WRs are more consistent year to year - the guy you draft as your top back now isn't anywhere near as likely to stay in the top 5 as a top 5 WR is.

Edit: Nevermind. You keep comparing Wrs to Rbs. We are going in circles. I think you should read this: http://www.footballg...m/bryantvbd.htm

Right. Because the goal of your team is to score the most points TOTAL, not the most at every position individually. If I score 100 and you score 90, and I had 10 from my RBs and you had 50 from yours, who wins?

You do. Now lets assume that I have:

QB6

RB1

WR12

TE6

And you have:

QB6

RB12

WR1

TE6

Who wins? I do. Why? Because the R1B scores TWICE as much over replacement as WR1 does over WR12. Just look at the stats.

It's like you aren't reading. VOR doesn't matter because I am not starting RB20 against RB1 every week. I'm starting a bunch of different RBs that, over the course of a season, aren't really scoring much lower than the top guys. Try to read it again, but this time start by not assuming I don't understand your point. Start by assuming I totally understand it because I used to use it, long before you began posting here. Then assume there *might* be a reason why I have adopted a different strategy. Read for actual comprehension, rather than to simply confirm what you believe is the best strategy.

Show me a combination that scored close to Foster, that you chould have gotten in the 6th round, that that doesn't includ Hillis or McFadden.

While im not picking sides here, i dont think this is fair, because you have to spend a higher pick on RB12 then he would have to on WR12. So he would likely have an advantage at another position there.

 

[Concept Coop]

While im not picking sides here, i dont think this is fair, because you have to spend a higher pick on RB12 then he would have to on WR12. So he would likely have an advantage at another position there.

And why is it that the RB12 is harder to get or is drafted earlier? He is more valuable.And I know you weren't suggesting otherwise. I can tell by your rankings that you understand it.At times the best player on the board is not going to be a RB. I am not suggesting anyone should blindly go RB/RB. But, as a rule of thumb, ignoring RB early is not good practice.

 

[Go deep]

While im not picking sides here, i dont think this is fair, because you have to spend a higher pick on RB12 then he would have to on WR12. So he would likely have an advantage at another position there.

And why is it that the RB12 is harder to get or is drafted earlier? He is more valuable.

I havnt read the entire debate, but i dont think anyone would really disagree with that. Where i think the difference lies is that its harder to predict who will be the the #12 RB than the #12 WR.

 

[Concept Coop]

While im not picking sides here, i dont think this is fair, because you have to spend a higher pick on RB12 then he would have to on WR12. So he would likely have an advantage at another position there.

And why is it that the RB12 is harder to get or is drafted earlier? He is more valuable.

I havnt read the entire debate, but i dont think anyone would really disagree with that. Where i think the difference lies is that its harder to predict who will be the the #12 RB than the #12 WR.

No doubt. But that only adds value to those that you can predict in the top 12 (ADP, CJ2K, Charles, et cetera).The debate is essentially that you gain an advantage by waiting on RB until round 5 or 6. That is what I am pointing out as faulty.

 

[Go deep]

While im not picking sides here, i dont think this is fair, because you have to spend a higher pick on RB12 then he would have to on WR12. So he would likely have an advantage at another position there.

And why is it that the RB12 is harder to get or is drafted earlier? He is more valuable.

I havnt read the entire debate, but i dont think anyone would really disagree with that. Where i think the difference lies is that its harder to predict who will be the the #12 RB than the #12 WR.

No doubt. But that only adds value to those that you can predict in the top 12 (ADP, CJ2K, Charles, et cetera).The debate is essentially that you gain an advantage by waiting on RB until round 5 or 6. That is what I am pointing out as faulty.

I dont think you gain an advantage, but i have definitely come a long way from the days where i would draft any starting RB over even some of the best WR's or QB's. I dont think there is a right or wrong way to go here, it comes down to picking the right player, not the right position.

 

[Concept Coop]

I dont think you gain an advantage, but i have definitely come a long way from the days where i would draft any starting RB over even some of the best WR's or QB's. I dont think there is a right or wrong way to go here, it comes down to picking the right player, not the right position.

I agree 100%. I think that is what VBD is: Player that will best help you win.

 

[Go deep]

I dont think you gain an advantage, but i have definitely come a long way from the days where i would draft any starting RB over even some of the best WR's or QB's. I dont think there is a right or wrong way to go here, it comes down to picking the right player, not the right position.

I agree 100%. I think that is what VBD is: Player that will best help you win.

VBD is good tool for redraft, but it doesnt help much in dynasty leagues. VBD works with an assumed set of numbers, WR's are more likey to acheive those numbers than RB's, and it doesnt account for longeveity, injury proness, etc. For example, Foster might have a higher VBD score than Hakeem Nicks, but that doesnt account for the fact that Nicks is likely to play longer, stay healthier, and is less likely to be hurt by a change of system/supporting cast, etc.*I just used those players as an example, you could put any RB or WR name in there and the same thing would apply.

 

[Concept Coop]

I dont think you gain an advantage, but i have definitely come a long way from the days where i would draft any starting RB over even some of the best WR's or QB's. I dont think there is a right or wrong way to go here, it comes down to picking the right player, not the right position.

I agree 100%. I think that is what VBD is: Player that will best help you win.

VBD is good tool for redraft, but it doesnt help much in dynasty leagues. VBD works with an assumed set of numbers, WR's are more likey to acheive those numbers than RB's, and it doesnt account for longeveity, injury proness, etc. For example, Foster might have a higher VBD score than Hakeem Nicks, but that doesnt account for the fact that Nicks is likely to play longer, stay healthier, and is less likely to be hurt by a change of system/supporting cast, etc.*I just used those players as an example, you could put any RB or WR name in there and the same thing would apply.

The VBD Caltulator might not be for re-draft. But Value Based Drafting is the only way to go. It is about getting the best value at each pick. Obviously, in dynasty leagues, more info goes into it, some subjective. But Aaron Rodgers will last longer than Calvin Johnson, most likely, and scores more points - so why would you take Calvin over Rodgers? Value.And it doesn't matter than Nicks will play longer. You compare RBs to RBs and WRs to WRs - that is how you get the advantage. But I am done on that topic.

 

[Go deep]

I dont think you gain an advantage, but i have definitely come a long way from the days where i would draft any starting RB over even some of the best WR's or QB's. I dont think there is a right or wrong way to go here, it comes down to picking the right player, not the right position.

I agree 100%. I think that is what VBD is: Player that will best help you win.

VBD is good tool for redraft, but it doesnt help much in dynasty leagues. VBD works with an assumed set of numbers, WR's are more likey to acheive those numbers than RB's, and it doesnt account for longeveity, injury proness, etc. For example, Foster might have a higher VBD score than Hakeem Nicks, but that doesnt account for the fact that Nicks is likely to play longer, stay healthier, and is less likely to be hurt by a change of system/supporting cast, etc.

*I just used those players as an example, you could put any RB or WR name in there and the same thing would apply.

The VBD Caltulator, might not be for re-draft. But Value Based Drafting is the only way to go. It is about getting the best value at each pick. Obviously, in dynasty leagues, more info goes into it, some subjective. And it doesn't matter than Nicks will play longer. You compare RBs to RBs and WRs to WRs - that is how you get the advantage. But I am done on that topic.

I was with you, until this. I know you said you where done, but i dont get this, you never find yourself in a postion to decide between a RB and WR in a dynasty start-up? I know thats not what you are saying,. but i am not sure of what you mean.

No worries if you dont want to answer, i was just curious.

 

[Concept Coop]

I dont think you gain an advantage, but i have definitely come a long way from the days where i would draft any starting RB over even some of the best WR's or QB's. I dont think there is a right or wrong way to go here, it comes down to picking the right player, not the right position.

I agree 100%. I think that is what VBD is: Player that will best help you win.

VBD is good tool for redraft, but it doesnt help much in dynasty leagues. VBD works with an assumed set of numbers, WR's are more likey to acheive those numbers than RB's, and it doesnt account for longeveity, injury proness, etc. For example, Foster might have a higher VBD score than Hakeem Nicks, but that doesnt account for the fact that Nicks is likely to play longer, stay healthier, and is less likely to be hurt by a change of system/supporting cast, etc.

*I just used those players as an example, you could put any RB or WR name in there and the same thing would apply.

The VBD Caltulator, might not be for re-draft. But Value Based Drafting is the only way to go. It is about getting the best value at each pick. Obviously, in dynasty leagues, more info goes into it, some subjective. And it doesn't matter than Nicks will play longer. You compare RBs to RBs and WRs to WRs - that is how you get the advantage. But I am done on that topic.

I was with you, until this. I know you said you where done, but i dont get this, you never find yourself in a postion to decide between a RB and WR in a dynasty start-up? I know thats not what you are saying,. but i am not sure of what you mean.

No worries if you dont want to answer, i was just curious.

This is from earlier: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.

 

[Go deep]

I dont think you gain an advantage, but i have definitely come a long way from the days where i would draft any starting RB over even some of the best WR's or QB's. I dont think there is a right or wrong way to go here, it comes down to picking the right player, not the right position.

I agree 100%. I think that is what VBD is: Player that will best help you win.

VBD is good tool for redraft, but it doesnt help much in dynasty leagues. VBD works with an assumed set of numbers, WR's are more likey to acheive those numbers than RB's, and it doesnt account for longeveity, injury proness, etc. For example, Foster might have a higher VBD score than Hakeem Nicks, but that doesnt account for the fact that Nicks is likely to play longer, stay healthier, and is less likely to be hurt by a change of system/supporting cast, etc.

*I just used those players as an example, you could put any RB or WR name in there and the same thing would apply.

The VBD Caltulator, might not be for re-draft. But Value Based Drafting is the only way to go. It is about getting the best value at each pick. Obviously, in dynasty leagues, more info goes into it, some subjective. And it doesn't matter than Nicks will play longer. You compare RBs to RBs and WRs to WRs - that is how you get the advantage. But I am done on that topic.

I was with you, until this. I know you said you where done, but i dont get this, you never find yourself in a postion to decide between a RB and WR in a dynasty start-up? I know thats not what you are saying,. but i am not sure of what you mean.

No worries if you dont want to answer, i was just curious.

This is from earlier: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.

Thanks for the response and i clearly agree with what you are saying. But after we know that, we then have to compare a RB to a WR at some point in a draft. When trying to decide if i should take RB A or WR A i have to also try to figure out what are the chances of that player acheiving that %. For example, if i think my WR1 Calvin Johnson has a 50% chance of finishing as WR A and my RB1 only has a 10% chance at finishing as RB A, wouldnt that potentially make Calvin the right pick?

 

[Concept Coop]

Thanks for the response and i clearly agree with what you are saying. But after we know that, we then have to compare a RB to a WR at some point in a draft. When trying to decide if i should take RB A or WR A i have to also try to figure out what are the chances of that player acheiving that %. For example, if i think my WR1 Calvin Johnson has a 50% chance of finishing as WR A and my RB1 only has a 10% chance at finishing as RB A, wouldnt that potentially make Calvin the right pick?

That would depend. If the WRs likely to be there in round 2 have 47% chances and the RBs in round 2 have 2% chances. But, in most cases, I would say yes.I think most of us draft this way in our head. But instead of thinking about what we are doing, we think: "If I want a young RB, I better get him now. There will still be WRs worth drafting in the next round."

 

[Tau837]

I dont think you gain an advantage, but i have definitely come a long way from the days where i would draft any starting RB over even some of the best WR's or QB's. I dont think there is a right or wrong way to go here, it comes down to picking the right player, not the right position.

I agree 100%. I think that is what VBD is: Player that will best help you win.

VBD is good tool for redraft, but it doesnt help much in dynasty leagues. VBD works with an assumed set of numbers, WR's are more likey to acheive those numbers than RB's, and it doesnt account for longeveity, injury proness, etc. For example, Foster might have a higher VBD score than Hakeem Nicks, but that doesnt account for the fact that Nicks is likely to play longer, stay healthier, and is less likely to be hurt by a change of system/supporting cast, etc.*I just used those players as an example, you could put any RB or WR name in there and the same thing would apply.

 

[Go deep]

Thanks for the response and i clearly agree with what you are saying. But after we know that, we then have to compare a RB to a WR at some point in a draft. When trying to decide if i should take RB A or WR A i have to also try to figure out what are the chances of that player acheiving that %. For example, if i think my WR1 Calvin Johnson has a 50% chance of finishing as WR A and my RB1 only has a 10% chance at finishing as RB A, wouldnt that potentially make Calvin the right pick?

That would depend. If the WRs likely to be there in round 2 have 47% chances and the RBs in round 2 have 2% chances. But, in most cases, I would say yes.I think most of us draft this way in our head. But instead of thinking about what we are doing, we think: "If I want a young RB, I better get him now. There will still be WRs worth drafting in the next round."

Agreed, other than Calvin, im likely coming out of round one with a RB. My only point was just that VBD is a good starting tool, but when it comes to making picks, there is alot more to consider.

 

[I was in the pool]

This debate had been priceless.

I will say I an on the side of waiting on running backs. Of course I would draft a back if I had a top pick, but trading down or picking in the back party of round one is where I like to be personally. Picked nicks and fitzgerald in the first two rounds of a dynasty start up and love the thought of having two receivers I don't have to worry about for five years or more...

 

[Go deep]

This debate had been priceless.

I will say I an on the side of waiting on running backs. Of course I would draft a back if I had a top pick, but trading down or picking in the back party of round one is where I like to be personally. Picked nicks and fitzgerald in the first two rounds of a dynasty start up and love the thought of having two receivers I don't have to worry about for five years or more...

This being the advantage of WR's over RB's. You cant say that about any RB, even Chris Johnson or AD(although i would take my chances with them).

 

[Concept Coop]

Thanks for the response and i clearly agree with what you are saying. But after we know that, we then have to compare a RB to a WR at some point in a draft. When trying to decide if i should take RB A or WR A i have to also try to figure out what are the chances of that player acheiving that %. For example, if i think my WR1 Calvin Johnson has a 50% chance of finishing as WR A and my RB1 only has a 10% chance at finishing as RB A, wouldnt that potentially make Calvin the right pick?

That would depend. If the WRs likely to be there in round 2 have 47% chances and the RBs in round 2 have 2% chances. But, in most cases, I would say yes.I think most of us draft this way in our head. But instead of thinking about what we are doing, we think: "If I want a young RB, I better get him now. There will still be WRs worth drafting in the next round."

Agreed, other than Calvin, im likely coming out of round one with a RB. My only point was just that VBD is a good starting tool, but when it comes to making picks, there is alot more to consider.

More goes into VBD, but VBD still stands. VBD only means the most valuable. What that means can change, but I can't think of any argument for taking a less valuable player.I don't mean VBD as in taking the projections and spitting out numbers. But realizing that 10 years of RB production is worth more than 10 years of WR play (scoring the same amount) is VBD. Realizing that Philip Rivers in the 2nd isn't a good pick, if Drew Brees is there in the 6th, is using VBD. I think we are on the same page. We are just using diffrent definitions of VBD.

 

[eaglesfan7]

You can plug in DMC or McCoy for the next five years????

 

[Go deep]

Thanks for the response and i clearly agree with what you are saying. But after we know that, we then have to compare a RB to a WR at some point in a draft. When trying to decide if i should take RB A or WR A i have to also try to figure out what are the chances of that player acheiving that %. For example, if i think my WR1 Calvin Johnson has a 50% chance of finishing as WR A and my RB1 only has a 10% chance at finishing as RB A, wouldnt that potentially make Calvin the right pick?

That would depend. If the WRs likely to be there in round 2 have 47% chances and the RBs in round 2 have 2% chances. But, in most cases, I would say yes.I think most of us draft this way in our head. But instead of thinking about what we are doing, we think: "If I want a young RB, I better get him now. There will still be WRs worth drafting in the next round."

Agreed, other than Calvin, im likely coming out of round one with a RB.

My only point was just that VBD is a good starting tool, but when it comes to making picks, there is alot more to consider.

More goes into VBD, but VBD still stands. VBD only means the most valuable. What that means can change, but I can't think of any argument for taking a less valuable player.I don't mean VBD as in taking the projections and spitting out numbers. But realizing that 10 years of RB production is worth more than 10 years of WR play (scoring the same amount) is VBD. Realizing that Philip Rivers in the 2nd isn't a good pick, if Drew Brees is there in the 6th, is using VBD.

I think we are on the same page. We are just using diffrent definitions of VBD.

I think we are on the same page AND using the same definition of VBD. I just think we differ on how we apply it in dynasty leagues. Which is good, it means we mostly agree, which is further than most people wll get with debates in here.

 

[Go deep]

You can plug in DMC or McCoy for the next five years????

Are you asking that, or suggesting it?

 

[thriftyrocker]

You can plug in DMC or McCoy for the next five years????

Are you asking that, or suggesting it?

Sort of the crux of the argument innit? Would like to see "likelihood that the RB will have 4 years of RB 1 production" put to some of the top names.

 

[Instinctive]

The issue here is not that I disagree with VBD. I just think that the way to get the most VBD out of your RBs in not necessarily in the first round. Due to the nature of the position, I think you can shotgun it after setting studs at WR/QB/TE and still have a decent shot at ending up with a top VBD guy like Foster. Or DWill circa a couple years ago. Or JStewart the past two years - as long as you made it to the playoffs, he may have won them for you. Or Charles year before last, etc etc...

I just feel that I can find that top 5 VBD workhorse back through a combination of picks later on a lot easier than I can find the WRs. RB is, in addition to having the most valuable studs, the position where predicting those studs is the hardest. You are going to need luck in the middle and late rounds to win a title. I feel like you are more likely to get that luck with RBs than any other position.

VOR is great, but it only tells us so much. You gotta keep in mind that The number one ranked RB going into the season probably isn't finishing with the most VBD. In fact, most of the top 5 going into the season aren't finishing in the top 5 of VBD. It's different with receivers. They have that year to year consistency to depend on. Because of that, I would rather try to get my top RBs late and using a committee which, by playing matchups and injuries, can produce close to, as much or more than even the top producing back in the league.

 

[I was in the pool]

What I heard is that VBD works in redraft but we are talking dynasty, so the variables for running back are more extreme. What running backs in the last five years have averaged 15 + starts a year? Or 20 + touches over any rolling five game stretch within those seasons? And can you predict that after his first year that it will turn out like that? Basically, stud receivers are more predictable and stable from game to game and season to season over a longer period of time. How often does a wide receiver"fall off a cliff" in terms of production? Not as often as running backs, that's for sure. All these factors would alter the VBD formula when you go over years and variables instead of a single "perfect" season where all the players perform at your projections. And all this is coming from a guy that used VBD in the past...

 

[I was in the pool]

I will do some number crunching on these concepts and post in here in a couple days. I anticipate they will support the receiver theory.

 

[Concept Coop]

What I heard is that VBD works in redraft but we are talking dynasty, so the variables for running back are more extreme. What running backs in the last five years have averaged 15 + starts a year? Or 20 + touches over any rolling five game stretch within those seasons? And can you predict that after his first year that it will turn out like that? Basically, stud receivers are more predictable and stable from game to game and season to season over a longer period of time. How often does a wide receiver"fall off a cliff" in terms of production? Not as often as running backs, that's for sure. All these factors would alter the VBD formula when you go over years and variables instead of a single "perfect" season where all the players perform at your projections. And all this is coming from a guy that used VBD in the past...

Yes. There are more variables. That doesn't change the concept.QBs are more stable, last longer, and score more points. Just make sure your findings don't suggest they offer more VORP than the top RBs too.

 

[I was in the pool]

So is everyone arguing what to do with a top 5 dynasty pick? do the advocates of running backs think you should pick running back in the back half of the first round?

 

[Concept Coop]

The issue here is not that I disagree with VBD. I just think that the way to get the most VBD out of your RBs in not necessarily in the first round. Due to the nature of the position, I think you can shotgun it after setting studs at WR/QB/TE and still have a decent shot at ending up with a top VBD guy like Foster. Or DWill circa a couple years ago. Or JStewart the past two years - as long as you made it to the playoffs, he may have won them for you. Or Charles year before last, etc etc...I just feel that I can find that top 5 VBD workhorse back through a combination of picks later on a lot easier than I can find the WRs. RB is, in addition to having the most valuable studs, the position where predicting those studs is the hardest. You are going to need luck in the middle and late rounds to win a title. I feel like you are more likely to get that luck with RBs than any other position.VOR is great, but it only tells us so much. You gotta keep in mind that The number one ranked RB going into the season probably isn't finishing with the most VBD. In fact, most of the top 5 going into the season aren't finishing in the top 5 of VBD. It's different with receivers. They have that year to year consistency to depend on. Because of that, I would rather try to get my top RBs late and using a committee which, by playing matchups and injuries, can produce close to, as much or more than even the top producing back in the league.

Your comment re: RBBC is just not true. You could get VERY lucky, land Woodhead, Blount, and Ivory and not come anywhere near the top RBs. Landing all three is very unlikely, about as unlikely as knowing which to play, when. You act as though finding the "Foster" of the year is easy. No more easy than finding the Austin Miles (09')or Brandon Lloyd of the year. Maybe you should wait on WRs - no?Lets do a little exercise:3 team mock draft. Start 1RB/1WR. The only players in pool are:ForteD. BrownGerhardtNiksCalvinFitzYou go first. After you make the no-brainer selection (Forte), tell me why it didn't matter that Nicks and Calvin will last longer, are more likely to repeat their feets, and stay healhty.

 

[Tau837]

There hasn't been much discussion of scoring system, league size, and lineup requirements in this thread. There is a big difference between starting 2 RBs and 2 WRs and starting 2 RBs and 3 WRs. Most of my leagues tend to have lineups like the latter (i.e., more WR starters than RB starters). In the context of all of this discussion about drafting RBs vs. WRs early, it makes a big difference, along with the number of teams and the scoring system.

For example, I play in MOXFFL VI, which has 14 teams and requires 2 RBs, 2 WR/TEs, and 2 Flex starters every week... meaning up to 56 RBs can start every week. In a league like that, RBs are gold. It isn't easy to play the waiver wire, because there are probably 80 RBs rostered.

On the other hand, I joined a 10 team startup dynasty league last year that requires 1 QB, 2 RBs, and 3 WRs and 1 TE along with a Flex position that can be QB, RB, WR, or TE. In a league like that, the RB position is devalued.

I think some people are posting with biases based on their league formats, and it is influencing their viewpoints.

 

[Concept Coop]

[quote name='Just Win Baby' timestamp='1303312969' There hasn't been much discussion of scoring system, league size, and lineup requirements in this thread. There is a big difference between starting 2 RBs and 2 WRs and starting 2 RBs and 3 WRs. Most of my leagues tend to have lineups like the latter (i.e., more WR starters than RB starters). In the context of all of this discussion about drafting RBs vs. WRs early, it makes a big difference, along with the number of teams and the scoring system.

For example, I play in MOXFFL VI, which has 14 teams and requires 2 RBs, 2 WR/TEs, and 2 Flex starters every week... meaning up to 56 RBs can start every week. In a league like that, RBs are gold. It isn't easy to play the waiver wire, because there are probably 80 RBs rostered.

On the other hand, I joined a 10 team startup dynasty league last year that requires 1 QB, 2 RBs, and 3 WRs and 1 TE along with a Flex position that can be QB, RB, WR, or TE. In a league like that, the RB position is devalued.

I think some people are posting with biases based on their league formats, and it is influencing their viewpoints.

Very good point. The reason they have more value is supply and demand - another way to describe VORP.

MOX FTW!

 

[I was in the pool]

In a league where you start 2 RBS, 3 WRs and a flex, that would lend itself to start four receivers in ppr because getting there backs that are primary guys for their teams will require high picks that will diminish the rest of your roster, plus change of pace guys are a very good way to compensate in a situation like that and take top receivers early on.

 

[Tau837]

[QUOTE='Just Win Baby]There hasn't been much discussion of scoring system, league size, and lineup requirements in this thread. There is a big difference between starting 2 RBs and 2 WRs and starting 2 RBs and 3 WRs. Most of my leagues tend to have lineups like the latter (i.e., more WR starters than RB starters). In the context of all of this discussion about drafting RBs vs. WRs early, it makes a big difference, along with the number of teams and the scoring system.For example, I play in MOXFFL VI, which has 14 teams and requires 2 RBs, 2 WR/TEs, and 2 Flex starters every week... meaning up to 56 RBs can start every week. In a league like that, RBs are gold. It isn't easy to play the waiver wire, because there are probably 80 RBs rostered.On the other hand, I joined a 10 team startup dynasty league last year that requires 1 QB, 2 RBs, and 3 WRs and 1 TE along with a Flex position that can be QB, RB, WR, or TE. In a league like that, the RB position is devalued.I think some people are posting with biases based on their league formats, and it is influencing their viewpoints.

Very good point. The reason they have more value is supply and demand - another way to describe VORP.MOX FTW! [/QUOTE]IMO it is not appropriate to equate supply and demand with value. They may correlate, but the demand can be inappropriately biased. In the 10 team league I mentioned, it should be obvious that RB value is lower than in many leagues, with only 20-30 starters required every week, but the other owners carried over their RB bias to the draft and drafted them early and often, which enabled me to clean up at QB, WR, and TE. I drafted 1.6, and rather than follow the herd in the long RB run that dominated the early rounds, I started other position runs. Then when the others switched to drafting the other positions, I drafted several high upside RBs, including McFadden, who I hit on. Some would say that was lucky, but it was my strategy and it worked.