Draft Strategy for Dynasty Startups (1 Viewer)

[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.

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.

This is unrealistic. Because in my startup strategy, you don't get oen of Calvin or Nicks. I draft them both. And then if Fitz is there I draft him...ending up with 3 WR1s, regardless of the names. In this scenario, of course you would take Forte. Because it is unrealistic. You have a pool of 3 top 5 receivers, one top 15 RB, and 2 RBs not in the top 30...the positional scarcity of the best RB is drastically higher than what it is in a real draft.I act as though finding the Foster is easy because it is for me. I do it year after year. It works for me because I am a better evaluator of team situations at RB than I am an evaluator of WR talent. I simply have some sort of knack for picking those guys. Ryan Grant, DWill, Foster...it always seems to work for me. It is easy. Just because it isn't easy for you doesn't mean it's difficult for everyone.

 

[Concept Coop]

[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!

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.[/QUOTE]Format changes only affect the value of positions (in relation) when the baseline is changed. Foster scored just as many points in 14 team leagues as he did in 8 team leagues. He is more valuable in 14 team leagues because the value difference is bigger when you compare him to RB14, than when you do RB8.Flex options and starting requirements only alter value, becuase of supply and demand. So supply and demand does equal value. (In everything, but that is for the Free for all).Tht is the reason defenses are often less valuable than position players that score less points: High supply, low demand.

 

[Concept Coop]

This is unrealistic. Because in my startup strategy, you don't get oen of Calvin or Nicks. I draft them both. And then if Fitz is there I draft him...ending up with 3 WR1s, regardless of the names. In this scenario, of course you would take Forte. Because it is unrealistic. You have a pool of 3 top 5 receivers, one top 15 RB, and 2 RBs not in the top 30...the positional scarcity of the best RB is drastically higher than what it is in a real draft.I act as though finding the Foster is easy because it is for me. I do it year after year. It works for me because I am a better evaluator of team situations at RB than I am an evaluator of WR talent. I simply have some sort of knack for picking those guys. Ryan Grant, DWill, Foster...it always seems to work for me. It is easy. Just because it isn't easy for you doesn't mean it's difficult for everyone.

It is only unrealistic to prove a point. I think the point should have been made. Joe Bryant uses a similar example in his article explaining VBD. I would suggest it - great read.If finding Arian Fosters are easy to you and you can do it every year, more power to you. It doesn't mean, in a vacuum, that your strategy is sound, however.

 

[Instinctive]

This is unrealistic. Because in my startup strategy, you don't get oen of Calvin or Nicks. I draft them both. And then if Fitz is there I draft him...ending up with 3 WR1s, regardless of the names. In this scenario, of course you would take Forte. Because it is unrealistic. You have a pool of 3 top 5 receivers, one top 15 RB, and 2 RBs not in the top 30...the positional scarcity of the best RB is drastically higher than what it is in a real draft.

I act as though finding the Foster is easy because it is for me. I do it year after year. It works for me because I am a better evaluator of team situations at RB than I am an evaluator of WR talent. I simply have some sort of knack for picking those guys. Ryan Grant, DWill, Foster...it always seems to work for me. It is easy. Just because it isn't easy for you doesn't mean it's difficult for everyone.

It is only unrealistic to prove a point. I think the point should have been made. Joe Bryant uses a similar example in his article explaining VBD. I would suggest it - great read.If finding Arian Fosters are easy to you and you can do it every year, more power to you. It doesn't mean, in a vacuum, that your strategy is sound, however.

This is what I mean when I say you assume you're the only one who gets it. I've read it. I understand the concept. Both before you ever even appeared here. The strategy is just as sound because of predictability. VOR is important, but there's also more risk with the RBs. Just because you pick a RB in the top 3 doesn't mean he's going to be in the top 3 in VOR. I would rather take a WR who is much more likely to have his, albeit lesser, VOR. Because WRs are more predictable and consistent than the RBs.

If I had a crystal ball and could pick the #1 WR and the #1 RB at the end of eahc year, I would. However, I think that history shows it is a lot more difficult to predict which RBs are going to have the most VOR than ti is to pick the wideouts. I'll take my more guaranteed production over the less certain RB. Yes, if the RB hits, he's worth more to my team. However, the likelihood of hitting on him is less than my receiver.

For instance, let's say the RB1 is worth 1.5 times RB12. And WR1 is worth only 1.20 times WR12.

BUT:

Actually getting RB1 with that pick is only a 50/50 shot. The "score" for this selection in this slot is thus a 0.75

Actually getting WR1 with this pick is a 75/25 shot. The "score" for this selection in this slot is thus a 0.80

I thought I would ETA that I am just making up these percentages to prove the point that the WR is more likely to repeat than the RB. Just go back and look at newcomers to top 5 and 10 every year, position by position. Way less turnover at WR and QB than at RB.

This is how I view it. I am more likely to end up with a sound pick that produces for me at his expected VOR if that pick is a wideout. Reasons for this are the nature of the positions related to injury, higher dependence on situation, etc...

If you've ever read David Dorey's book on FF, the concept is explained more in depth there. When doing his rankings, he weights Talent as twice as important for a receiver as Situation and opportunity. For a RB, he rates Situation and Opportunity each as twice as important as Talent. I follow the same concept.

I agree that if I could choose between RB1 and WR1, I would take the RB every time. However, I think I am more likely to have success with that pick as a WR. If I pick the RB there, there's a higher chance he doesn't live up to the expected VOR than if I pick a receiver or QB.

 

[thriftyrocker]

If finding Arian Fosters are easy to you and you can do it every year, more power to you. It doesn't mean, in a vacuum, that your strategy is sound, however.

Really only have to find one every couple of years. This isn't redraft. Shouldn't Vick be pick 1.1 according to your theory? The difference in PPG between Vick and QB2 and QB12 is > than Foster's advantage over RB2 and RB12. If we're throwing everything subjective out of the window and assuming other owners will draft using the same strategy, he offers a bigger point difference and more future security than the top RBs.

 

[Concept Coop]

If finding Arian Fosters are easy to you and you can do it every year, more power to you. It doesn't mean, in a vacuum, that your strategy is sound, however.

Really only have to find one every couple of years. This isn't redraft. Shouldn't Vick be pick 1.1 according to your theory? The difference in PPG between Vick and QB2 and QB12 is > than Foster's advantage over RB2 and RB12. If we're throwing everything subjective out of the window and assuming other owners will draft using the same strategy, he offers a bigger point difference and more future security than the top RBs.

No. You don't only take points into the equation. You take injury history, risk, points, age, et cetera. The diffrence is, you only compare that to other QBs. If Vick was 24, proven, with no injury history, he would be my #1 in most formats.

 

[Concept Coop]

This is what I mean when I say you assume you're the only one who gets it. I've read it. I understand the concept. Both before you ever even appeared here.

I don't undertand how you can understand the conept and continue to compare WRs to RBs. The concept is that you compare WRs to WRs and RBs to RBs. If Calvin doesn't last longer than the WRs I draft after the first round, it doesn't matter than he lasts longer than the RB I draft in the 1st. Especially if the RB I draft in the first lasts longer than the one you draft in the 5th.

 

[thriftyrocker]

No. You don't only take points into the equation. You take injury history, risk, points, age, et cetera. The diffrence is, you only compare that to other QBs. If Vick was 24, proven, with no injury history, he would be my #1 in most formats.

Vick's injury history is no worse than Rodgers. He is more proven than McCoy, who you tout as RB1, pick 1.1. I said in an earlier post if ADP was 23 I'd take him over the tier 1 WRs. Your statement seems much less valid applied to a QB.

 

[pretender]

I am doing a totally crazy startup strategy - only after it is finished will I know how it works. 14 team dynasty 60 man roster - mixed draft of rookies and veterans - start 1 QB 1 RB 3 WR 1 TE 2 flex (rb,wr or te) K, 1 DT, 2 DE 4 linebackers 2 CB and 2 safety. Defensive scoring isn't real high - pretty normal. Offensive scoring is QB score 5 pts per TD .05 per yd pass and -2 interception. Last year the top 10 scorers were A Foster 1st by a few pts then 7 QB's 9th was Roddy White and 10th was a QB. This is a WR/TE stacked lineup - and a stud QB helps.

I have traded and traded. I have 1.1 1.2 1.3 then a late 6th round early 7th early 9th late 10th No picks until 18 and 19 then 13 picks between rounds 20-30. Picks throughout rounds 30-60 and I traded my draft picks away for next year.

So there will be a lot of talent gone by 6.14. I am going Aaron Rodgers 1.1 Calvin Johnson 1.2 and Ray Rice 1.3. I could go 2 WR - but in a start 1 RB - I think a nice safe choice will be Rice. I think Foster will have a hard time keeping up those numbers. The games that Daniels played - his performance went down. J Charles - I just don't trust him. AP is older and with QB in ? and the tackles he has taken...CJ2K - I don't see immediate changes in the O-line and QB session in Tennessee and with Britt perhaps facing multiple game suspensions....Rice is the man. I feel I can get adequate backup at RB later in the draft. But I will still at this point - pick BPA no matter what position at each pick. If I am able I will move up in rounds to go after someone who is dropping and shows great value. But more than likely will pick each spot. I figure I will have a mix of young and old veterans and alot of rookies in later rounds.

This may prove that it wasn't worth the given up picks to have the first 3 picks in a startup - but then again the face of fantasy football is changing and stud QB's and WR's are becoming more and more the popular choice in early first round picks - depending on lineup requirements and scoring. Just stirring the pot a little bit. I am sure most everyone will call me crazy.

 

[eaglesfan7]

No. You don't only take points into the equation. You take injury history, risk, points, age, et cetera. The diffrence is, you only compare that to other QBs. If Vick was 24, proven, with no injury history, he would be my #1 in most formats.

Vick's injury history is no worse than Rodgers. He is more proven than McCoy, who you tout as RB1, pick 1.1. I said in an earlier post if ADP was 23 I'd take him over the tier 1 WRs. Your statement seems much less valid applied to a QB.

I'm an Eagles fan but even I'll admit Vick's injury history is worse and different than Rodgers. Concussions are serious but Vick is the type that is in and out of lineups due to his tendency to get nicked up.

 

[eaglesfan7]

I am doing a totally crazy startup strategy - only after it is finished will I know how it works. 14 team dynasty 60 man roster - mixed draft of rookies and veterans - start 1 QB 1 RB 3 WR 1 TE 2 flex (rb,wr or te) K, 1 DT, 2 DE 4 linebackers 2 CB and 2 safety. Defensive scoring isn't real high - pretty normal. Offensive scoring is QB score 5 pts per TD .05 per yd pass and -2 interception. Last year the top 10 scorers were A Foster 1st by a few pts then 7 QB's 9th was Roddy White and 10th was a QB. This is a WR/TE stacked lineup - and a stud QB helps.

I have traded and traded. I have 1.1 1.2 1.3 then a late 6th round early 7th early 9th late 10th No picks until 18 and 19 then 13 picks between rounds 20-30. Picks throughout rounds 30-60 and I traded my draft picks away for next year.

So there will be a lot of talent gone by 6.14. I am going Aaron Rodgers 1.1 Calvin Johnson 1.2 and Ray Rice 1.3. I could go 2 WR - but in a start 1 RB - I think a nice safe choice will be Rice. I think Foster will have a hard time keeping up those numbers. The games that Daniels played - his performance went down. J Charles - I just don't trust him. AP is older and with QB in ? and the tackles he has taken...CJ2K - I don't see immediate changes in the O-line and QB session in Tennessee and with Britt perhaps facing multiple game suspensions....Rice is the man. I feel I can get adequate backup at RB later in the draft. But I will still at this point - pick BPA no matter what position at each pick. If I am able I will move up in rounds to go after someone who is dropping and shows great value. But more than likely will pick each spot. I figure I will have a mix of young and old veterans and alot of rookies in later rounds.

This may prove that it wasn't worth the given up picks to have the first 3 picks in a startup - but then again the face of fantasy football is changing and stud QB's and WR's are becoming more and more the popular choice in early first round picks - depending on lineup requirements and scoring. Just stirring the pot a little bit. I am sure most everyone will call me crazy.

You find faults with all these different running backs but you don't find any with Rice? Ray was supposed to take a leap last season as the next great running back and it didn't happen, he did nothing special or even above average. If McGahee leaves I see it as a negative and not a positive. He'll likely get more carries, but not in the red zone, and with McGahee there he could always stay fresh. I don't see that happening any longer.

 

[Concept Coop]

No. You don't only take points into the equation. You take injury history, risk, points, age, et cetera. The diffrence is, you only compare that to other QBs. If Vick was 24, proven, with no injury history, he would be my #1 in most formats.

Vick's injury history is no worse than Rodgers. He is more proven than McCoy, who you tout as RB1, pick 1.1. I said in an earlier post if ADP was 23 I'd take him over the tier 1 WRs. Your statement seems much less valid applied to a QB.

You are questioning my ranking of players, not the VBD concept. The reason the statement seems less valid applied to QBs is because they are injured less often. You are making my point for me. A RB that you think will have a healhty 5 year career is worth much more than a QB you predict to have a 5 year career. Why? Because you compare the RB to other RBs and the QB to other QBs.

 

[Instinctive]

This is what I mean when I say you assume you're the only one who gets it. I've read it. I understand the concept. Both before you ever even appeared here.

I don't undertand how you can understand the conept and continue to compare WRs to RBs. The concept is that you compare WRs to WRs and RBs to RBs. If Calvin doesn't last longer than the WRs I draft after the first round, it doesn't matter than he lasts longer than the RB I draft in the 1st. Especially if the RB I draft in the first lasts longer than the one you draft in the 5th.

Once again, you didn't read the whole post and thus missed out on the crux of the argument.VOR is determined in position. WHo you pick in a draft, however, is not. It's more relevant than you believe - and if you read, you could tell that I understand it. I get that RB worth is *mostly* determined by positional scarcity of RBs. I'm the guy who says that RBBC makes stud RBs more valuable when people try to say the opposite every year.That doesn't change the fact that a smarter move in a startup is to pick a top WR.I haven't even mentioned that second part of your post recently.

 

[pretender]

I am doing a totally crazy startup strategy - only after it is finished will I know how it works. 14 team dynasty 60 man roster - mixed draft of rookies and veterans - start 1 QB 1 RB 3 WR 1 TE 2 flex (rb,wr or te) K, 1 DT, 2 DE 4 linebackers 2 CB and 2 safety. Defensive scoring isn't real high - pretty normal. Offensive scoring is QB score 5 pts per TD .05 per yd pass and -2 interception. Last year the top 10 scorers were A Foster 1st by a few pts then 7 QB's 9th was Roddy White and 10th was a QB. This is a WR/TE stacked lineup - and a stud QB helps.

I have traded and traded. I have 1.1 1.2 1.3 then a late 6th round early 7th early 9th late 10th No picks until 18 and 19 then 13 picks between rounds 20-30. Picks throughout rounds 30-60 and I traded my draft picks away for next year.

So there will be a lot of talent gone by 6.14. I am going Aaron Rodgers 1.1 Calvin Johnson 1.2 and Ray Rice 1.3. I could go 2 WR - but in a start 1 RB - I think a nice safe choice will be Rice. I think Foster will have a hard time keeping up those numbers. The games that Daniels played - his performance went down. J Charles - I just don't trust him. AP is older and with QB in ? and the tackles he has taken...CJ2K - I don't see immediate changes in the O-line and QB session in Tennessee and with Britt perhaps facing multiple game suspensions....Rice is the man. I feel I can get adequate backup at RB later in the draft. But I will still at this point - pick BPA no matter what position at each pick. If I am able I will move up in rounds to go after someone who is dropping and shows great value. But more than likely will pick each spot. I figure I will have a mix of young and old veterans and alot of rookies in later rounds.

This may prove that it wasn't worth the given up picks to have the first 3 picks in a startup - but then again the face of fantasy football is changing and stud QB's and WR's are becoming more and more the popular choice in early first round picks - depending on lineup requirements and scoring. Just stirring the pot a little bit. I am sure most everyone will call me crazy.

You find faults with all these different running backs but you don't find any with Rice? Ray was supposed to take a leap last season as the next great running back and it didn't happen, he did nothing special or even above average. If McGahee leaves I see it as a negative and not a positive. He'll likely get more carries, but not in the red zone, and with McGahee there he could always stay fresh. I don't see that happening any longer.

I think if McGahee leaves - the Ravens have Parmale and I think he will be effective enough to be the reliever for Rice. I know Rice isn't all flash and bang - but he is steady and he is consistant and can run and catch out of the backfield and can be effective in the red zone. I see him as a young SAFE choice. Someone I can't start without thinking. One of the few that still gets most of the carries in a league that has become RBBC - and even WRBC. He might not outpoint some of the other RB's - but Rodgers can outpoint most of the QB's and Johnson most other WRers - so I feel it is a good balanced way to startup a new team. If I could have found a way to get another first rounder without giving away all my picks - I probably would have and picked a young top TE too.

 

[Concept Coop]

Once again, you didn't read the whole post and thus missed out on the crux of the argument.VOR is determined in position. WHo you pick in a draft, however, is not. It's more relevant than you believe - and if you read, you could tell that I understand it. I get that RB worth is *mostly* determined by positional scarcity of RBs. I'm the guy who says that RBBC makes stud RBs more valuable when people try to say the opposite every year.That doesn't change the fact that a smarter move in a startup is to pick a top WR.I haven't even mentioned that second part of your post recently.

Okay. Assuming you understand it, you don't believe in the theory, when it comes to startup draft. Fair?If that is the case, there is no conversation to have.Because if you believed in it and understood it, you would take the most valuable player, regardless of position. You think there are times when it is "smart" to take a less valuable player because of the position they play.

 

[Instinctive]

I'm saying that more than expected VOR comes into play when determining the most valuable player to pick.

If I had a crystal ball and could pick the #1 WR and the #1 RB at the end of each year, I would always choose the RB. However, I think that history shows it is a lot more difficult to predict which RBs are going to have the most VOR than it is to pick the wideouts. I'll take my more guaranteed production over the less certain RB. Yes, if the RB hits, he's worth more to my team. However, the likelihood of hitting on him is less than my receiver.

For instance, let's say the RB1 is worth 1.5 times RB12. And WR1 is worth only 1.20 times WR12. Having RB1 is worth more to your team than having WR1. I am in complete agreement here.

BUT:

Actually getting RB1 with that pick is only, say, a 50/50 shot. The "score" for this selection in this slot is thus a 0.75

Actually getting WR1 with this pick is, say, a 75/25 shot. The "score" for this selection in this slot is thus a 0.80

Because of this, I think the smart play in a startup is the WR. It's safer.

 

[Concept Coop]

I'm saying that more than expected VOR comes into play when determining the most valuable player to pick.If I had a crystal ball and could pick the #1 WR and the #1 RB at the end of each year, I would always choose the RB. However, I think that history shows it is a lot more difficult to predict which RBs are going to have the most VOR than it is to pick the wideouts. I'll take my more guaranteed production over the less certain RB. Yes, if the RB hits, he's worth more to my team. However, the likelihood of hitting on him is less than my receiver.For instance, let's say the RB1 is worth 1.5 times RB12. And WR1 is worth only 1.20 times WR12. Having RB1 is worth more to your team than having WR1. I am in complete agreement here.BUT:Actually getting RB1 with that pick is only, say, a 50/50 shot. The "score" for this selection in this slot is thus a 0.75Actually getting WR1 with this pick is, say, a 75/25 shot. The "score" for this selection in this slot is thus a 0.80Because of this, I think the smart play in a startup is the WR. It's safer.

I am going to call it a wrap on this thread. I have addressed every point you just made.Everything goes into VORP. VORP is value - you determine what value is or how much a player has. There is nothing more than goes into it, because everything does. I understand that never suggested otherwise.

 

[Instinctive]

Yep. You're right.

I'm an idiot for simply combining VORP with risk. Because it makes more sense to blindly choose the guy who is ranked as #1 even if he is less likely to actually achieve his expected VORP than a different guy.

You have enlightened me, of great one. I will no longer account for risk in anything - thank you for the chance to kneel before your greatness and receive this epiphany.

 

[Concept Coop]

Yep. You're right. I'm an idiot for simply combining VORP with risk. Because it makes more sense to blindly choose the guy who is ranked as #1 even if he is less likely to actually achieve his expected VORP than a different guy.You have enlightened me, of great one. I will no longer account for risk in anything - thank you for the chance to kneel before your greatness and receive this epiphany.

Blind? I say take the best guy. You say take the WR.You account for risk in your VALUE of the player. Risk is included. And if ALL WRs are safer, it doesn't affect any other position. QBs are safer than WRs, they score more too. Why don't you blindly draft a QB #1?Ugh. I don't know why I can't help but respond to this. We are going in circles.

 

[thriftyrocker]

A RB that you think will have a healhty 5 year career is worth much more than a QB you predict to have a 5 year career. Why?

That RB doesn't exist. Or we don't know who he is until he already has done it. MJD wasn't an injury risk until he was. QBs or WRs do not have that risk. Most RBs do have that risk whether you want to admit it or not. McCoy does. Peterson and Chris Johnson certainly do. That asset is more volatile which is why people have moved away from it as a centerpiece to their team. In a 3 keeper league, I might use your strategy. I'd rather keep MJD or Gore and find a WR. Being able to replenish your roster every year is like a government bailout for your high risk trading. If you have Gore, you spend a pick on Leshoure or Best to try and move forward; there are lots of options. In dynasty you don't get that bailout. You need a top 3 pick to get a RB with an expected yearly upside near Gore's. If you replace Gore with the Ivory's and Blount's of the world, you are now a negative at every position and in a long term rebuild.

 

[Concept Coop]

That RB doesn't exist. Or we don't know who he is until he already has done it. MJD wasn't an injury risk until he was. QBs or WRs do not have that risk. Most RBs do have that risk whether you want to admit it or not. McCoy does. Peterson and Chris Johnson certainly do. That asset is more volatile which is why people have moved away from it as a centerpiece to their team. In a 3 keeper league, I might use your strategy. I'd rather keep MJD or Gore and find a WR. Being able to replenish your roster every year is like a government bailout for your high risk trading. If you have Gore, you spend a pick on Leshoure or Best to try and move forward; there are lots of options. In dynasty you don't get that bailout. You need a top 3 pick to get a RB with an expected yearly upside near Gore's. If you replace Gore with the Ivory's and Blount's of the world, you are now a negative at every position and in a long term rebuild.

Change 5 years to 3 years - the point stands. And I promise you that a few RBs will have 5 top year careers.The gap between Gore and McCoy is huge. I am not suggesting that Gore has round 1 VORP. Nobody seems to understand that the WRs I grab a round latter will last a long time too. Miles Austin will last just as long as Calvin Johnson, as will Sidney Rice and Brandon Marshall.

 

[ZWK]

Is there disagreement over how to calculate VORP (or VBD) in dynasty leagues?

In redraft leagues, the basic idea for VORP is to calculate fantasy points over baseline. You take a player's fantasy points for that season and subtract the number of points scored by the last starter at his position (e.g., RB24). There are fancier things you can do with the numbers, and reasons why you might not want to follow the numbers exactly, but that calculation at least gives you a rough idea of the relative values of different players across positions.

In dynasty leagues, what I'd do to calculate dynasty value is to calculate a player's redraft VORP for each season, and then add up those numbers for every season of a player's career. If you're getting a player now, his dynasty value equals his redraft VORP for the 2011 season, plus his redraft VORP for the 2012 season, plus his redraft VORP for the 2013 season, and so on until he retires. There are fancier things you can do with the numbers, and reasons why you might not want to follow the numbers exactly, but that calculation at least gives you a rough idea of the relative values of different players across positions.

It's hard to estimate the future, but you can also look at the cumulative dynasty value of past players over their careers. Shaun Alexander gave you 5 elite (top 6) seasons and nothing else, each one worth from 119 to 221 points over baseline (RB24), for a cumulative total of 743 points over baseline for his career. Marvin Harrison gave you 8 elite (top 10) seasons, each worth from 70 to 119 points over baseline (WR30 is what PFR uses for some reason, so we'll stick with that), for a cumulative total of 786 points over baseline for those 8 years (he also had another 24 points over baseline in 2 decent seasons earlier in his career).

In any one season when both players were playing at an elite level, Shaun Alexander was much more valuable. But Marvin Harrison had a longer career, and was able to accumulate more total value over baseline during his career. It is generally true that elite fantasy RBs don't last as long as elite fantasy WRs (or TEs or QBs), which is why the early rounds of a dynasty draft should generally be less RB-heavy than the early rounds of a redraft.

 

[Concept Coop]

Is there disagreement over how to calculate VORP (or VBD) in dynasty leagues?

In redraft leagues, the basic idea for VORP is to calculate fantasy points over baseline. You take a player's fantasy points for that season and subtract the number of points scored by the last starter at his position (e.g., RB24). There are fancier things you can do with the numbers, and reasons why you might not want to follow the numbers exactly, but that calculation at least gives you a rough idea of the relative values of different players across positions.

In dynasty leagues, what I'd do to calculate dynasty value is to calculate a player's redraft VORP for each season, and then add up those numbers for every season of a player's career. If you're getting a player now, his dynasty value equals his redraft VORP for the 2011 season, plus his redraft VORP for the 2012 season, plus his redraft VORP for the 2013 season, and so on until he retires. There are fancier things you can do with the numbers, and reasons why you might not want to follow the numbers exactly, but that calculation at least gives you a rough idea of the relative values of different players across positions.

It's hard to estimate the future, but you can also look at the cumulative dynasty value of past players over their careers. Shaun Alexander gave you 5 elite (top 6) seasons and nothing else, each one worth from 119 to 221 points over baseline (RB24), for a cumulative total of 743 points over baseline for his career. Marvin Harrison gave you 8 elite (top 10) seasons, each worth from 70 to 119 points over baseline (WR30 is what PFR uses for some reason, so we'll stick with that), for a cumulative total of 786 points over baseline for those 8 years (he also had another 24 points over baseline in 2 decent seasons earlier in his career).

In any one season when both players were playing at an elite level, Shaun Alexander was much more valuable. But Marvin Harrison had a longer career, and was able to accumulate more total value over baseline during his career. It is generally true that elite fantasy RBs don't last as long as elite fantasy WRs (or TEs or QBs), which is why the early rounds of a dynasty draft should generally be less RB-heavy than the early rounds of a redraft.

You are missing one point: You are comparing RB points to baseline RB number (which you should), but you are comparing RB longevity to WR longevity. There would be a different baseline longevity for RBs and WRs.

 

[thriftyrocker]

The gap between Gore and McCoy is huge. I am not suggesting that Gore has round 1 VORP.

Replace Gore with MJD.

Nobody seems to understand that the WRs I grab a round latter will last a long time too.

And provide a competitive disadvantage to my team for a long time. If I have a bad team (don't hit on Spiller, Blount, or any of my upside handcuffs or vets) I can get Trent Richardson who will produce the same as Forte and perhaps as much as Peterson. If you want to upgrade WR, what can you do? Gamble on a rookie with an expected 3 year learning curve. Hope you find a naive owner who will take Welker + late 1st. Trade away your RB strength. Not as easy.

Miles Austin will last just as long as Calvin Johnson, as will Sidney Rice and Brandon Marshall.

Umm. No. That is like saying Forte will last as long as Peterson. You are comparing great players to special players. You can't do that. Rice and Marshall have significant risk - injury, headcase, situation. Austin has risk of getting Pippened. Welker also has risk for a diminished role as the offense changes.

 

[ZWK]

Is there disagreement over how to calculate VORP (or VBD) in dynasty leagues?

In redraft leagues, the basic idea for VORP is to calculate fantasy points over baseline. You take a player's fantasy points for that season and subtract the number of points scored by the last starter at his position (e.g., RB24). There are fancier things you can do with the numbers, and reasons why you might not want to follow the numbers exactly, but that calculation at least gives you a rough idea of the relative values of different players across positions.

In dynasty leagues, what I'd do to calculate dynasty value is to calculate a player's redraft VORP for each season, and then add up those numbers for every season of a player's career. If you're getting a player now, his dynasty value equals his redraft VORP for the 2011 season, plus his redraft VORP for the 2012 season, plus his redraft VORP for the 2013 season, and so on until he retires. There are fancier things you can do with the numbers, and reasons why you might not want to follow the numbers exactly, but that calculation at least gives you a rough idea of the relative values of different players across positions.

It's hard to estimate the future, but you can also look at the cumulative dynasty value of past players over their careers. Shaun Alexander gave you 5 elite (top 6) seasons and nothing else, each one worth from 119 to 221 points over baseline (RB24), for a cumulative total of 743 points over baseline for his career. Marvin Harrison gave you 8 elite (top 10) seasons, each worth from 70 to 119 points over baseline (WR30 is what PFR uses for some reason, so we'll stick with that), for a cumulative total of 786 points over baseline for those 8 years (he also had another 24 points over baseline in 2 decent seasons earlier in his career).

In any one season when both players were playing at an elite level, Shaun Alexander was much more valuable. But Marvin Harrison had a longer career, and was able to accumulate more total value over baseline during his career. It is generally true that elite fantasy RBs don't last as long as elite fantasy WRs (or TEs or QBs), which is why the early rounds of a dynasty draft should generally be less RB-heavy than the early rounds of a redraft.

You are missing one point: You are comparing RB points to baseline RB number (which you should), but you are comparing RB longevity to WR longevity. There would be a different baseline longevity for RBs and WRs.

Why do you use different longevity baselines? And how do you do that calculation?Here's an example to see why it makes sense to just add up the VORPs for all the seasons, without considering anything like a longevity baseline for each position.

Let's say that I draft Calvin Johnson and you get Miles Austin. Calvin is a better player - let's say that he's worth 100 points over baseline each season, and Miles is only worth 50 points over baseline. They both have great longevity - we'll expect them both to play at that level for the next 8 seasons. So I have a 50 point advantage over you at WR1, and I am going to have that 50 point advantage in every one of the next 8 seasons. A cumulative 400 point advantage.

Let's say that you draft Adrian Peterson and I get Matt Forte. AdP is a better player - let's say he's worth 200 points over baseline each season, and Forte is only worth 100 points over baseline. They both turn 26 this year, so let's say that we each get 4 seasons of them playing at this level before they fall apart at age 30. So you have a 100 point advantage over me at RB1, and you'll have that 100 point advantage in every one of the next 4 seasons. A cumulative 400 point advantage.

If you have Peterson and Austin, and I have Forte and Calvin, then you'll have a 50 point advantage over me for each of the next 4 seasons, and I'll have a 50 point advantage over you for each of the 4 seasons after that (assuming that we're equally good at finding a new RB after 4 years). Overall, we're even.

 

[Concept Coop]

Is there disagreement over how to calculate VORP (or VBD) in dynasty leagues?

In redraft leagues, the basic idea for VORP is to calculate fantasy points over baseline. You take a player's fantasy points for that season and subtract the number of points scored by the last starter at his position (e.g., RB24). There are fancier things you can do with the numbers, and reasons why you might not want to follow the numbers exactly, but that calculation at least gives you a rough idea of the relative values of different players across positions.

In dynasty leagues, what I'd do to calculate dynasty value is to calculate a player's redraft VORP for each season, and then add up those numbers for every season of a player's career. If you're getting a player now, his dynasty value equals his redraft VORP for the 2011 season, plus his redraft VORP for the 2012 season, plus his redraft VORP for the 2013 season, and so on until he retires. There are fancier things you can do with the numbers, and reasons why you might not want to follow the numbers exactly, but that calculation at least gives you a rough idea of the relative values of different players across positions.

It's hard to estimate the future, but you can also look at the cumulative dynasty value of past players over their careers. Shaun Alexander gave you 5 elite (top 6) seasons and nothing else, each one worth from 119 to 221 points over baseline (RB24), for a cumulative total of 743 points over baseline for his career. Marvin Harrison gave you 8 elite (top 10) seasons, each worth from 70 to 119 points over baseline (WR30 is what PFR uses for some reason, so we'll stick with that), for a cumulative total of 786 points over baseline for those 8 years (he also had another 24 points over baseline in 2 decent seasons earlier in his career).

In any one season when both players were playing at an elite level, Shaun Alexander was much more valuable. But Marvin Harrison had a longer career, and was able to accumulate more total value over baseline during his career. It is generally true that elite fantasy RBs don't last as long as elite fantasy WRs (or TEs or QBs), which is why the early rounds of a dynasty draft should generally be less RB-heavy than the early rounds of a redraft.

You are missing one point: You are comparing RB points to baseline RB number (which you should), but you are comparing RB longevity to WR longevity. There would be a different baseline longevity for RBs and WRs.

Why do you use different longevity baselines? And how do you do that calculation?Here's an example to see why it makes sense to just add up the VORPs for all the seasons, without considering anything like a longevity baseline for each position.

Let's say that I draft Calvin Johnson and you get Miles Austin. Calvin is a better player - let's say that he's worth 100 points over baseline each season, and Miles is only worth 50 points over baseline. They both have great longevity - we'll expect them both to play at that level for the next 8 seasons. So I have a 50 point advantage over you at WR1, and I am going to have that 50 point advantage in every one of the next 8 seasons. A cumulative 400 point advantage.

Let's say that you draft Adrian Peterson and I get Matt Forte. AdP is a better player - let's say he's worth 200 points over baseline each season, and Forte is only worth 100 points over baseline. They both turn 26 this year, so let's say that we each get 4 seasons of them playing at this level before they fall apart at age 30. So you have a 100 point advantage over me at RB1, and you'll have that 100 point advantage in every one of the next 4 seasons. A cumulative 400 point advantage.

If you have Peterson and Austin, and I have Forte and Calvin, then you'll have a 50 point advantage over me for each of the next 4 seasons, and I'll have a 50 point advantage over you for each of the 4 seasons after that (assuming that we're equally good at finding a new RB after 4 years). Overall, we're even.

You use different baselines for longevity for the same reason you do points: we have to compare the players to thier replacements. 5 years of top RB play is worth a lot more than 5 years of top QB production, no? Even if they both score an equal % over baseline. Why is that? Because 5 years of QB is nothing special - it is very common. 5 years of top RB play is very rare.

In a vacuum, your example works, assuming I agree with you value scores. But, because we are not in a vacuum, it is easier for me to find a combination worthy of 200 points, that it is for you to find one worthy of 250 points. Meaning, the odds of you besting me in the 4 year period in which I have the best player less than me coming up with a combination to beat you during your 4 year run.

 

[Instinctive]

The only way to settle this crap is to actually start a league on Fleaflicker (because it's free). We could slow draft in the mocks r us forum if we wanted to.

if we actually all put effort in, then three years out we can see who wins. Think we can find 12 teams? We'll give Coop pick 3 so he doesn't have to reach for McCoy, I'll take what, pick 8? Whereabouts is the ADP of Calvin/AJ/Nicks this year?

 

[eaglesfan7]

That's a good idea so let's do it. I can't stand fleaflicker though. I can get us a free season on MFL if you want to do it there.

 

[boubucarow]

Win now. Worry about 2014 in 2014 (maybe 2013).

 

[Go deep]

Win now. Worry about 2014 in 2014 (maybe 2013).

Agree 100%.........in Redraft.

 

[I was in the pool]

Just finished up some (not perfect) stat's on one of the issues that was discussed in the past couple days....the turnover factor relating to the different positions (mainly RBs vs. the other "more stable from year to year" positions). So, here it goes....

I looked at the last 5 seasons (starting in 2005 so I can see 5 actual season-to-season changes in rankings) in PPR scoring (4 Pts. per passing TD) using the rankings on FFtoday.com. I tracked the top 10 from one season and how they finished in the following year (whether they finished in the top 10, top 20, or outside all together). I wanted to keep it simple because there are tons of different starting requirements and league set-ups, but, in general, a top-10 player is considered elite and a top-20 showing is good/decent for a player.

On to the findings....

The best position in terms of repeating success was the TE position. The top 10 repeated a top ten finish 64% of the time and finished within the top 20 86% of the time the following season. Of the 7 guys that fell out of the top 10 in the following year, 4 were due to injuries that took away enough time to prevent them from cracking the top 20 (I extrapolated out their PPG to see if they could have finished in the top 20 by staying healthy). The other 3 had career years (mostly due to a higher TD % than their track record).

The 2nd best position in terms of stability was the QB position. The top 10 repeated a top ten finish 60% of the time and finished within the top 20 78% of the time the following season. The guys that fell out of the top 20 were injury related or for dog-fighting (Vick) or starting a rookie (Collins for V.Young).

The 3rd best position was the WR position. The top 10 repeated a top ten finish 40% of the time and finished within the top 20 72% of the time. Of the 14 players that fell from the top 20, 6 were due to injuries and most of the rest were Career years where they never came close to that production in another season in their careers.

The final position is the RB position. The top 10 repeated a top ten finish 34% of the time and finished within the top 20 62% of the time. 19 players fell out of the top 20, 9 were due to injuries (so roughly 2 of the top 10 from a season get hurt enough in the following season to prevent them from a top 20 finish), the other 10 were mostly career years from fill-ins (Lamont Jordan, Ladell Betts, Ernest Graham, Steve Slaton anyone?) and old guys like Tiki Barber and LT that fell off a cliff or retired.

Thoughts?

There is validity to RB being the most volatile position. Combining this info. with general VBD concepts, I would rank the positions WR, TE, QB, then RB in terms of importance. QBs score closer closer together, so I would put them behind WRs and TEs.

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

Just finished up some (not perfect) stat's on one of the issues that was discussed in the past couple days....the turnover factor relating to the different positions (mainly RBs vs. the other "more stable from year to year" positions). So, here it goes....I looked at the last 5 seasons (starting in 2005 so I can see 5 actual season-to-season changes in rankings) in PPR scoring (4 Pts. per passing TD) using the rankings on FFtoday.com. I tracked the top 10 from one season and how they finished in the following year (whether they finished in the top 10, top 20, or outside all together). I wanted to keep it simple because there are tons of different starting requirements and league set-ups, but, in general, a top-10 player is considered elite and a top-20 showing is good/decent for a player. On to the findings....The best position in terms of repeating success was the TE position. The top 10 repeated a top ten finish 64% of the time and finished within the top 20 86% of the time the following season. Of the 7 guys that fell out of the top 10 in the following year, 4 were due to injuries that took away enough time to prevent them from cracking the top 20 (I extrapolated out their PPG to see if they could have finished in the top 20 by staying healthy). The other 3 had career years (mostly due to a higher TD % than their track record).The 2nd best position in terms of stability was the QB position. The top 10 repeated a top ten finish 60% of the time and finished within the top 20 78% of the time the following season. The guys that fell out of the top 20 were injury related or for dog-fighting (Vick) or starting a rookie (Collins for V.Young).The 3rd best position was the WR position. The top 10 repeated a top ten finish 40% of the time and finished within the top 20 72% of the time. Of the 14 players that fell from the top 20, 6 were due to injuries and most of the rest were Career years where they never came close to that production in another season in their careers. The final position is the RB position. The top 10 repeated a top ten finish 34% of the time and finished within the top 20 62% of the time. 19 players fell out of the top 20, 9 were due to injuries (so roughly 2 of the top 10 from a season get hurt enough in the following season to prevent them from a top 20 finish), the other 10 were mostly career years from fill-ins (Lamont Jordan, Ladell Betts, Ernest Graham, Steve Slaton anyone?) and old guys like Tiki Barber and LT that fell off a cliff or retired.Thoughts?There is validity to RB being the most volatile position. Combining this info. with general VBD concepts, I would rank the positions WR, TE, QB, then RB in terms of importance. QBs score closer closer together, so I would put them behind WRs and TEs.

That has always been my stance, and although I never took the time to back it up with stats I felt that to be the true.

 

[eaglesfan7]

Here's another strategy: don't draft cam newton.

Anyone catch the Cam Newton/Gruden exchange?  

“You know, some of this verbiage in the NFL, I don’t know how it was at Auburn, but it’s — it’s long.  You’ve got the shifts, the plays, the protections, the snap count, the alert, the check-with-mes,” Gruden said, snapping his fingers after listing each element of an NFL play call.

Then Gruden rattled one off:  “I mean, flip right, double-X, Jet, 36 counter, naked waggle, X-7, X-quarter.”  As Gruden was firing off that play, Newton shook his head and smiled, as if he’d never head before anything like that, ever.

Then Gruden pounced.

“Call something at Auburn that’s a little verbal,” Gruden said, obviously knowing the answer to the question.  “What would be a little verbal?  Any recollection on that?

Newton:  “Um.”

“Gimme something,” Gruden said.  “What’s an Auburn play sound like?”

“I mean, you’re putting me on the — on the spot,” Newton said.

Having already proven his point, Gruden then gave Newton a lifeline.  “You guys don’t get in the huddle much though, right?” Gruden said.

Newton welcomed that one.  “We really don’t,” Newton said.  “And our method is ‘simplistic equals fast.’  It’s so simple as far as, you look to the sideline [and] you see 36 on the board.  And that’s a play.  And we’re off.”

Spread offense.  Run first QB.  No play calling.  Very little reading defenses.

How many strikes does this guy have against him?  He's Tebow without the long, swooping pass, but also minus a TON of game experience.  Why is this guy considered a top pick??

 

[Tau837]

Here's another strategy: don't draft cam newton.Anyone catch the Cam Newton/Gruden exchange?  “You know, some of this verbiage in the NFL, I don’t know how it was at Auburn, but it’s — it’s long.  You’ve got the shifts, the plays, the protections, the snap count, the alert, the check-with-mes,” Gruden said, snapping his fingers after listing each element of an NFL play call.Then Gruden rattled one off:  “I mean, flip right, double-X, Jet, 36 counter, naked waggle, X-7, X-quarter.”  As Gruden was firing off that play, Newton shook his head and smiled, as if he’d never head before anything like that, ever.Then Gruden pounced.“Call something at Auburn that’s a little verbal,” Gruden said, obviously knowing the answer to the question.  “What would be a little verbal?  Any recollection on that?Newton:  “Um.”“Gimme something,” Gruden said.  “What’s an Auburn play sound like?”“I mean, you’re putting me on the — on the spot,” Newton said.Having already proven his point, Gruden then gave Newton a lifeline.  “You guys don’t get in the huddle much though, right?” Gruden said.Newton welcomed that one.  “We really don’t,” Newton said.  “And our method is ‘simplistic equals fast.’  It’s so simple as far as, you look to the sideline [and] you see 36 on the board.  And that’s a play.  And we’re off.”Spread offense.  Run first QB.  No play calling.  Very little reading defenses.How many strikes does this guy have against him?  He's Tebow without the long, swooping pass, but also minus a TON of game experience.  Why is this guy considered a top pick??

I think you posted this in the wrong thread. This is the draft strategy thread. There are multiple Cam Newton threads on the first page of the Shark Pool.

 

[eaglesfan7]

It was a joke. I said another strategy is to NOT draft Newton.

 

[eaglesfan7]

Check the OP.

 

[I was in the pool]

The 3rd best position was the WR position. The top 10 repeated a top ten finish 40% of the time and finished within the top 20 72% of the time. Of the 14 players that fell from the top 20, 6 were due to injuries and most of the rest were Career years where they never came close to that production in another season in their careers. The final position is the RB position. The top 10 repeated a top ten finish 34% of the time and finished within the top 20 62% of the time. 19 players fell out of the top 20, 9 were due to injuries (so roughly 2 of the top 10 from a season get hurt enough in the following season to prevent them from a top 20 finish), the other 10 were mostly career years from fill-ins (Lamont Jordan, Ladell Betts, Ernest Graham, Steve Slaton anyone?) and old guys like Tiki Barber and LT that fell off a cliff or retired.

So I would say RBs are 33% more likely to be injured enough to significantly affect their seasons compared to receivers. That is quite a risk factor - and something that needs to be accounted for, at least outside of the top 2-3 running backs in a draft.

 

[eaglesfan7]

Since when is trying to avoid injury a draft strategy? Isn't the goal to win the championship? My first round pick will last longer than yours so I'll take him???

 

[I was in the pool]

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

 

[Concept Coop]

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

Because RBs are less stable, the stable ones are worth more.The fact that RBBCs are so prevalant and there is so much turnover ONLY creates a bigger gap between elite RBs and averge RB. A bigger gap means more value over replacement.Not to be rude, but your research does the opposite of suggesting that top RBs are worth less.Is Aaron Rodgers more valuable than Adrian Peterson if I can get Tom Brady in the 6th, but the only RBs on the board are Cedric Benson and Ryan Grant? Who is more likely to win a championship in a 5 year period? AP/TB or AR/CB? The obvious choice is the team that got value early - the team that drafted Adrian Peterson.You are comparing accross positions and that does nothing to estabish value between possitions. 5 years of RB1 production is worth a lot more than 5 years of QB1 production.

 

[Concept Coop]

Using this logic, defenses last forever, never get hurt, and will eventually accumulate more VORP points than a 20 year starter, HOFer, at the QB spot. If you understand why you wouldn't take a Def over a QB, you will understand why, in most formats, you shouldn't take a top QB over a top RB.

 

[I was in the pool]

The point is outside of a top pick, most owners are not drafting one of the elite two or three backs in the league, this is a strategy more comparing the next level of running backs to the top tier of receivers.

According your line of thinking, I should offer half my roster for peterson?

 

[I was in the pool]

I am not huge elite quarterback guy because bad teams throw the ball a ton...look at buffalo last year. I finished second in a league with fitzpatrick and orton at the helm. Mainly I am comparing receivers and backs....

I agree that getting a quarterback in the later rounds is a great decision.

 

[Concept Coop]

Another example:

Eli Manning is more likely to finish in the top 10, consistantly, over the next 5 years than about 95% of the RBs in the NFL today. Would you take him over Frank Gore, Steven Jackson, Peyton Hillis, or even CJ Spiller?

No. You wouldn't. Why? Because having a top 6-10 QB for 5 years offers you little to ZERO advantage. Having a top 10 RB for ONE season, is worth more than having the QB8 for 10 seasons in a row. QB8 is not an advantage.

Another flaw in your argument: You start 2+ RBs. Meaning that finishing in the top 20 for a RB is equal to finishing in the top 10 for a QB. That is assuming you only start two RBs and have no flex spots.

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coop,

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

 

[Concept Coop]

The point is outside of a top pick, most owners are not drafting one of the elite two or three backs in the league, this is a strategy more comparing the next level of running backs to the top tier of receivers.According your line of thinking, I should offer half my roster for peterson?

I am not sure if that is a serious question. But yes, I would gladly trade the bottom half of most of my rosters for Adrian Peterson. You were not comparing mid-level RBs to top level WRs. Doing so admits that RBs have more Value than WRs. You suggested the opposite.

 

[zilladog]

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

Because RBs are less stable, the stable ones are worth more.The fact that RBBCs are so prevalant and there is so much turnover ONLY creates a bigger gap between elite RBs and averge RB. A bigger gap means more value over replacement.Not to be rude, but your research does the opposite of suggesting that top RBs are worth less.Is Aaron Rodgers more valuable than Adrian Peterson if I can get Tom Brady in the 6th, but the only RBs on the board are Cedric Benson and Ryan Grant? Who is more likely to win a championship in a 5 year period? AP/TB or AR/CB? The obvious choice is the team that got value early - the team that drafted Adrian Peterson.You are comparing accross positions and that does nothing to estabish value between possitions. 5 years of RB1 production is worth a lot more than 5 years of QB1 production.

a few things...1. Who is stable at RB? Seriously, can you name 1 RB that youre sure will start all year next year? How can you be sure in the first place? where does your idea of how stable an RB is come from? These guys are all 1 play away from losing his job, even the best ones. Sure, same can be said about any player at any position, but it happens much less often at other skill positions.2. There is way more available at RB in the 5th round than Ced and Grant. Like I had said at the beginning of this thread, take your rankings and cross out the top 24 RB's (thats 2 starters per team in a 12 team league) and look at who's left. PLENTY of good players in good positions are still available. Remember that whole supply/demand thing I mentioned before? 3. If Brady is available in the 6th, then youre absolutely correct, Aaron Rodgers probably doesnt offer the best value in round 1. But if A.P. is taken round 1, and he's NOT backed up in the next 2 rounds with other stud RB's, then I'm really not all that impressed because I can certainly compete with a stable of good starters later in the draft. An advantage at RB1 is not all that great imo unless the advantage is also at RB2 and RB3/flex. When your RB2/3 is comparable to my 3, then I'm close enough in ppg that A,P, or C.J. just dont scare me. Meanwhile, if you wait too long and DON'T land any QB in the top tier, your advantage is null or even a disadvantage. This doesn't even factor if you waited to grab a TE aswell

 

[Concept Coop]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coop,

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

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

RBA - 50%

RBB - 40%

RBC - 30%

QBA - 90%

QBB - 87%

QBC - 85%

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

 

[Concept Coop]

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

Because RBs are less stable, the stable ones are worth more.The fact that RBBCs are so prevalant and there is so much turnover ONLY creates a bigger gap between elite RBs and averge RB. A bigger gap means more value over replacement.Not to be rude, but your research does the opposite of suggesting that top RBs are worth less.Is Aaron Rodgers more valuable than Adrian Peterson if I can get Tom Brady in the 6th, but the only RBs on the board are Cedric Benson and Ryan Grant? Who is more likely to win a championship in a 5 year period? AP/TB or AR/CB? The obvious choice is the team that got value early - the team that drafted Adrian Peterson.You are comparing accross positions and that does nothing to estabish value between possitions. 5 years of RB1 production is worth a lot more than 5 years of QB1 production.

a few things...1. Who is stable at RB? Seriously, can you name 1 RB that youre sure will start all year next year? How can you be sure in the first place? where does your idea of how stable an RB is come from? These guys are all 1 play away from losing his job, even the best ones. Sure, same can be said about any player at any position, but it happens much less often at other skill positions.2. There is way more available at RB in the 5th round than Ced and Grant. Like I had said at the beginning of this thread, take your rankings and cross out the top 24 RB's (thats 2 starters per team in a 12 team league) and look at who's left. PLENTY of good players in good positions are still available. Remember that whole supply/demand thing I mentioned before? 3. If Brady is available in the 6th, then youre absolutely correct, Aaron Rodgers probably doesnt offer the best value in round 1. But if A.P. is taken round 1, and he's NOT backed up in the next 2 rounds with other stud RB's, then I'm really not all that impressed because I can certainly compete with a stable of good starters later in the draft. An advantage at RB1 is not all that great imo unless the advantage is also at RB2 and RB3/flex. When your RB2/3 is comparable to my 3, then I'm close enough in ppg that A,P, or C.J. just dont scare me. Meanwhile, if you wait too long and DON'T land any QB in the top tier, your advantage is null or even a disadvantage. This doesn't even factor if you waited to grab a TE aswell

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

 

[zilladog]

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

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