'Dynasty Lite' Strategy (1 Viewer)

[Guapote]

Curious to get some strategy input. My league is switching to a keep ten format, IDP (only four IDP starters), about 25 roster spots. I don't want this to turn into something appropriate for the AC forum, but I'd like to get some input from folks with a similar format. The initial draft is coming up, this is the first year switching to a keeper format.

With this being the initial draft, what's the value of a good QB in this format? I hate the idea of taking a QB early, but getting Manning or Palmer locks up the position for so long I can see some reasons for this. I know a lot depends on where I pick and who's left on the board.

Also, where are guys like Turner or Kevin Jones going in this sort of format? Guys with potential for 2008, but probably not useful for 2007. I know there's plenty of info about this for redraft or standard dynasty leagues, not sure if there's much out there for something in between like this.

Thanks.

 

[Portis 26]

The IDP dimension probably doesn't change much in terms of the players you mention, unless IDP scoring is very high indeed. In most IDP dynasty league startup drafts, the first IDP goes in the 4th/5th round.

RBs with a lot of upside potential probably go a little earlier, late 3rd, early 4th.

Manning is going late first in dynasty drafts these days, Palmer in the second.

 

[stevegamer]

Dominant early QB is very nice. - long careers. WR also tend to have logner careers, so getting a good young one will be important - and if TE is required Gates will move up.

Frankly, I'd ignore IDP early, and try and dominate QB, WR, & TE while gettign decent RB's, unless you are in a spot to get a dominant RB in round 1.

 

[-jb-]

Dominant early QB is very nice. - long careers.

very very true. a lot less churn in the QB position, which IMHO makes QB's way more valuable in a dynasty lite. i play in a similar format and went out of my way to lock up manning.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

This really depends on your league setup and scoring system.

14 or 16 teams? QB value goes up.

Start 2 or "superflex" (can flex a 2nd QB as an option in flex) - QB value goes up.

In 12 teams with start 1 QB, QB is often overrated and overvalued. Going for Manning can cost you.

Then look at the rest of your starters. Use PPR for WRs? QBs value goes down (as WRs rise). Start 3 WRs? 2 RBs? Flex? 2 Flex?

You can play QB by committee in leagues that have 5 or 6 starting RBs/WRs, especially with PPR in play. Getting together 5 good starters is hard enough as players churn every 5 years or less, and their viability as a starter is even a smaller window.

Sure starting Peyton is nice, but so is Bulger, McNabb, Carson Palmer, Tom Brady, etc. Older QB starters (Favre, McNair, Kitna) also will slip in your draft as they are, well, old. You can go RB and WR all day long and grab Kitna in Round 7 or so then add Drew Stanton in Round 15-20 and be set for a while (having Roy Williams' and Calvin Johnson's QB for years). That would be one way to go.

I'd wait on QB and get a vet along with 2-3 younger prospects. Getting the old man / rookie combo in Detroit is $$$.

Good luck.

 

[-jb-]

In 12 teams with start 1 QB, QB is often overrated and overvalued. Going for Manning can cost you.

Jeff, while I respect your opinion, I struggle with this. Manning's career will most likely span about 2 stud RB careers back-to-back. It would seem to me to that you would want to invest in this position based on the likelihood of longevity and less exposure to critical injury. Guys like Clinton Portis, ranked 5th-ish last year, can fall very quickly in just a year's time. I don't think most would agree that Manning slipping out of the top 5 in the next 5 years is a long shot. Why not focus on rookie drafts to develop your RB stable, given they have the shortest lifespan in the league?

 

[Guapote]

This really depends on your league setup and scoring system.

14 or 16 teams? QB value goes up.

Start 2 or "superflex" (can flex a 2nd QB as an option in flex) - QB value goes up.

In 12 teams with start 1 QB, QB is often overrated and overvalued. Going for Manning can cost you.

Then look at the rest of your starters. Use PPR for WRs? QBs value goes down (as WRs rise). Start 3 WRs? 2 RBs? Flex? 2 Flex?

You can play QB by committee in leagues that have 5 or 6 starting RBs/WRs, especially with PPR in play. Getting together 5 good starters is hard enough as players churn every 5 years or less, and their viability as a starter is even a smaller window.

Sure starting Peyton is nice, but so is Bulger, McNabb, Carson Palmer, Tom Brady, etc. Older QB starters (Favre, McNair, Kitna) also will slip in your draft as they are, well, old. You can go RB and WR all day long and grab Kitna in Round 7 or so then add Drew Stanton in Round 15-20 and be set for a while (having Roy Williams' and Calvin Johnson's QB for years). That would be one way to go.

I'd wait on QB and get a vet along with 2-3 younger prospects. Getting the old man / rookie combo in Detroit is $$$.

Good luck.

Thanks for the reply Jeff, and everybody else. My league is .5 ppr, start 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1 flex, TE required, but I really didn't want to get into too many details as I was hoping to make this helpful for folks outside of my league.The bolded part is why I can see taking a QB early in this format. I don't know how many QBs will be kept, and I'm wondering if it's likely that productive older QBs will be available in subsequent drafts. I love the Detroit QB idea, but I'm not sure how many other combos there are like this, maybe Miami with Green and Beck? I think you've made a good argument that I shouldn't overthink this, and the same reasons I wouldn't go QB early in redraft apply here.

Thanks for the input.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

In 12 teams with start 1 QB, QB is often overrated and overvalued. Going for Manning can cost you.

Jeff, while I respect your opinion, I struggle with this. Manning's career will most likely span about 2 stud RB careers back-to-back. It would seem to me to that you would want to invest in this position based on the likelihood of longevity and less exposure to critical injury. Guys like Clinton Portis, ranked 5th-ish last year, can fall very quickly in just a year's time. I don't think most would agree that Manning slipping out of the top 5 in the next 5 years is a long shot. Why not focus on rookie drafts to develop your RB stable, given they have the shortest lifespan in the league?

Hi -jb-,No issues with a debate here. What your saying rings true, but turn it on its head. If you are going to start at least 2 RBs (or more if you have a flex), you'd have to amass more RBs, not fewer, even in the beginning of the draft. Since they turn over faster, you need more. The longevity and the stability of a stud QB is a very nice thing to have, but settling for a 2nd tier QB such as Bulger or Brees isn't much of a dropoff in most scoring systems and also affords you the chances at better RBs and WRs early.Also, in a 12 team, start 1 QB league it is easier to get a QB if you need one. In 14 or 16 (or start 2 QB) formats, it gets more difficult.I'd rather have my first several picks at RB and WR and then play committee vs. taking Manning early and trying to play catch-up at RB or WR. The value drops off much more steeply at RB and WR, IMHO.

 

[crush304]

something that can be overlooked in switching to this format is the added value in trading players for draft picks.

in a full dynasty if you trade a player for a draft pick it is basically a straight swap, in this format you would get the draft pick plus you open up a keeper slot to keep you next best player (your 11th best player)