Dynasty Strategy (2018) (1 Viewer)

[Dan Hindery]

My big picture strategy in startups this year has been to focus in on young RBs early with my first 3 picks (or 3 out of 4) and really try to build up as big an advantage as possible there. Especially if the league provides a bonus per rushing attempt (which a lot of the newer leagues being formed do). 

Then come back with relatively inexpensive WRs that I still feel pretty good about starting every week (Alshon Jeffery, Marvin Jones, Sterling Shepard, Chris Hogan, etc.) and some cheaper vets (Garcon, E. Sanders, etc.) to get by. 

In theory, there is more of a gap between the elite RBs and the replacement level guys at the position than there is between the top WRs and the guys like Jones and Jeffery who should give you 200-220 points in PPR. 

 

[Gottabesweet]

I have a hard time on taking a loss on a trades to get the best player in the trade. (giving up 3 to 4 pieces including picks for one player) I'm set up very nicely to compete for championships.  I'm very deep at RB/WR/TE and have managed to acquire 3,4,5,11,12,15,16 overall this year. There's only a handful of players I'm targeting but can't justify giving up picks without getting any 2019 firsts in return (which nobody seems to be parting with)

 

[Football Jones]

I have a hard time on taking a loss on a trades to get the best player in the trade. (giving up 3 to 4 pieces including picks for one player) I'm set up very nicely to compete for championships.  I'm very deep at RB/WR/TE and have managed to acquire 3,4,5,11,12,15,16 overall this year. There's only a handful of players I'm targeting but can't justify giving up picks without getting any 2019 firsts in return (which nobody seems to be parting with)

I believe it's more or less standard procedure to take a loss as far as straight value when acquiring a stud. I certainly don't mind doing it in the right deal.

If you're a contending team, I also don't mind giving up 2019 1st round picks. The upcoming class looks mediocre at best past the early 1st where there seems to be a few potentially elite WR prospects. It's quite inferior to the 2018 class as a whole, IMO.

 

[Gottabesweet]

I believe it's more or less standard procedure to take a loss as far as raw value when acquiring a stud. I don't mind doing it in the right deal.

If you're a contending team, I also don't mind giving up 2019 1st round picks. The class looks mediocre at best past the early 1st where there seems to be a few potentially elite WR prospects. It's certainly quite inferior to the 2018 class as a whole.

Really aside from Barkley, I'm not really that high on the 2018 class. It helps that I can throw darts at RB's with 3,4,5 overall and hope one really hits.  I'm not really into the 2019 class until the college seasons starts.  Guys like Gurley, Hopkins, Barkley, OBJ are my targets right now but can't figure out the right value.  Would anyone give up AJ Green, McCoy and 1.5 for Gurley.  Seems like an over-pay even though McCoy is 30. 

 

[Football Jones]

My big picture strategy in startups this year has been to focus in on young RBs early with my first 3 picks (or 3 out of 4) and really try to build up as big an advantage as possible there. Especially if the league provides a bonus per rushing attempt (which a lot of the newer leagues being formed do). 

Then come back with relatively inexpensive WRs that I still feel pretty good about starting every week (Alshon Jeffery, Marvin Jones, Sterling Shepard, Chris Hogan, etc.) and some cheaper vets (Garcon, E. Sanders, etc.) to get by. 

In theory, there is more of a gap between the elite RBs and the replacement level guys at the position than there is between the top WRs and the guys like Jones and Jeffery who should give you 200-220 points in PPR. 

The differences in general dynasty strategy & the adjustments in year-to-year strategy as far as startups is an interesting dynamic.

What takes priority for you guys?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

 Would anyone give up AJ Green, McCoy and 1.5 for Gurley.  Seems like an over-pay even though McCoy is 30. 

Yes - McCoy is 30 and will be in an offense that lost a lot on the o-line and will likely start a rookie QB. 1.05 is not a lock. Green is still an elite WR but is getting older and WR production is not that hard to find. I wouldn't consider that an overpay really. Overall you could be giving up more points but Gurley is by far the most valuable single asset.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

It's certainly quite inferior to the 2018 class as a whole.

Eh, seems way too early to say that.  At this time last year Penny and Kerryon were on no one's radar, Sony was not considered anywhere near a 1st round fantasy pick, and Chubb was still a shell of his former self who looked like he might never bounce back.  That's more than half of this year's top 7 that weren't really in consideration at this point last year.  I'm sure there will be guys like that for 2019.

Bryce Love and Damien Harris were considered to be 1.03-1.05 type guys this year before they decided to stay in school, and they'll be available next year but aren't even considered the top RB prospect.  Throw that alongside some actual real WRs and another surprise RB or two or three like we have every year, and you've got a pretty nice class.

 

[Football Jones]

Eh, seems way too early to say that.  At this time last year Penny and Kerryon were on no one's radar, Sony was not considered anywhere near a 1st round fantasy pick, and Chubb was still a shell of his former self who looked like he might never bounce back.  That's more than half of this year's top 7 that weren't really in consideration at this point last year.  I'm sure there will be guys like that for 2019.

Bryce Love and Damien Harris were considered to be 1.03-1.05 type guys this year before they decided to stay in school, and they'll be available next year but aren't even considered the top RB prospect.  Throw that alongside some actual real WRs and another surprise RB or two or three like we have every year, and you've got a pretty nice class.

Definitely early, but I like to get a feel for the upcoming class to better gauge trades.

2019 could very well be inferior at every position except WR. As of now, albeit way early, the upcoming class doesn't look nearly as deep as the last year's class. In fact, while things could change, QB, RB, & TE looks below-average, IMO.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Definitely early, but I like to get a feel for the upcoming class to better gauge trades.

2019 could very well be inferior at every position except WR. As of now, even way early, it doesn't look nearly as deep as the 2018 class. In fact, while things could change, QB, RB, & TE looks below-average right now, IMO.

Eh, how deep did the 2018 class look without Penny, Kerryon, Sony, Moore, Gallup, Miller, Hynes, Ballage, Pettis, Hurst, etc etc?  Because those guys mostly weren't even on the radar at this point last year.  If anything things probably look better right now than they did at this point last year when it was just Saquon, Guice, Ridley and no one.  Most of the depth pops up throughout the year.

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

I believe it's more or less standard procedure to take a loss as far as raw value when acquiring a stud. I don't mind doing it in the right deal.

If you're a contending team, I also don't mind giving up 2019 1st round picks. The class looks mediocre at best past the early 1st where there seems to be a few potentially elite WR prospects. It's certainly quite inferior to the 2018 class as a whole.

Many times, gaining roster space adds unforeseen value due to waiver wire guys or creating room for training camp fliers 

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

just chiming in to say how great it is to have you contribute to the this dynasty thread. Always like hearing your thoughts.

Welcome back

Thank you.  I will try to check in more regularly. 

 

[Football Jones]

Eh, how deep did the 2018 class look without Penny, Kerryon, Sony, Moore, Gallup, Miller, Hynes, Ballage, Pettis, Hurst, etc etc?  Because those guys mostly weren't even on the radar at this point last year.  If anything things probably look better right now than they did at this point last year when it was just Saquon, Guice, Ridley and no one.  Most of the depth pops up throughout the year.

You can expect some guys to emerge at every position, but the projected top prospects at QB, RB, & TE right now are pretty woeful as a whole, IMO. 

The 2018 class seemed much stronger at this time particularly with the QB & RB classes generally considered as positions of strength relative to most years.

We disagree, but it certainly could change for the better (& likely will) at least somewhat since it's typical for sleepers to emerge.

 

[Football Jones]

Many times, gaining roster space adds unforeseen value due to waiver wire guys or creating room for training camp fliers 

Yep. Another advantage of using multiple lesser assets to acquire a stud.

 

[Gottabesweet]

Yep. Another advantage of using multiple lesser assets to acquire a stud.

True, my league doesn’t haven’t shallow benches. We have 60 player rosters, so the free agents likely will be training camp teams WR7-8 or RB 4-5 hopefully making a NFL PS.  

Mccoy, Green and 1.5 was offered for Gurley and a 2019 2nd   They are thinking about it   I may pull the 2nd or just add in Jeffrey  

 

[Dr. Octopus]

True, my league doesn’t haven’t shallow benches. We have 60 player rosters, so the free agents likely will be training camp teams WR7-8 or RB 4-5 hopefully making a NFL PS.  

Mccoy, Green and 1.5 was offered for Gurley and a 2019 2nd   They are thinking about it   I may pull the 2nd or just add in Jeffrey  

you greedy *******

 

[FF Ninja]

When does the Studs-n-Duds approach go too far?

I’m a big fan of the approach, as I’ve found recent success employing it. While the sample size is too small to be anything but anecdotal, the results have been great; even when I surrender market value to get deals done, I tend to end up winning deals that bring me the best player, and regretting those in which I don’t. 

But when does it go too far?

Almost as a rule, I've churned nearly ALL available resources into my starting lineup. I’m afraid that I could find myself in a “careful what you wish for” scenario, as a result of taking it too far.

(While this is certainly self-serving, I hope adding my roster doesn’t make it AC material. I’m still hoping the conversation has value above and beyond input on my situation.)

Is this too stud heavy, considering the complete lack of depth? Would you turn a stud into multiple parts?

12 Tm PPR - 25 man rosters (no taxi/ir) - Q-RR-WWW-T-F

Q-Watson, Dak

R-Zeke, Kamara, Ingram

W-Hopkins, Evans, Thomas

T-Ertz

Literally nothing else of note. As of now I’ll be starting Kendall Wright in the flex spot until Ingram returns. Granted, only 16 of the 25 roster spots are filled until waivers open up prior to week 1.

Have you had good/bad luck taking the approach this far? What are your general thoughts on such a top heavy, but shallow roster?

In leagues that cut to 16, it's pretty much a no-brainer to go studs and duds. But in traditional dynasty leagues (25+ static roster spots plus IR spots), I greatly prefer depth over studs. Then again, I'm used to expanded starting lineups so that depth often finds its way into multiple flex spots. My logic is that busts and injuries are almost as certain as bye weeks. All three will be crippling if your next man up is Kendall Wright-esque (although I'm sure you'll find someone better when you fill your last 9 roster spots). I also tend to get cocky and think I know better than the consensus. Like I feel confident I can get a Hopkins level of points from Keenan at 80% of the price, I can get Alshon points from Marvin at 60% the price, Derrick Henry points from Jamaal Williams, etc. It doesn't always work out, but I find myself in a good position during bye weeks or ugly matchups and I'm always able to weather a couple injuries or trade depth to a desperate owner for a premium mid-season price. And on occasions when those "studs" I would've bought don't work out, instead of an expensive bust, I've got two above average guys (or more realistically, one bust and one above average guy).

The downside to this approach is that you've got a lot of difficult roster decisions AND if your league decides draft order based on potential points you could easily "bad decision" your way out of the playoffs (with a little help of matchup bad luck) and end up with a very late 1st. 

 

[FF Ninja]

Kickers have been (mercifully) extinguished

To me, the answer is to remove the chaff of K and DST, and increase the number of flex starters. 

IDP also helps, but most of those guys are entirely fungible.

 

[MAC_32]

But in traditional dynasty leagues (25+ static roster spots plus IR spots), I greatly prefer depth over studs. 

The downside to this approach is that you've got a lot of difficult roster decisions 

My teams have done better since I stopped making big(ger) trades and focused more on depth. 

To curb the quoted issue, once I think I have enough of it I'll try to use my secondary pieces to move up in future drafts.  Not end-of-bench guys, others aren't interested in them.  And not stars, for obvious reasons.  But guys others consider starters that I don't think will ever become stars.  This has allowed me to have lineups that make it to the playoffs, when I believe luck reigns supreme, while also having a better starting point in next year's draft and not needing to cut guys I don't think should be cut. 

Speaking of the draft, I rarely (never?) move up.  I almost always either move back or out.  Similar thought process, if I'm happy with my depth chart and I think I am at the top of a tier then move back and get someone from the bottom of the same tier, into next year and get someone from a better tier, or - both.

If I develop a need in-season I try to find a vet that is probably at the end of their rope, especially if I can find one on a seller.  I can usually get one of them for an end-of-bench guy.

---

Since I started doing this I don't think I've ever had the best team, but I almost always have a top 3-5 team.  And that's all I think you need in this game.  Because so much of winning in December is luck.

 

[FF Ninja]

My teams have done better since I stopped making big(ger) trades and focused more on depth. 

To curb the quoted issue, once I think I have enough of it I'll try to use my secondary pieces to move up in future drafts.  Not end-of-bench guys, others aren't interested in them.  And not stars, for obvious reasons.  But guys others consider starters that I don't think will ever become stars.  This has allowed me to have lineups that make it to the playoffs, when I believe luck reigns supreme, while also having a better starting point in next year's draft and not needing to cut guys I don't think should be cut. 

Speaking of the draft, I rarely (never?) move up.  I almost always either move back or out.  Similar thought process, if I'm happy with my depth chart and I think I am at the top of a tier then move back and get someone from the bottom of the same tier, into next year and get someone from a better tier, or - both.

If I develop a need in-season I try to find a vet that is probably at the end of their rope, especially if I can find one on a seller.  I can usually get one of them for an end-of-bench guy.

---

Since I started doing this I don't think I've ever had the best team, but I almost always have a top 3-5 team.  And that's all I think you need in this game.  Because so much of winning in December is luck.

You're not wrong about the playoffs and luck. The NFL and NCAA basketball bracket suffer the same problem as fantasy football playoffs - one game playoffs are a joke. I get it, the toll it takes on the body only allows one game per week, but we're talking about maybe 70 plays from each offense in a game where guys making at or around league minimum (special teams) can drastically change the outcome of the game in one play. Additionally, injuries can change who the best team is in just one week. So yeah, it's best to have the top team, but in general, consistent playoff appearances will have better results than a team that is in and out of the playoffs as the top seed. Although securing a bye week greatly increases your odds of survival. 

Trading up and trading down is a tricky thing, but I generally agree with your sentiment. Trading up early usually takes an overpay, but IMO the talent drops off pretty quickly, so I am in favor of trading up in the 2nd round, while trading back in the 1st round (depending on ADP, targeted players, etc.). 

 

[menobrown]

I agree with this to an extent but I think a couple things -

1. Yes I also trade back in a startup, generally accumulate picks in rounds 3 or 4 thru 10.

2. Also accumulate as many future year firsts as possible, usually 5 or 6 is doable

3. Take value where it emerges during the draft. Often that value is not with the younger players. When you draft this way you can compete year one and generally have a very strong team and still have enough youth with any younger players taken plus the future 1sts for the following year

4. You never really need to punt year one, as some others suggested (not Michael)

I got a lot of respect for Aunt Jemima and on that note this is good point on how there are many strategies that work. Just looking at these 4 points:

1. Don't think I've ever taken this approach. I don't normally trade back out of top two rounds, but use them to take what I view as foundational young pieces, with key on youth. I think the oldest player I've ever taken in first 3 rounds of a startup was Antonio Brown as pick 6 in 2015 when he was turning 27.

2. Only once have I walked out of a startup with more then 2 first round picks and about half the time don't have my own. It's a little risky going young and giving up your future first, removes that safety net if you suck, but other than my first ever startup it's worked out. Only once have I done something approaching where the goal was to try and accumulate as many first round picks as possible. I would not say the goal was to tank, but figured it was likely and it was, the team sucked and is one of only two teams I've done to not make playoffs in year one(first startup was the other one). But it also ended up with 8 first round picks, 3 second round picks and as luck would have it that ended up being the top 6 picks and 12 of the top 15 picks. This team kind of blew the startup, team had plenty of top 10 picks even with the trade backs but did not do a good job with the picks.So  only did this one, did not really do a good job with the picks in the startup, the top 6 picks we got were kind of dummy proof(it was last years rookie draft). This team is loaded. What I'm getting it is it's loaded because it picked up a bunch of 1's, not because of any great skill, a few major hits on picks but again those top 6 picks were kind of dummy proof and the startups picks were not great. Based on that one experience it's hard for me to think this is not a great strategy, almost to easy, but.....

A lot can depend on class of upcoming draft and picks you get. The one time I did this I  got the right picks in a loaded draft. That league was my last startup, the previous startup I gave away my future first to a team that I think picked up 4 #1's in what ended up being the 2016(Elliot) class. Two of the picks ended up late, 10 and 12. Two of the other picks ended up as top 4 but not 1 so no Elliot and that means they got in the Doctson, Treadwell, Coleman mix. Team is a total failure and reality is even if they had 6 #1's, if they did not get pick 1 and draft Michael Thomas it was mainly just a recipe for sorrow. So not always so easy.

3. I agree on always taking value, I just typically try and find young value if I can early on. And value can interpreted a little differently by people and what I mean buy that is current market value vs what I believe the value will be or should be.   Once I get into the round 9-10+range a lot of that value is older players so I typically end up going really young early in my drafts, older later.

4. A big danger to me in trying to construct a team with no chance to compete, that is entirely dependent on next years rookie class, goes back to what I was saying on class and quality of the draft. As example say I had 12 of the top 15 picks in 2016 instead of 2017? I come out with Elliot and Thomas for sure but other than that not a lot. Chances are my team still sucks.

On the flip side I've seen two cases, both in high stakes leagues, were teams went full on redraft mode and when the draft ended I think if you polled the league on who was the favorite those teams would have been near unanimous. Both teams not only failed to make playoffs but were one of two worst teams in the league. I'd never enter a season not trying to compete or thinking I got no chance after a startup is done.

 

[Aunt Jemima]

All good points, my last FFPC startup was in 2017, only have access to my year end roster from 2017 but this is what it looked like, I got 3rd place and had accumulated I believe 5 2018 1sts

2017

Stafford, Big Ben

Kamara, Mckinnon, Riddick, Abdullah, D Murray, Sproles

Baldwin, Jordy Nelson, E Sanders, Crowder, Hogan, DJax

Ertz, Olsen, Burton, Clay, Watson

Gostkowski

Eagles

so kinda mixed but fairly old team that was competitive year one, now in year 2 with a few trades and the rookie picks looks like this

2018

Stafford, Big Ben

Kamara, McCafrrey, Guice, Chubb, C Thompson, Riddick, D Murray

Baldwin, Marvin Jones, DJ Moore, Hogan, Crowder, James Washington, DJax, Malcolm Mitchell

Ertz, Olsen, Ian Thomas

Gostkowski

Eagles

This is one example but I've used this approach my last 3 or 4 startups and experiences were similar, my point is you don't always have to go all young in the startup and if you accumulate those future 1sts you can use that capital in either trades or in the draft to wind up with a year 2 team that is one of the younger, competitive teams in the league. I don't have the best team in the league but I should compete and am fairly young. Have all my 2019 picks and an extra 2nd, 6th, and 7th

But I also agree with Meno, I haven't done a startup this year or used this approach as I'm not certain of my assessment on the 2019 class yet and whether I want to utilize this approach

 

[Raback]

I agree with this to an extent but I think a couple things -

1. Yes I also trade back in a startup, generally accumulate picks in rounds 3 or 4 thru 10.

2. Also accumulate as many future year firsts as possible, usually 5 or 6 is doable

3. Take value where it emerges during the draft. Often that value is not with the younger players. When you draft this way you can compete year one and generally have a very strong team and still have enough youth with any younger players taken plus the future 1sts for the following year

4. You never really need to punt year one, as some others suggested (not Michael)

You don’t need to, but it can really help set up your team for a dominant run.  By punting year 1 last year I was able to add a top 5 dynasty asset in Barkley for a fraction of what he would cost to acquire any other way.  And now I have such a dominant RBs corps that I am easily the league favorite going into year 2.  Sometimes it’s worth it to take a step back so you can be even better in the future 

 

[Aunt Jemima]

You don’t need to, but it can really help set up your team for a dominant run.  By punting year 1 last year I was able to add a top 5 dynasty asset in Barkley for a fraction of what he would cost to acquire any other way.  And now I have such a dominant RBs corps that I am easily the league favorite going into year 2.  Sometimes it’s worth it to take a step back so you can be even better in the future 

yeah I guess I'm a bit slanted on that one as all my dynasty is FFPC. I assume you are saying you punted year one so you got number one pick the next year? In FFPC it makes less sense because all the non playoff teams compete in a playoff to see who gets which pick, generally one of the top teams to miss the playoffs winds up with pick number one so punting is more a guarantee you wouldn't get Barkley. That, combined with the entry fee being $500, $750, $1250 makes it an expensive proposition in my leagues.

I see how it can work in other dynasty leagues, I just don't think it is a good strategy in FFPC

 

[Raback]

yeah I guess I'm a bit slanted on that one as all my dynasty is FFPC. I assume you are saying you punted year one so you got number one pick the next year? In FFPC it makes less sense because all the non playoff teams compete in a playoff to see who gets which pick, generally one of the top teams to miss the playoffs winds up with pick number one so punting is more a guarantee you wouldn't get Barkley. That, combined with the entry fee being $500, $750, $1250 makes it an expensive proposition in my leagues.

I see how it can work in other dynasty leagues, I just don't think it is a good strategy in FFPC

In that type of league I agree it doesn’t make sense.  My league is a $100 entry fee so it’s much more palatable.  During the startup I kept trading back and back and acquiring young players and picks.  Basically landed a young core of Mahomes, Kamara, Golladay, Godwin, Njoku, E. Engram, and 9 2018 1sts.  Traded Kamara and a 1st for Zeke, and 4 2018 1sts for Gurley.  Going into year 2 I have Gurley, Zeke, Barkley as my RB group.  So I feel that the winless year 1 was worth it to set my team up for possible future dominance.  

 

[Football Jones]

Speaking of the draft, I rarely (never?) move up.

I hold myself to a higher standard if I move up or acquire a pick outright, especially if it's a fairly high pick.

I have to be more sure. Typically, I'm really high on guys I go get. I think it's a good idea to know ahead of time what prospects you're willing to do that with so you don't use valuable resources on riskier prospects.

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

With the Edelman suspension,  who are you looking to buy? Sell?

I think Britt could be a fair waiver pick up. Also, if lookingto sell Gronk, he should provide a platform to sell high. Anyone hoping to buy Edelman low now?

 

[Dan Hindery]

Eh, how deep did the 2018 class look without Penny, Kerryon, Sony, Moore, Gallup, Miller, Hynes, Ballage, Pettis, Hurst, etc etc?  Because those guys mostly weren't even on the radar at this point last year.  If anything things probably look better right now than they did at this point last year when it was just Saquon, Guice, Ridley and no one.  Most of the depth pops up throughout the year.




1

Guys like Nick Chubb, Ronald Jones, Courtland Sutton, Royce Freeman, Christian Kirk, Josh Rosen, Sam Darnold, Josh Allen, etc. were very much on the radar at this time last year. 

Fair point that guys always emerge somewhat out of nowhere. On the other hand, some hyped guys always fade like Deon Cain, Equanimeous St. Brown, etc. and some of the top 2019 guys we like now are going to end up dropping to Day 3 of the draft.

While things can change, it looks like a bad class overall. The one positive is 2019 looks like the best WR class in 3-4 years. There are some decent Day 2 RB prospects but the position is down compared to 2017, 2018 and 2020. QB and TE look below-average also. 

 

[Football Jones]

Guys like Nick Chubb, Ronald Jones, Courtland Sutton, Royce Freeman, Christian Kirk, Josh Rosen, Sam Darnold, Josh Allen, etc. were very much on the radar at this time last year. 

Fair point that guys always emerge somewhat out of nowhere. On the other hand, some hyped guys always fade like Deon Cain, Equanimeous St. Brown, etc. and some of the top 2019 guys we like now are going to end up dropping to Day 3 of the draft.

While things can change, it looks like a bad class overall. The one positive is 2019 looks like the best WR class in 3-4 years. There are some decent Day 2 RB prospects but the position is down compared to 2017, 2018 and 2020. QB and TE look below-average also. 

I'm pretty much exactly where you are on the 2019 class.

 

[menobrown]

I think the 2019 class looks great and will be better then this draft class, just not as deep as RB even that will be closer then people think. You had two RB's who returned that to me belonged in the class with Chubb/Jones/Kerryon and that is Love and Damien Harris and I prefer Rodney Anderson and David Montgomery over both of them. The TE class looks similar to this year but IMO a little better in 2019 and of course the WR's blow away this year's class.

If you pick mid to late round one it might get lean at RB in a hurry, but even this year with the RB smash grab you might get cut out of a top tier RB as soon as pick 9 or 10.

 

[menobrown]

This is one example but I've used this approach my last 3 or 4 startups and experiences were similar, my point is you don't always have to go all young in the startup and if you accumulate those future 1sts you can use that capital in either trades or in the draft to wind up with a year 2 team that is one of the younger, competitive teams in the league.

I think my first dynasty league was 2010 and I had a co-owner and took more of a backseat role and 2011 was my first solo dynasty league. Feel like I've learned a lot over the years and one thing I've seen is almost every single strategy work. That's my biggest takeaway when it comes to strategy, a ton of them work and understanding that means the biggest advice I'd give someone is to be flexible. I mean take for instance your goal is to amass future firsts and another team strikes quicker and gobbles up a few #1's. You got to adjust. I've seen teams that are trade heavy, some that don't trade at all. Some young, some mixed. Teams horde RB's, WR's or TE's and other teams seemingly blow off those positions. Have seen it all work and not work out so well.

One thing I've noticed over last few years, at least for me, is that  it's considerably more difficult for me to manage the shaky teams than the good/super teams and by manage I mean improve the talent on the roster.  You'd think way drafts are set up based on record and draft playoffs and with players running their course this would not  be the case but it sure has been for me in a big way, the rich just get richer and it's been enough to make me analyze why? I think it's got to do with a variety of factors but one the two big one's that stuck with me is good teams don't have to pick for need or acquire players for need and good teams can defer their draft capital.

 

[Aunt Jemima]

I think my first dynasty league was 2010 and I had a co-owner and took more of a backseat role and 2011 was my first solo dynasty league. Feel like I've learned a lot over the years and one thing I've seen is almost every single strategy work. That's my biggest takeaway when it comes to strategy, a ton of them work and understanding that means the biggest advice I'd give someone is to be flexible. I mean take for instance your goal is to amass future firsts and another team strikes quicker and gobbles up a few #1's. You got to adjust. I've seen teams that are trade heavy, some that don't trade at all. Some young, some mixed. Teams horde RB's, WR's or TE's and other teams seemingly blow off those positions. Have seen it all work and not work out so well.

One thing I've noticed over last few years, at least for me, is that  it's considerably more difficult for me to manage the shaky teams than the good/super teams and by manage I mean improve the talent on the roster.  You'd think way drafts are set up based on record and draft playoffs and with players running their course this would not  be the case but it sure has been for me in a big way, the rich just get richer and it's been enough to make me analyze why? I think it's got to do with a variety of factors but one the two big one's that stuck with me is good teams don't have to pick for need or acquire players for need and good teams can defer their draft capital.

Agree with all your points here, I think the 'any strategy can work' is likely due to the 1.5 TE and dual flex scoring FFPC uses, just so many ways to attack it (which I love). As far as the shaky teams, I think the key is being honest about the roster and making the appropriate moves at times in season. While I hate punting on year one, sometimes you need to be honest and have no choice but trade for next year when your lineup gets to a certain point. I do agree that this is hard to do and manage a rebuild because to a great extent it is luck about which future firsts wind up where. Trading for pick 6 is not going to help much but trading for pick 1 could turn your team into a contender. The difference between those positions could come down to one upset by a few points in the toilet bowl playoffs.

 

[Snorkelson]

After trading mike Thomas for tyreek hill+ I’ve been pondering the differences between the two. Main point: Thomas is steady as she goes, 4-7 rec 60-90 yds and a td every other week. Hill has a little more variance, with some really big games and some where he doesn’t do as much. 

Reeks game log

MT game log

Steady eddy or Big boom weeks? What do you prefer and why?

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

I will take big weeks. Also, consider the quality vs age of Brees and Mahomes. Some like taking Brees'short term while others are worried he might retire in 2-3 years while Thomas is reaching his pinnacle 

 

[NeverEnough]

After trading mike Thomas for tyreek hill+ I’ve been pondering the differences between the two. Main point: Thomas is steady as she goes, 4-7 rec 60-90 yds and a td every other week. Hill has a little more variance, with some really big games and some where he doesn’t do as much. 

Reeks game log

MT game log

Steady eddy or Big boom weeks? What do you prefer and why?

If I have other starting players at that position that can get me steady points most weeks, give me the boom or bust guy. If it's my only guy there, I'll take stedy unless the rest of my team is rock solid.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

After trading mike Thomas for tyreek hill+ I’ve been pondering the differences between the two. Main point: Thomas is steady as she goes, 4-7 rec 60-90 yds and a td every other week. Hill has a little more variance, with some really big games and some where he doesn’t do as much. 

Reeks game log

MT game log

Steady eddy or Big boom weeks? What do you prefer and why?

There have been studies on here that have shown that boom-bust weeks don't really hurt a team over the course of the season. I can't imagine steady production would either, of course. Logically it seems like having a mix of both types would be ideal.

 

[tangfoot]

After trading mike Thomas for tyreek hill+ I’ve been pondering the differences between the two. Main point: Thomas is steady as she goes, 4-7 rec 60-90 yds and a td every other week. Hill has a little more variance, with some really big games and some where he doesn’t do as much. 

Reeks game log

MT game log

Steady eddy or Big boom weeks? What do you prefer and why?

For me, the ideal lineup would combine Hill with a Larry Fitzgerald- or Jarvis Landry-type who will get you a ton of consistent PPR points to help offset the troughs you get from Hill's production.

 

[FF Ninja]

There have been studies on here that have shown that boom-bust weeks don't really hurt a team over the course of the season. I can't imagine steady production would either, of course. Logically it seems like having a mix of both types would be ideal.

This is why I like large lineups. If you're starting 10 guys it'll average out. The whole consistency argument becomes moot. Conversely, if you're in a QB/2WR/2RB/1TE league then one player can really swing a game. I unfortunately play in a league like that AND it has stupid escalators, so one player can put up 50% of a team's score. Why is a 40 yard TD worth 4 points more than a 39 yard TD? So dumb. /minirant

 

[ZWK]

After trading mike Thomas for tyreek hill+ I’ve been pondering the differences between the two. Main point: Thomas is steady as she goes, 4-7 rec 60-90 yds and a td every other week. Hill has a little more variance, with some really big games and some where he doesn’t do as much. 

Reeks game log

MT game log

Steady eddy or Big boom weeks? What do you prefer and why?

Week-to-week consistency is basically irrelevant. If Hill outscores Thomas by 3 fpts over the course of the season then Hill will bring you more expected wins. If Thomas outscores Hill by 3 fpts over the course of the season then Thomas will bring you more expected wins.

I have run numbers on this.

One way to think about it: imagine that 1 of your players came with extra bonus points. A player who gives consistent bonus points gives you 2 extra points every week; a player who gives you inconsistent bonus points gives you 10 extra points 1/5 of the time and 0 extra points the rest of the time. (I expect that this roughly matches the size of the consistency difference between Thomas & Hill.) The consistent bonus turns a loss into a win any time that you otherwise would have lost by 0-2 points. The inconsistent bonus turns a loss into a win 1/5 of the time that you otherwise would have lost by 0-10 points. If cases where you otherwise would have lost by 0-10 points are about 5 times as common than cases where you otherwise would have lost by 0-2 points, then the two bonuses help you by the exact same amount. If you have a good team, then maybe cases where you would have lost by 0-10 points are only 4.8 times as common as cases where you otherwise would have lost by 0-2 points, in which case the inconsistent bonus is worth about 1.3 fpts less than the consistent bonus over the course of the entire season. So if the inconsistent player scores a grand total of 3 fpts more over the course of the season that would more than make up for this consistency difference.

 

[Buckna]

I think my first dynasty league was 2010 and I had a co-owner and took more of a backseat role and 2011 was my first solo dynasty league. Feel like I've learned a lot over the years and one thing I've seen is almost every single strategy work. That's my biggest takeaway when it comes to strategy, a ton of them work and understanding that means the biggest advice I'd give someone is to be flexible. I mean take for instance your goal is to amass future firsts and another team strikes quicker and gobbles up a few #1's. You got to adjust. I've seen teams that are trade heavy, some that don't trade at all. Some young, some mixed. Teams horde RB's, WR's or TE's and other teams seemingly blow off those positions. Have seen it all work and not work out so well.

One thing I've noticed over last few years, at least for me, is that  it's considerably more difficult for me to manage the shaky teams than the good/super teams and by manage I mean improve the talent on the roster.  You'd think way drafts are set up based on record and draft playoffs and with players running their course this would not  be the case but it sure has been for me in a big way, the rich just get richer and it's been enough to make me analyze why? I think it's got to do with a variety of factors but one the two big one's that stuck with me is good teams don't have to pick for need or acquire players for need and good teams can defer their draft capital.

Your thoughts here echo my own. I've been playing dynasty almost two decades now and have seen a variety of strategies work, but being flexible is by far the best strategy. What works in one league doesn't work as well in another because of a different mix of owners or rules. That extends to targeting certain players or certain strategies because a bunch of owners may be doing the same. Or team composition and strategy may work for a few years and then things change. For example, what worked for a few years like stud RB no longer works as no RBs go in the early rounds of the NFL draft so you focus on WRs, then multiple years of rookie WRs bust and its a switch back to RBs. The biggest factor everyone underrate is just things like bad luck that comes out of nowhere like career ending or altering injuries, guys getting traded in the real nfl, and surprise retirements. I remember teams being devastated because Ricky Williams retired out of nowhere, or more recently Calvin Johnson deciding to retire early turned one of my teams from a playoff team into mid-range pick purgatory.

On your second paragraph, I think you hit upon one aspect on why it is easier for the rich to get richer. Another is that you can afford to take chances when your already solid at most spots and sometimes those chances pay off big time, for instance, dealing this year's 1st for one next year. Also it is much easier to deal from a position of strength than weakness. A team set at all positions can be picky about their trades, a poorer team may have to take what they can get to try and make some moves and roll the dice to improve. Strong teams can package multiple players, flyers, etc. into studs or safer players to improve, poorer teams don't have that capital or what little they have may not appeal to other owners. Another thing I have seen time and time again is as league owners turn over, the teams best positioned to swoop in on the new owners to make potential deals are the already strong ones.

One thing I have noticed over the years is that the only sure way to stay a true dynasty is to consistently "win" on trades (and I don't mean trade rape others although that's what many teams try and sometimes successfully do.) Basically I treat players like stocks, even true studs have peaks and valleys in value especially with injuries to themselves and their surrounding cast. You don't have to bat 1,000, but you need to win more than you lose in terms of keeping adding value to your team and to turn old assets into new ones. Even then you will have down years due to random factors I mentioned and have to draft or trade well to get out of those down cycles. The teams I see that rarely do well for long are the ones that never trade, the player pool just turns over too fast. Even the guys who land Peterson and Calvin in the same year and ride that to multiple titles eventually fade away if they sit on their laurels (true story in one of my leagues.)

 

[Spike]

.

 

[Snorkelson]

Good stuff @ZWK. @Buckna I agree with the stock trading idea, and I run my teams the same way. Shoot back to work- but thanks everyone for the thoughts.

 

[Men-in-Cleats]

A lot of this strategy really depends on league setup.  My dynasty is set up with a salary structure so you really can't have too many studs at certain positions or the salaries will put you over the top.  If a player outperforms their salary by given amount they force a renegotiation and there is a salary adjustments.  One of the downsides of this is that trading away established vets in some cases can be difficult because the have higher salaries.  You just aren't going to be able to trade for a bunch of 1st round picks very easily.  I've seen someone acquire 2-3 1st rounders but no more than that in a 16 team league.  We get a lot of people trading up or down in the draft but not a lot of people selling off a bunch of players for high picks.

 

[ZWK]

One of the most important things in a dynasty league is understanding the value of players/picks/etc. within that league's format. One of the first things I do when I join a new league is I try to get a sense of what these values should be, given the league's setup. Scoring, starting lineup requirements, and roster size can have a big effect on things, and if you have more complicated rules (salaries, best ball, unusual scoring bonuses) that can change things even more. Before I start drafting or trading, I want to have a sense of the relative value of different positions, of studs vs. solid players vs. prospects, of rookie draft picks in different rounds, of pass-catching backs vs. two-down backs, of a roster spot, etc.

One of the things that I do when I join a league is to calculate last year's VBD for every player within this league format. That gives me a sense of how much value different sorts of players have, and I can compare it with the VBD in a "standard" league format or in other leagues that I'm in to get a sense of how this league is different.

The shape of player value can differ pretty wildly across different league formats, and understanding how it looks for each league is one of the main ways to get an advantage.

 

[ZWK]

One of the most important things in a dynasty league is understanding the value of players/picks/etc. within that league's format. One of the first things I do when I join a new league is I try to get a sense of what these values should be, given the league's setup. Scoring, starting lineup requirements, and roster size can have a big effect on things, and if you have more complicated rules (salaries, best ball, unusual scoring bonuses) that can change things even more. Before I start drafting or trading, I want to have a sense of the relative value of different positions, of studs vs. solid players vs. prospects, of rookie draft picks in different rounds, of pass-catching backs vs. two-down backs, of a roster spot, etc.

One of the things that I do when I join a league is to calculate last year's VBD for every player within this league format. That gives me a sense of how much value different sorts of players have, and I can compare it with the VBD in a "standard" league format or in other leagues that I'm in to get a sense of how this league is different.

The shape of player value can differ pretty wildly across different league formats, and understanding how it looks for each league is one of the main ways to get an advantage.

Here is an example of how that looks for 2 leagues in 2017. League A is very RB & WR heavy, especially RB heavy at the top. League B is more balanced across positions, QBs are much more important, and value is less top-heavy.

 

[Dan Hindery]

One of the most important things in a dynasty league is understanding the value of players/picks/etc. within that league's format. One of the first things I do when I join a new league is I try to get a sense of what these values should be, given the league's setup. Scoring, starting lineup requirements, and roster size can have a big effect on things, and if you have more complicated rules (salaries, best ball, unusual scoring bonuses) that can change things even more. Before I start drafting or trading, I want to have a sense of the relative value of different positions, of studs vs. solid players vs. prospects, of rookie draft picks in different rounds, of pass-catching backs vs. two-down backs, of a roster spot, etc.

One of the things that I do when I join a league is to calculate last year's VBD for every player within this league format. That gives me a sense of how much value different sorts of players have, and I can compare it with the VBD in a "standard" league format or in other leagues that I'm in to get a sense of how this league is different.

The shape of player value can differ pretty wildly across different league formats, and understanding how it looks for each league is one of the main ways to get an advantage.





 

Well said. With more and more leagues adopting different scoring and starting lineup quirks, this highlighted portion is far and away the most important thing to do (and many owners don't). 

And you don't even have to do VBD calculations to get some pretty strong insights into valuation and strategy.

For example, my process is similar but even simpler:

1. Click on the tab that says "Player Stats" (assuming MFL league).

2. Go through each position and quickly figure out what the replacement level PPG is for each position.

So if it's a 12-team superflex, I'd look at the QBs only and sort by PPG. Find the QB24. Let's say QB24 was 14 PPG in the league's scoring, then I'd look at the top guys and see the elite QBs were at ~22 PPG. So one elite QB year is worth 8 (in my simplified version of VBD) and then you can start thinking about who you think can put together an elite QB year moving forward and how many of those seasons they can string together and it's simple math to come up with a quick overall value for that player specific to the league. Then the rest of the top-10 QBs were in the 18-20 range, so I'll say that a solid QB1 season is worth ~5 points, etc. 

3. While you're doing this, you also want to be thinking about what the ideal starting lineup would look like based upon those past numbers and who you want to target for your flex positions.

For example, I'm midway through a startup that's 1-2-2-2 with 1 Superflex and 2 regular flex. It's normal PPR scoring but there's also .25 per carry bonus. Became obvious pretty quickly looking at PPG from the previous couple seasons that the ideal starting lineup was 2 QB, 4 RB, 2 WR and 2 TE. Which of course leads to some massive value shifts compared to a typical 1-2-3-1 league and a completely different strategy in the startup. 

 

[Football Jones]

Your thoughts here echo my own. I've been playing dynasty almost two decades now and have seen a variety of strategies work, but being flexible is by far the best strategy. What works in one league doesn't work as well in another because of a different mix of owners or rules. That extends to targeting certain players or certain strategies because a bunch of owners may be doing the same. Or team composition and strategy may work for a few years and then things change. For example, what worked for a few years like stud RB no longer works as no RBs go in the early rounds of the NFL draft so you focus on WRs, then multiple years of rookie WRs bust and its a switch back to RBs. The biggest factor everyone underrate is just things like bad luck that comes out of nowhere like career ending or altering injuries, guys getting traded in the real nfl, and surprise retirements. I remember teams being devastated because Ricky Williams retired out of nowhere, or more recently Calvin Johnson deciding to retire early turned one of my teams from a playoff team into mid-range pick purgatory.

On your second paragraph, I think you hit upon one aspect on why it is easier for the rich to get richer. Another is that you can afford to take chances when your already solid at most spots and sometimes those chances pay off big time, for instance, dealing this year's 1st for one next year. Also it is much easier to deal from a position of strength than weakness. A team set at all positions can be picky about their trades, a poorer team may have to take what they can get to try and make some moves and roll the dice to improve. Strong teams can package multiple players, flyers, etc. into studs or safer players to improve, poorer teams don't have that capital or what little they have may not appeal to other owners. Another thing I have seen time and time again is as league owners turn over, the teams best positioned to swoop in on the new owners to make potential deals are the already strong ones.

One thing I have noticed over the years is that the only sure way to stay a true dynasty is to consistently "win" on trades (and I don't mean trade rape others although that's what many teams try and sometimes successfully do.) Basically I treat players like stocks, even true studs have peaks and valleys in value especially with injuries to themselves and their surrounding cast. You don't have to bat 1,000, but you need to win more than you lose in terms of keeping adding value to your team and to turn old assets into new ones. Even then you will have down years due to random factors I mentioned and have to draft or trade well to get out of those down cycles. The teams I see that rarely do well for long are the ones that never trade, the player pool just turns over too fast. Even the guys who land Peterson and Calvin in the same year and ride that to multiple titles eventually fade away if they sit on their laurels (true story in one of my leagues.)

Good points in here. Regarding trading, I totally agree. It's hard to consistently out-trade people in a quality league, but winning on a good majority of them is one of the keys to excelling long-term. Teams who are active in the trade market typically have a better chance at sustaining success because things change fast enough in FF that it doesn't take long for your team to get stale. That said, I've seen teams trade at the drop of a hat & that can be just as bad.

Also, sometimes it's not about winning the trade as much as the dynamics of a deal. I'm not afraid to take a slight "loss" if the trade dynamics favor me.

 

[Gottabesweet]

AJ Green or Keenan Allen?  This year and beyond? 

 

[ZWK]

Dynasty Strategy Roundtable: Greatest GM Strength. Footballguys staff share their best attributes and skills as a dynasty general manager.