What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

EBF Invitational Complete (1 Viewer)

I hope that I don’t burn any bridges here. Just trying to provide solid analysis and hear what you guys all think.
No worries here. I love hearing what others have to say. Usually I pick up some good info to apply to my own strategy.
 
No problems here either... it gives me quotes to throw back at you after you get knocked out ;)

 
Jesus Radballs, have some time on your hands?? Nice analysis, and I agree that if my team does get eliminated, week 9/10 is the most likely scenario. Good stuff. :thumbup:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jesus Radballs, have some time on your hands?? Nice analysis, and I agree that if my team does get eliminated, week 9/10 is the most likely scenario. Good stuff. :thumbup:
Yeah, it took me all day yesterday. About 8-9 hours.
 
Nice analysis, and I agree that if my team does get eliminated, week 9/10 is the most likely scenario.
Lhucks sounds awfully confident in his team. What do you mean "if" you get eliminated. Odds are you will get eliminated. It's going to happen to 11 out of 12.If I last to 3rd as Radballs predicts I will be satisfied.It's still very early. These things can break any which way. All the teams have a chance to win.
 
Great anaylsis Radballs.The level of interest from owners in this league is making it special already.Awesome stuff. :thumbup:

 
Nice analysis, and I agree that if my team does get eliminated, week 9/10 is the most likely scenario.
Lhucks sounds awfully confident in his team. What do you mean "if" you get eliminated. Odds are you will get eliminated. It's going to happen to 11 out of 12.If I last to 3rd as Radballs predicts I will be satisfied.It's still very early. These things can break any which way. All the teams have a chance to win.
I'm always very confident when it comes to ff. And yes, I do think my team has a better chance than 1 in 12. That being said you are correct, every team does have a legitimate chance...especially considering we're still over a month out until training camp even begins.
 
Overall rating: 5.0. Not a good team. I could see attempting the WR stud theory from the 11 slot. Problem is, your second WR isn’t a true stud anymore. Made mistakes at all the key positions and reached with many of your picks. You won’t last past the first week.
If I was a betting man I'd gamble I outscore you week 1 :P My guess is that you've never played in a survivor format before, but my RBs are perfect for the survivor setup, my WRs will boost me over most teams weekly, I have potential for 3 QBs, though not necessary an added bonus.Some people play drafts safe... this draft was just a fun risk-taking exercise for me, we'll see how it turns out, but my guess is that by the end of the season, some of my picks will look like steals...What amazes me is you ragging on my RBs when yuo assembled a corps comparably worse than mine, a guy who might play 4 games, a couple guys mired deeply in RBBC, a guy who may not be able to play at all... what will you do when none of your guys are playing?Anyway, I'm with Tick- some fun stuff to throw in your face when you are toasted
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What amazes me is you ragging on my RBs when yuo assembled a corps comparably worse than mine, a guy who might play 4 games, a couple guys mired deeply in RBBC, a guy who may not be able to play at all... what will you do when none of your guys are playing?
switz's RBsChris Brown

Duce Staley

Onterrio Smith

Garrison Hearst

Michael Turner

radballs' RBs

Marshall Faulk

Brian Westbrook

Michael Bennett

Quentin Griffin

Willis McGahee

Just curious, but is there anyone in this league who honestly would rather have switz's RBs over mine. Comments please. And switz can you comment on how crappy RBs are all of a sudden "perfect for the survivor setup"? Thanks. :loco:

 
Let's go to the tape...

switz's RBs radballs' RBs

Chris Brown Marshall Faulk

The possible starter in Tenn v. one of the best backs in the game. Advantage Radball's

Duce Staley Brian Westbrook

The backup in Philly last year v. the more talented back in Philly last year. Advantage Radballs.

Onterrio Smith Michael Bennett

The back-up in Minny v. the starter in Minny. Advantage Radballs.

Garrison Hearst Quentin Griffin

A slightly better then 1 in 4 shot at Denver's RB v. a slightly less than 1 in 4 shot at Denver's RB. Advantage Switz.

Michael Turner Willis McGahee

Who is he v. heir appartent in Buffalo that will actually see the field. Advantage Radballs.

 
I agree with your choices, although I think Duce Staley could end up doing better than the overrated Westbrook.I'm also going to have to disagree about Marshall Faulk being one of the most talented RB's in the game. He's on the decline and there are at least a dozen RB's with more talent at this point. He's a safer bet than Chris Brown, but I wouldn't be totally stunned if their scoring is fairly even at the end of the season.

 
Is it really so hard to envision this scenario.Faulk is hurt to start the season and Westbrook is in RBBC with Buckhalter.George is not resigned with the Titans - Brown becomes the starter. Hearst is the starter week 1 in Denver.Switz is a risk taking drafter. This is the risk he has taken. The problem I see with his draft is that he took too many risks, including Leftwich, Fitzgerald, Bryant, & Dallas Clark. Everyone in this draft has to take a risk somewhere. Radballs is risking that TE, K & D will not matter very much. In this scoring system I disagree.I am risking that my #1 guys stay healthy all year.I could go on for all the teams but you get the point.

 
Is it really so hard to envision this scenario.Faulk is hurt to start the season and Westbrook is in RBBC with Buckhalter.George is not resigned with the Titans - Brown becomes the starter. Hearst is the starter week 1 in Denver.
All four of those scenarios, yes, it is hard to envision. On the flip side, none of them could happen. My best guess right now is that Faulk will play in 12 or more games. Westbrook will get at least 70% of the total yardage and receptions out of the backfield. George does resign with the Titans and he and Brown split carries again. Hearst does become the starter, but the starter in Denver only means about 40% of the action out of the backfield. Just my thoughts on it.
 
What amazes me is you ragging on my RBs when yuo assembled a corps comparably worse than mine, a guy who might play 4 games, a couple guys mired deeply in RBBC, a guy who may not be able to play at all... what will you do when none of your guys are playing?
switz's RBsChris Brown

Duce Staley

Onterrio Smith

Garrison Hearst

Michael Turner

radballs' RBs

Marshall Faulk

Brian Westbrook

Michael Bennett

Quentin Griffin

Willis McGahee

Just curious, but is there anyone in this league who honestly would rather have switz's RBs over mine. Comments please. And switz can you comment on how crappy RBs are all of a sudden "perfect for the survivor setup"? Thanks. :loco:
I think they're actually fairly close. I'll disagree with BnB and say that I think Duce Staley will outscore Westbrook. I wanted Staley at 4.03 in the worst way - I think he has the job to himself in Pittsburgh and he'll catch a tons of balls.But Faulk could be huge in this format, and switz reached too high for Brown and Onterrio, IMO. switz rebounded with Hearst (nice pick) but the Turner pick mystifies me. I understand drafting backup RBs, but at least take RBs from a decent offense. If LT2 is injured, I still don't think Turner puts up numbers.

All things considered, I'd lean to Radball's RBs if I had to choose a group. Primarily based on my opinion that Brown isn't ready for the full time roll in Tenn. If I'm wrong, and Brown is the feature back w/o George for the entire season, give me switz's backfield.

 
I'll add to this as I can.

Running Backs are the key to any fantasy football team. The backup is at least as important as the starter. Having said that, the teams with 3 starting quality RBs on teams that won't be behind that often will more likely than not come out ahead.

Those teams are:

1. radballs: I like the Faulk/Bennett/Westbrook trio the most. mcGahee and Griffin are big yawns, IMO. Nevertheless radballs wins the RB battle here.

2. Purple Haze: Priest/Jones will buy you a lot of security, and Dunn/Duckett is a decent backup (though this could turn into an RBBC situation). No way Larry Johnson can replace Priest. I think that was a wasted pick, because if Priest goes down, you're probably one hurting unit.

3. Tick: Lewis, if he avoids a three game suspension, Dillon and Shipp (does anyone really believe Denny Green here?) is probably the third best combination here.

4. LHUCKS: Tomlinson/Henry will take you a long way unless McGahee cuts into Henry's production significantly. Suggs/Green as a backup plan = :yucky:

5. Footballman69: Alexander/D. Davis with Garner as #3 isn't bad, but Alexander has been known to vanish sometimes, while other weeks he has multiple scores. Too up and down. Anderson and Rhodes probably won't help you much, barring injury.

Next are teams with two solid starters, but weak backups:

6a. TommyGunZ: Barlow/Taylor is a good combo, but nothing much behind them. Jones/George/Morris isn't good enough to cover your bye weeks.

6b. TurboPunch: A decent combination in Williams/Martin, unless Martin loses touches (he's no spring chicken). Bettis might contribute on an off week, and Kevin Faulk could be a pleasant surprise, depending on how Dillon is used in passing situations.

Teams with two solid astarters, but big questions for backups:

8. bueno: Ahman/S. Davis will carry the load. Point out Davis' issues in 1 ppr leagues, but he projected as value where I drafted him. Bye weeks are a serious concern and I'm obviously hoping for a Lewis suspension early and Marshall wearing out late. I think Steven Jackson will see a lot of playing time though.

9. JAA: McAllister could be a real pleasant surprise this year. We shall have to see. Rudi Johnson may be risky. Nothing much behind them though. Could be set up for a week 5 exit.

10. BnB: Portis will do well in Washington, I think, but the NY running game scares me this year, or I'd move you up 2 slots. You'll be biting nails in week 7 if you make it that far.

11. EastbayFunk: Edge is solid, but we'll have to see about Kevin Jones. He was good in college, but good on the Lions??? By the time Bell is the full-time starter, you'll be having a beer with Shing Path, as we used to say. Fargas is a wish and a prayer.

Then there is Switz:

12. Switz: Sorry buddy, but Staley and Brown as starters ain't gonna do it, especially if George is still on the team. What will help you is Hearst early in the season, but is it enough? I don't see your obvious strength at Wr as good enough to compensate for your weakness at QB and RB.

Quarterbacks usually score the most points. They are also a big injury issue. Having 3 starters is desirable, but not necessary, if you have 2 that don't have an injury history.

1. JAA: You got the best pair, hands down, in Cpep and Bulger.

2. bueno: and bueno is just right behind you with Manning/McNair. Only concern is if McNair gets hurt.

3. Footballman69: It's a big drop to McNabb/Garcia. I like both this year, though we'll see how big an issue McNabb's inaccuracy is now that he has Owens. We'll also see how well Garcia can do without a guy like Owens. Using a VBD analogy, there are a couple of buckets difference between the top 2 teams and #3 at this position.

4. radballs: Hasselback/Brady/Boller. I'd take that.

No one else has what I would consider 2 top 10 QBs. These have one potential top 10 QB, but are weak at QB2.

5. EastbayFunk: Brooks could be a real stud, especially if Stallworth breaks out this year. The Delhomme/Carr combination is pretty good backup.

6. TommyGunZ: Vick will win a lot of weeks for you. but if he fails, relying on Palmer and Maddox is pretty scary. Plus any running QB is an injury waiting to happen.

7. Purplehaze: Pennington can be a top QB this year - we'll see. McCown is a lousy backup, Green notwithstanding.

Then you have the average guys, of which you had better get 2 that compliment eachother:

8. TurboPunch: Green/Bledsoe. I like the combination.

9. BassNBrew: Brad is underrated. Harrington and Rattay will be throwing a lot, so they could contribute.

10. Tick: I like this combination too, just can't see the justification for rating it higher. Brunell I think will have a comeback year, Warner will start at least part of the season, and Feeley should win the job in Miami. Lots of upside, but real high risk.

11. LHUCKS: Well, I'd rather have Favre/Plummer/Grossman than the F-Troop that switz has.

12. switz: Leftwich and both Oakland QBs! :yucky: :thumbdown: :JoeT:

I'll try to catch the WRs right after work.

 
11. LHUCKS: Well, I'd rather have Favre/Plummer/Grossman than the F-Troop that switz has.
I would bet the farm that my season long QB scoring places in the top 8. Huge difference between having three starters and two.Are you upset because I've already soundly beaten you in this format??

 
Last edited by a moderator:
6a. TommyGunZ: Barlow/Taylor is a good combo, but nothing much behind them. Jones/George/Morris isn't good enough to cover your bye weeks.
Love the analysis, but apparently we have far different opinions as to RB value. I think Jones is perhaps the best RB3 in our league, considering the role he's scheduled to play in the Chicago offense. He'll catch a ton off passes this year, even if he doesn't truely "break out". In 1 pt. per reception leagues, I think he's a poor man's Tiki Barber.
 
I think you all overvalue RB3s. The amount of points they'll put up for you is not worth a third round pick, and yet I saw a lot of RB-RB-RB here. QB: Culpepper, and to a lesser extent Manning, are worth so much in these leagues because they score almost every week. WR: The more good receivers you have early, the less you need to spend on them later. As we were prepping for the MB v Staff challenge, I described a scoring system for receivers. A good team should have 6 points worth of receivers, scoring them as 2 points (Moss/Harrison/Holt), 1.5 points (Chad Johnson/Ward/etc.), 1 point (Amani Toomer/Isaac Bruce/etc.), or .5 points (Branch/Q Morgan/etc.). So if you get Moss, you can afford to skip on receivers later. If you get four good ones, that's as good as one great one and three weak ones. And so on. TE: One great TE can allow you to skip a backup TE altogether, being willing to take a couple of down weeks in favor of an extra RB, D or WR, or take a second good TE and smooth out your scoring. The value from any one of those picks in the third would have been better, IMO, than most of the backs taken there. Instead of injury proofing your team, you may have victory proofed it.

 
Going by this I think I have exactly 6 points.Harrison - 2 pointsPeerless Price, Marty Booker, and Rod Gardner - 1 point eachAndre Davis and David Givens - .5 points eachGardner is kind of a tweener between a 1 and a .5, so conservatively 5.5.I think this is decent.

 
I'm surprised by this position by position analysis that is going on. A basic tenet of VBD is that you have to look at the whole team.So LHucks who spent overall picks #2, 23, 47 & 50 on RB has better RB's than the Switz who spent overall picks #35, 38, 59, 62. Big surprise. :loco: He better have stronger RB's or that is really a bad draft.I think Bostonfred is right. You are overvaluing 3rd RB's.I would like to see more analysis of the overall teams.Radballs - Your analysis was great but you can't just think that the team with the best RB's will win. That is conventional wisdom. Draft conventional, you get a conventional team. Not necesarily a winning team.

 
I think you all overvalue RB3s. The amount of points they'll put up for you is not worth a third round pick, and yet I saw a lot of RB-RB-RB here. QB: Culpepper, and to a lesser extent Manning, are worth so much in these leagues because they score almost every week. WR: The more good receivers you have early, the less you need to spend on them later. As we were prepping for the MB v Staff challenge, I described a scoring system for receivers. A good team should have 6 points worth of receivers, scoring them as 2 points (Moss/Harrison/Holt), 1.5 points (Chad Johnson/Ward/etc.), 1 point (Amani Toomer/Isaac Bruce/etc.), or .5 points (Branch/Q Morgan/etc.). So if you get Moss, you can afford to skip on receivers later. If you get four good ones, that's as good as one great one and three weak ones. And so on. TE: One great TE can allow you to skip a backup TE altogether, being willing to take a couple of down weeks in favor of an extra RB, D or WR, or take a second good TE and smooth out your scoring. The value from any one of those picks in the third would have been better, IMO, than most of the backs taken there. Instead of injury proofing your team, you may have victory proofed it.
I guess it comes down to our definitions of "overvalue". A reach is a mistake at anytime, IMO, regardless of position.I agree that going RB-RB-RB leads to vulnerabilities at other positions (WR and QB), but getting a RB3 who has a starting role is very valuable in this format. Injuries can kill your team without RB insurance, especially considering how the turnover in top 10 RBs is almost 50% from year to year.I think that in general 2nd round RBs are overvalued, but not all RB3s.
 
I'm surprised by this position by position analysis that is going on. A basic tenet of VBD is that you have to look at the whole team.So LHucks who spent overall picks #2, 23, 47 & 50 on RB has better RB's than the Switz who spent overall picks #35, 38, 59, 62. Big surprise. :loco: He better have stronger RB's or that is really a bad draft.I think Bostonfred is right. You are overvaluing 3rd RB's.I would like to see more analysis of the overall teams.Radballs - Your analysis was great but you can't just think that the team with the best RB's will win. That is conventional wisdom. Draft conventional, you get a conventional team. Not necesarily a winning team.
good points.
 
Huge difference between having three starters and two.
You are correct, the teams with only 1 and 2 starters sweep the final positions in both survivor leagues last year. I drafted 3 QBs and am saying that it's a minor success factor at best. The only resaon to take three is if you have two weak QBs, an injury risk, or you see exceptional value late. If you have Manning, adding a QB3 is a waste of a pick.By the way, I don't think a Dallas QB was drafted.
 
Huge difference between having three starters and two.
You are correct, the teams with only 1 and 2 starters sweep the final positions in both survivor leagues last year. I drafted 3 QBs and am saying that it's a minor success factor at best. The only resaon to take three is if you have two weak QBs, an injury risk, or you see exceptional value late. If you have Manning, adding a QB3 is a waste of a pick.By the way, I don't think a Dallas QB was drafted.
I was going to reply to your post earlier, but haven't had the time. I think the dataset is way too small Bass. I would contend that all four teams were extremely fortunate to not have a QB go down.There is no way you can convince me that having 2 QBs is a good strategy in this format. Maybe and only maybe, if you go with one of Culpepper/Manning(which I never would in this format based on ADP) but even then I would use an 11th round pick and take a Grossman type player.To each his own, if I outperform you yet again Bass...the proof is in the pudding. :D
 
Radballs - Your analysis was great but you can't just think that the team with the best RB's will win. That is conventional wisdom. Draft conventional, you get a conventional team. Not necesarily a winning team.
I'm not sure where I stated this. I know I said that 3 strong RBs were crucial to success. I think I have a good shot of winning because I have strong overall team balance at the most important positions: QB, RB, and WR. Anything can happen in this format on any given week.
 
Radballs - Your analysis was great but you can't just think that the team with the best RB's will win. That is conventional wisdom. Draft conventional, you get a conventional team. Not necesarily a winning team.
I'm not sure where I stated this. I know I said that 3 strong RBs were crucial to success. I think I have a good shot of winning because I have strong overall team balance at the most important positions: QB, RB, and WR. Anything can happen in this format on any given week.
You might not have come right out & said that the teams with the best RB's will win but you predicted that you would win and TommGunz would finish 2nd.You also ranked those 2 teams with the highest RB marks in your analysis.What conclusion should I draw from this?
 
Huge difference between having three starters and two.
You are correct, the teams with only 1 and 2 starters sweep the final positions in both survivor leagues last year. I drafted 3 QBs and am saying that it's a minor success factor at best. The only resaon to take three is if you have two weak QBs, an injury risk, or you see exceptional value late. If you have Manning, adding a QB3 is a waste of a pick.By the way, I don't think a Dallas QB was drafted.
I was going to reply to your post earlier, but haven't had the time. I think the dataset is way too small Bass. I would contend that all four teams were extremely fortunate to not have a QB go down.There is no way you can convince me that having 2 QBs is a good strategy in this format. Maybe and only maybe, if you go with one of Culpepper/Manning(which I never would in this format based on ADP) but even then I would use an 11th round pick and take a Grossman type player.To each his own, if I outperform you yet again Bass...the proof is in the pudding. :D
Depends what you get instead, IMO. To me, that third QB is really only valuable in case of injury. He's not getting you any points. If you could get a viable QB3 injury replacement in the 15th round - e.g. Bulger last year - then that's one thing. If you have to spend three of your top 10-12 picks on QBs just to get those points, I'll pass thank you very much.
 
I think you all overvalue RB3s. The amount of points they'll put up for you is not worth a third round pick, and yet I saw a lot of RB-RB-RB here. QB: Culpepper, and to a lesser extent Manning, are worth so much in these leagues because they score almost every week. WR: The more good receivers you have early, the less you need to spend on them later. As we were prepping for the MB v Staff challenge, I described a scoring system for receivers. A good team should have 6 points worth of receivers, scoring them as 2 points (Moss/Harrison/Holt), 1.5 points (Chad Johnson/Ward/etc.), 1 point (Amani Toomer/Isaac Bruce/etc.), or .5 points (Branch/Q Morgan/etc.). So if you get Moss, you can afford to skip on receivers later. If you get four good ones, that's as good as one great one and three weak ones. And so on. TE: One great TE can allow you to skip a backup TE altogether, being willing to take a couple of down weeks in favor of an extra RB, D or WR, or take a second good TE and smooth out your scoring. The value from any one of those picks in the third would have been better, IMO, than most of the backs taken there. Instead of injury proofing your team, you may have victory proofed it.
What points do you give my receivers?Horn 1.5?Moulds 1.5?Smith 1.5?McCareins 1?Conway .5?Washington .5?
 
What conclusion should I draw from this?
Just that strong RBs and good RB depth help provide consistency week in and week out which should aid survival in a format like this. I wouldn't necessarily say that the team with the best RBs is going to win. But, if a team has good RBs and they have solid starters in other places, they have a better chance of making it. We'll see if I'm wrong, but I'd be nervous if I didn't have 3 legitimate RB starters. If you don't that's a minimum of 2 weeks that you only have 1 RB and if one of them gets injured, you're really screwed. I don't care how strong the rest of my starters are if I'm spotting every other team a starting RB.
 
I'm surprised by this position by position analysis that is going on. A basic tenet of VBD is that you have to look at the whole team.So LHucks who spent overall picks #2, 23, 47 & 50 on RB has better RB's than the Switz who spent overall picks #35, 38, 59, 62. Big surprise. :loco: He better have stronger RB's or that is really a bad draft.I think Bostonfred is right. You are overvaluing 3rd RB's.I would like to see more analysis of the overall teams.Radballs - Your analysis was great but you can't just think that the team with the best RB's will win. That is conventional wisdom. Draft conventional, you get a conventional team. Not necesarily a winning team.
I'm planning to get to an overall analysis, but am organizing my thoughts by doing positions first. Then again, work's kind of busy this week and I'm changing jobs/moving soon, so I might not get to the overall analysis.
 
Huge difference between having three starters and two.
You are correct, the teams with only 1 and 2 starters sweep the final positions in both survivor leagues last year. I drafted 3 QBs and am saying that it's a minor success factor at best. The only resaon to take three is if you have two weak QBs, an injury risk, or you see exceptional value late. If you have Manning, adding a QB3 is a waste of a pick.By the way, I don't think a Dallas QB was drafted.
I was going to reply to your post earlier, but haven't had the time. I think the dataset is way too small Bass. I would contend that all four teams were extremely fortunate to not have a QB go down.There is no way you can convince me that having 2 QBs is a good strategy in this format. Maybe and only maybe, if you go with one of Culpepper/Manning(which I never would in this format based on ADP) but even then I would use an 11th round pick and take a Grossman type player.To each his own, if I outperform you yet again Bass...the proof is in the pudding. :D
Your smack is getting very stale dude. Did you win last year? No...you're a loser just like me and 9 others. This 3 QB issue is going to be debated very heavily in the near future. My data set may be small, but I'm noticing the trend. Teams with two decent QBs get very little additive scoring from the third, especially with 4 pt TDs. I'll admit that a third is a nice safety net, but you're not likely going to win against a group this strong when you're giving the field a .5 to 1 player advantage at another position and not getting anything in return. If you can get three at the right price, then I don't have an issue with it.
 
Your smack is getting very stale dude. Did you win last year? No...you're a loser just like me and 9 others. This 3 QB issue is going to be debated very heavily in the near future. My data set may be small, but I'm noticing the trend. Teams with two decent QBs get very little additive scoring from the third, especially with 4 pt TDs. I'll admit that a third is a nice safety net, but you're not likely going to win against a group this strong when you're giving the field a .5 to 1 player advantage at another position and not getting anything in return. If you can get three at the right price, then I don't have an issue with it.
A little sensitive there Bass...I'll try to refresh the smack for ya. How about this: if I smoke you again, we change your name to Bass N' Poo? or how about Bass N' Who?? :excited: You don't take a 3rd QB for the additive scoring...you take it for the protection from injury.I agree the third QB has to be the right guy at the right time. I'd argue that Grossman was in this instance given his upside and draft position...not to mention he has zero competition. I want the season to start tomorrow.
 
What points do you give my receivers?Horn 1.5?Moulds 1.5?Smith 1.5?McCareins 1?Conway .5?Washington .5?
Based on the ballpark tiering I use (not my own projections, but natural dropoffs that appear in ADP give-or-take around the top 3, top 10, and top 25):Horn 1.5Moulds 1.5Smith 1McCareins .5Conway .5Washington .5Total 5.5 - not bad, your receiver position won't hurt you, but it probably won't help you unless one of the later guys outperforms his draft spot. You're strong at running back, but that strength hurt you at receiver and QB. I like Lewis, Dillon, Shipp and Buckhalter, but 4 of your first 6 picks were backs. Your starting lineup this week will suffer some because no matter what happens, two of your first six picks won't be playing for you. LHUCKS did something similar, taking backs in the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th, but took 7 WRs:Ward 1.5Walker 1Warrick .5Galloway .5Morton .5Taylor .5Stokley .5For a total of 5. Which makes sense to me, because he has a lot of shot-in-the-dark receivers who have the potential to blow up or do very poorly on any given week. By the end of the season, there will be several weeks where fewer than three of these receivers put up a score you'd want to have to start. By comparison, switz has:Moss 2Owens 2Stallworth 1Fitz .5Bryant .5For a total of 6. His receivers are obviously the strength of his team, even though he only has 5. This allowed him to cover his RB depth and still have strong receivers. I don't love his team, but he should score well each week. The only problem he has is that, if Moss and Owens have a down week the same week - and they probably will at least once in the season - his starting receivers are Stallworth, Fitz and Bryant. When/if he does go out, this will probably be why. I don't think these arbitrary points are a perfect tool - e.g. maybe they should reward you for having 7 receivers, and penalize you for having 5 - but it's how I figure out if I have enough strength at a position or if I need to spend more on that position.
 
Depends what you get instead, IMO. To me, that third QB is really only valuable in case of injury. He's not getting you any points. If you could get a viable QB3 injury replacement in the 15th round - e.g. Bulger last year - then that's one thing. If you have to spend three of your top 10-12 picks on QBs just to get those points, I'll pass thank you very much.
I agree Fred, it does depend on who you get. You wont see me drafting Collins or Warner as my #3 guy.As far as 3 of the top 12 picks...I'll definitely take my 3rd QB any time after the 10th.As I mentioned earlier I would be happy with two QBs if I had Manning or Culpepper this year, but I would still most likely grab a surefire starter for my #3 if the timing was right.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think these arbitrary points are a perfect tool - e.g. maybe they should reward you for having 7 receivers, and penalize you for having 5 - but it's how I figure out if I have enough strength at a position or if I need to spend more on that position.
I think you definitely need to weigh the total number of WRs differently...you become more risk averse when you have more depth...less susceptible to injury. Which is even more important when drafting this early.I agree with the premise/philosophy of your analysis from an additive point total perspective. As you know Fred you and I have very similar approaches to ff...sometimes I have to pinch myself to make sure I'm not reading my own post sometimes.
 
I'll add to this as I can.

Running Backs are the key to any fantasy football team. The backup is at least as important as the starter. Having said that, the teams with 3 starting quality RBs on teams that won't be behind that often will more likely than not come out ahead.

Those teams are:

1. radballs: I like the Faulk/Bennett/Westbrook trio the most. mcGahee and Griffin are big yawns, IMO. Nevertheless radballs wins the RB battle here.

2. Purple Haze: Priest/Jones will buy you a lot of security, and Dunn/Duckett is a decent backup (though this could turn into an RBBC situation). No way Larry Johnson can replace Priest. I think that was a wasted pick, because if Priest goes down, you're probably one hurting unit.

3. Tick: Lewis, if he avoids a three game suspension, Dillon and Shipp (does anyone really believe Denny Green here?) is probably the third best combination here.

4. LHUCKS: Tomlinson/Henry will take you a long way unless McGahee cuts into Henry's production significantly. Suggs/Green as a backup plan = :yucky:

5. Footballman69: Alexander/D. Davis with Garner as #3 isn't bad, but Alexander has been known to vanish sometimes, while other weeks he has multiple scores. Too up and down. Anderson and Rhodes probably won't help you much, barring injury.

Next are teams with two solid starters, but weak backups:

6a. TommyGunZ: Barlow/Taylor is a good combo, but nothing much behind them. Jones/George/Morris isn't good enough to cover your bye weeks.

6b. TurboPunch: A decent combination in Williams/Martin, unless Martin loses touches (he's no spring chicken). Bettis might contribute on an off week, and Kevin Faulk could be a pleasant surprise, depending on how Dillon is used in passing situations.

Teams with two solid astarters, but big questions for backups:

8. bueno: Ahman/S. Davis will carry the load. Point out Davis' issues in 1 ppr leagues, but he projected as value where I drafted him. Bye weeks are a serious concern and I'm obviously hoping for a Lewis suspension early and Marshall wearing out late. I think Steven Jackson will see a lot of playing time though.

9. JAA: McAllister could be a real pleasant surprise this year. We shall have to see. Rudi Johnson may be risky. Nothing much behind them though. Could be set up for a week 5 exit.

10. BnB: Portis will do well in Washington, I think, but the NY running game scares me this year, or I'd move you up 2 slots. You'll be biting nails in week 7 if you make it that far.

11. EastbayFunk: Edge is solid, but we'll have to see about Kevin Jones. He was good in college, but good on the Lions??? By the time Bell is the full-time starter, you'll be having a beer with Shing Path, as we used to say. Fargas is a wish and a prayer.

Then there is Switz:

12. Switz: Sorry buddy, but Staley and Brown as starters ain't gonna do it, especially if George is still on the team. What will help you is Hearst early in the season, but is it enough? I don't see your obvious strength at Wr as good enough to compensate for your weakness at QB and RB.

Quarterbacks usually score the most points. They are also a big injury issue. Having 3 starters is desirable, but not necessary, if you have 2 that don't have an injury history.

1. JAA: You got the best pair, hands down, in Cpep and Bulger.

2. bueno: and bueno is just right behind you with Manning/McNair. Only concern is if McNair gets hurt.

3. Footballman69: It's a big drop to McNabb/Garcia. I like both this year, though we'll see how big an issue McNabb's inaccuracy is now that he has Owens. We'll also see how well Garcia can do without a guy like Owens. Using a VBD analogy, there are a couple of buckets difference between the top 2 teams and #3 at this position.

4. radballs: Hasselback/Brady/Boller. I'd take that.

No one else has what I would consider 2 top 10 QBs. These have one potential top 10 QB, but are weak at QB2.

5. EastbayFunk: Brooks could be a real stud, especially if Stallworth breaks out this year. The Delhomme/Carr combination is pretty good backup.

6. TommyGunZ: Vick will win a lot of weeks for you. but if he fails, relying on Palmer and Maddox is pretty scary. Plus any running QB is an injury waiting to happen.

7. Purplehaze: Pennington can be a top QB this year - we'll see. McCown is a lousy backup, Green notwithstanding.

Then you have the average guys, of which you had better get 2 that compliment eachother:

8. TurboPunch: Green/Bledsoe. I like the combination.

9. BassNBrew: Brad is underrated. Harrington and Rattay will be throwing a lot, so they could contribute.

10. Tick: I like this combination too, just can't see the justification for rating it higher. Brunell I think will have a comeback year, Warner will start at least part of the season, and Feeley should win the job in Miami. Lots of upside, but real high risk.

11. LHUCKS: Well, I'd rather have Favre/Plummer/Grossman than the F-Troop that switz has.

12. switz: Leftwich and both Oakland QBs! :yucky: :thumbdown: :JoeT:

I'll try to catch the WRs right after work.
Continuing with the WRs:This is the toughest group to judge. No one, IMO, got three top 20 guys, but some did get 2 real studly picks.

1. TommyGunZ has the best corps: Burress, Santana, Boston and Rogers. Decent backsups. Good drafting!

2. switz may not have the best group overall, but Moss and Owens will put up good enough numbers to get by with the risks he has at WR#3. I could be real happy with this group.

3. radballs is three deep solid. The problem is there is in the backupS: Gardner, Givens, André Davis/ There might be enough there to help him through the byes, but any of those guys could vanish just when you need them.

4. Tick is three deep solid with Horn, Jimmy Smith and Moulds, but backups are weak.

5a. TurboPunch has two solid WRs in Holt and Mason, but the #3 (Wayne) makes me nervous. Garbage behind that.

5b. bueno is solid with Boldin and DJax, but the #3 (Marcus Robinson) is dicey. Calico, Troy Brown and Randle El don't scare anybody.

5c. BassNBrew has Steve Smith, KRob and Porter. Looks good on the surface, if the Panthers don't suffer post SB let-down, if Gannon is fully healed and if KRob gets over the dropsies. I don't like the risk/reward factor enough to rank him any higher.

8a. LHUCKS Ward and Javon Walker are good, but Warrick/Galloway at #3 is scary.

8b. EastbayFunk has decent WRs at #1 and #2 also, but Keyshawn/Branch at #3 is scary.

10. Purplehaze - Chad Johnson has to carry the rest of these WR#3 types. Bruce or Lelie could surprise, but I'm glad I'm not betting the farm on it.

12a. JAA should consult before drafting WRs. Toomer/Chambers/Lloyd all have issues at QB. 2 rookies as backup. Hesa not looking too good to me.

12b. Footballman69 When you have McCardell and Rod Smith as your top guys, you are hurting already.

Tight Ends

1. BassNBrew Gonzo/Mili the best combination.

2. Footballman69 is second with Shockey/Kinney.

3. JAA Heap/Becht has to be 3rd.

Gets a little dicey after this.

4. switz with Dallas Clark and Bily Miller has a combination that can produce on a regular basis. I would hate to have these guys in a H2H league where I had to chose a starter each week, but here, I think he'll do fine.

5. TurboPunch I like the Winslow?Kleinsasser combo a little better than what Haze has.

6. Purplehaze has Freddie Jones and Bubba Franks. Both can produce, but if Arizona goes to a 3 wr set, can Jones produce as much?

7. bueno - Crumpler/Weaver I'm betting on Weaver winning the full-time position in Denver. A decent risk to pair with Crumpler.

8. LHUCKS - MCMichael has a lot of competition for balls now, and Witten is not a well-known commodity.

9. Tick Boo will get his touches, but will Desmond? Granted a TE is a young QBs best friend, but the Bears just suck.

10. TommyGunZ Gates is an unknown quantity and while Troupe is the future, the future isn't until next year.

12a. In the what were you thinking :shock: category, we have: radballs with Daniel Graham and Pollard and

12b. EastbayFunk with Eric Johnson and L.J. Smith

Defense

1. bueno with Baltimore and Carolina

2a. Footballman69 with Tampa Bay and Dallas

2b. Turbopunch with Miami/Pittsburg

4. Purplehaze with Phil/Minn/Ind.

5. BassNBrew with New Engand/Atlanta

6. Tick with Green Bay/Tennessee/Giants

7. TommyGunZ with St. Louis/Denver

8. JAA with Cleveland/Cincinnati

9. LHUCKS with Chicago/Jacksonville

10. switz with Seattle/Buffalo

11. Eastbayfunk with New Orleans/Oakland

12. radballs with Kansas City/Jets

admitedly, ranking defenses is more subjective than anything else.

Kickers

1. Bueno - I've got 3 decent kickers, virutally ensuring steady performance from the position.

2. Tick with Vanderjagt/Carney

3. Footballman69 with Elam/Feely

4. TurboPunch with Wilkins/Brien

5. Purplehaze with Stover/Josh Brown

6. LHUCKS with Casay/Mare (wanted to rate higher, but didn't see the offensive explosions I'd need to do so.)

7. EastbayFunk with Hall/Hanson (a hunch)

8. radballs with Andersen/Cundiff

9. TommyGunZ with Nedney/Reed

10. JAA with Elling/Lindell

11. BassNBrew with Longwell and Penalty points for Edinger

12. switz with the Gramatica boys.

The any given Sunday rules applies here. I've seen very strong teams eliminated the first week and I've taken a team without a decent QB into week 6. I like my chances, obviously. Some owners I think gambled too much, others played it too tight.

 
I can see why people are skeptical about my RB's and TE's, but I really think I came out of this draft with one of the best WR corps of any team. Time will tell.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Beuno...It may come as a surprise to you, but Edinger finsihed 9th in scoring in this format last year and Longwell was 6th. Do you really expect both offenses to digress this year? How can my kickers rank 11th when I have two top twelve candidates? Both have good legs to take advantage of the 5 pt FGs.I also think you slighted my WRs with Driver, Muhammad, and Northcutt as back-ups. Each of the guys will be significant contributors to my team. I really like the Smith/Muhammad combo which will capture 80% of the Panther passing game.

 
5b. bueno is solid with Boldin and DJax, but the #3 (Marcus Robinson) is dicey. Calico, Troy Brown and Randle El don't scare anybody.
I really enjoy the way everyone overestimates their own players. I'm not sure Bueno has a #1 WR on his team. Boldin's got serious competiton from Fitzgerald. At the very least I don't expect him to match last season.Jackson or Koren. Take your pick.

Robinson - are we sure he is #2?

Calico & Brown are looking like #3's.

Randle El is a long shot.

IMO not #5b. More like #8.

Oh yeah & Hilliard is not garbage.

 
Turbo, I'd love to hear a whole breakdown of your thoughts. It's easy to poke holes. What do you think on the whole or by position of all the teams?

 
Turbo, I'd love to hear a whole breakdown of your thoughts. It's easy to poke holes. What do you think on the whole or by position of all the teams?
Rad,I really wish I had something truly insightful to add. I don't get into the details as much as guys like yourself. I don't have time to spend 8 hours analyzing a draft. I look at the big picture to see which teams have the least amount of holes in them. Then I look at the holes and see which ones can be most easily overcome. After that it's just a matter of who made the right educated guesses and who gets lucky. The truth is every team has a legitimate chance at winningI said I like FM69 chances the best. Apparently I'm the only one. I think he can overecome his weak WR's with quantity and his strength at other positions.I've consistently said that I believe you need a strong starting team at as many positions as possible including TE, K and D. I just don't think it is wise to give up points at fully one third of your starters every week. Sure you sacrifice depth but theoretically your 3rd RB should only score for you twice - when your top 2 RB's are on bye. I totally disregard the possiblity of injury because, as has been said before, everyone is an injury risk. If I get knocked out week 1 because of injury to 1 or more of my top draft picks I can accept that as a random chance occurence. In my mind it would not mean I drafted badly only that I had some bad luck. I tried to exploit the scoring system by making the best use of the 1pt/rec rule for RB's in my back up RB's. I'm not expecting much out of them. Just enough to keep me alive during bye weeks.Also with 2 pts/rec I think the TE is very important. I think I got the last top tier TE in Winslow. I think the winning team will end up having one of the highest scoring TE's. It may not be one of the preseason favorite TE's but it will be one of the highest scoring this coming season. I think comparing teams position by position can be fun but is ultimately meaningless.
 
Ok, here are my thoughts on my team.

QB's

Aaron Brooks NO/8

Jake Delhomme Car/3

David Carr Hou/7

I think this is a solid unit. I targeted Brooks from the beginning of the process because he's exactly what I wanted in this format: a proven commodity who has the ability to score a lot of points. He is my unquestioned #1.

After locking up Brooks I wanted to secure some good depth behind him. I had thought about getting Byron Leftwich, but he went earlier than where I was willing to take him. When it finally came down to it I settled on Jake Delhomme as my QB2. I've had Delhomme for over a year in my dynasty league so I'm familiar with him. He has what I wanted in my backup QB: upside and job security.

I got David Carr for the same reasons that I got Delhomme. While I'm not quite as high on Carr, he's going to be Houston's starter for the entire season barring injury. That was important to me because I wanted to have some guys to fall back on in case Brooks had a down week. Having three legitimate starting QB's should give my team an edge in that I should consistently post a respectable score from the QB slot.

RB's

RB Edgerrin James Ind/6

RB Kevin Jones - R Det/4

RB Tatum Bell - R Den/10

RB Chris Perry - R Cin/5

RB Justin Fargas Oak/10

This is the unit that will probably either make or break my team.

I felt like I was in a bind from the very start when it came to the RB position. Right away I was unhappy to draw a mid first round pick. I wanted an early first so that I could draft Deuce or Tomlinson or a late first so that I could draft someone like Taylor and then snag Barlow in the second. It didn't happen. I drew the seventh pick and ultimately decided on Edge over Barlow. I like Barlow, but there were just too many question marks for me to bank on him in a survivor league. James will be fairly productive if he can remain healthy. I think he has at least one year left in the tank and he had a nice run in the playoffs.

I knew I was going to get another RB with my second pick because I really didn't have any choice. With Barlow off the board it came down to Domanick Davis and Kevin Jones. There were other backs like Stephen Davis and Travis Henry available, but I don't like their situations at all. I decided on Jones because I'm not totally sold on Davis as a legitimate featured back. While Jones is unproven, I like his skills and think he will be Detroit's starter from day one. It was certainly a risky pick so early, but he was the guy I wanted and there was little sense leaving him on the board without knowing whether or not he'd make it back to me (for the record, I think one of the other drafters would've snagged him before my pick in the third).

This is where things get ugly. I thought about Thomas Jones in the third, but I couldn't justify passing on high level WR's for a question mark RB. I felt that I'd be able to get a similar value at RB later on in the draft. My feelings didn't change in the fourth round, but by the time my pick in the fifth came up desperation was beginning to set in. I took Tatum Bell because of all the backs left on the board he had the best combination of the two things I value most in fantasy football: talent and opportunity.

Sticking with that theme, I took Justin Fargas in the tenth. If he can play like he did last preseason he'll have a chance to win serious playing time in Oakland. While he was a risk, I love the pick and think that it could be a steal. It could also blow up in my face, but that's the way things go when you take chances on unknowns.

I rounded out the roster with Chris Perry. I'm not wild about his ability, but I hear that he's going to be Cincy's third down back. That coupled with my doubts about Rudi Johnson was enough for me to take Perry as insurance for week 10.

WR's

Laveranues Coles Was/7

Andre Johnson Hou/7

Keyshawn Johnson Dal/4

Deion Branch NE/3

Drew Bennett Ten/9

Reggie Williams - R Jac/9

Of all the positions this is the one where I think I did the best. I think Laveranues Coles is overrated, but he's been consistent the last two years. A consistent performer is what I was looking for in my WR1 and I think Coles is just that.

After going with Coles in the third I tabbed Andre Johnson with my fourth round pick. Some people are down on him, but I see him as the ultimate WR2 this year. He has the upside to be a top 5 guy and is his team's unquestioned #1 receiver.

After taking what some would view as a risk with Andre Johnson I decided to go with a proven player at WR3. It came down to Keyshawn Johnson and Charles Rogers. In a redraft league I go Rogers without thinking twice, but I felt that Keyshawn's track record as a consistent performer made him the better pick in this format. He's no Owens or Moss, but when he plays he produces very solid WR3 numbers.

Deion Branch was added as a decent value pick. Even if he doesn't improve over last year's stats he will still score some points for me. I hesitated to take him because he's so small, but the last time I ignored a WR because of his size (Steve Smith) it cost me.

Reggie Williams is already the #2 WR in Jacksonville and I figure he's capable of putting up some numbers right away.

Drew Bennett is a solid depth player who was a tremendous value in the later part of the draft. He's not the most explosive player, but he is a very good athlete and I think he's going to be a big asset for my team.

TE's

Eric Johnson SF/7

TE L.J. Smith Phi/5

I'm not going to pretend that I love this unit because I don't. I simply couldn't get myself to take a TE early in the draft. It must be my past ability to find dirt cheap TE's in redraft and dynasty leagues coming back to haunt me. Oh well.

LJ Smith showed some promise last year and may be the second best receiving threat on the Eagles. If he can improve his consistency he can be a top 10 fantasy TE.

Eric Johnson is nothing special, but he should get some catches in San Francisco. His upside is pretty small, but he has decent job security from what I understand and has had his moments in the past.

K's

John Hall Was/7

Jason Hanson Det/4

Because kickers are virtually meaningless I decided to play it safe and get two proven commodities with high job security. The last thing I want is some unstable young kicker who loses his cool and is on waivers in week six.

D

New Orleans NO/8

Oakland Oak/10

I believe that good fantasy defenses can be had very late in drafts. Oakland plays in a defense-friendly division. The Chargers will be horrible on offense. I think Kansas City is on the decline. The Broncos have Jake Plummer. Factor in some significant additions to the team and the Raiders are looking like a decent fantasy defense.

New Orleans doesn't do much for me, but they've strengthened their DL and how bad can they really be? They'll score for me now and then. Ultimately I think having two mediocre defenses is not much worse than having one great one and one very good one. You can only play one a week, so as long as you have two to choose from you should do reasonably well.

Overall

I like my team, but I'm not in love with it. I'm very satisfied with my WR's and QB's, but my stubborness may have killed my RB and TE units. Nevertheless, if Fargas or Bell wins serious playing time and Kevin Jones plays like I think he can then my team will be in the picture. I took some risks because I think it's going to take a strong team to win this league. Time will tell how I did.

 
Also with 2 pts/rec I think the TE is very important. I think I got the last top tier TE in Winslow. I think the winning team will end up having one of the highest scoring TE's. It may not be one of the preseason favorite TE's but it will be one of the highest scoring this coming season.
I do too regarding TEs. If KWII was there at 5.12 I would have taken him. No way I could have reached for anyone else in my previous pick. It is definitely more challenging picking at the corners and looking 24 picks out. That was a big reason I was so happy with the final result of my team. After KW II was gone I decided to wait long and hard and build up at QB, RB, and WR.
 
theoretically your 3rd RB should only score for you twice - when your top 2 RB's are on bye.
There's a big difference between actual survivor experience and book theory isn't there. ;) If you think that 3rd RB "theoretically" should only score twice, then you're 3rd RB was either your 15th round pick or you need to learn a little something about statistics. If that 3rd RB is ranked, say 80% of the production of the 2nd RB, he'll probably get about 4 to 6 valuable weeks factoring everything else in. At least from my experience.
 
There's a big difference between actual survivor experience and book theory isn't there. ;) If you think that 3rd RB "theoretically" should only score twice, then you're 3rd RB was either your 15th round pick or you need to learn a little something about statistics. If that 3rd RB is ranked, say 80% of the production of the 2nd RB, he'll probably get about 4 to 6 valuable weeks factoring everything else in. At least from my experience.
Agreed. But you have to consider the points you are leaving on the table by taking a 3rd RB that will get you 80% of the production of your top 2 RB's. To get this type of #3 RB you generally have to use a 3rd or 4th round draft pick.Is the added scoring you will get for 4-6 weeks worth the cost of a lesser starter at some other positoin who will score for you maybe 10 -12 weeks?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top