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.

FanEx Analysis Draft (1 Viewer)

I'm not sure where this 1 pt per reception nonsense started. Nowhere on the rules page does it mention 1 pt per reception.If it does say this on the page, then I am blind and can't find it.[Edited to admit that I need glasses]
Receiving: - Yards receiving divided by 10 (112  yards = 11.2 pts)- 6 points for every receiving TD.- 1 point for every catch.- 2 points for every 2-point conversion.
From: http://www.fanexfootball.com/rules.htmlJust to clear up the "1 point for every catch". Not insinuating anybody is ACTUALLY blind B)Edit... oops, guess I'm blind, Ken already caught that... good think I have a nice dog, have to start training her to help me cross the street.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I sure would love to be in a draft with the "experts." It would be cool if we had a draft with some of the guys from the message board and the winner gets to take part in a draft with some of these guys next year. It probably won't happen, but it would be alot of fun.

 
I like how TC comes out with a statement like, 'I want Moss, but Kellogg is in front of me.' That has to be a bluff. No one would tell the person in front of them who they want.
No bluff. 2.09 WR Moss was the selection. I was able to claim an elite receiver to pair with a top rusher. Perhaps a top-gun passer is in my near future. B)
 
Also, one thing that bothers me about the analysis is no one is critical of any picks. Are all the guest analysis guys in favor of the pick made in that position? There have been a few controversial picks, but the analysis always comes back with a :thumbup: .
Hiya -FanEx invites YOU to be our guest for the 2.12 + 4.01 selections. Send your input (for posting) to tc@fanexfootball.com It will be displayed. Promise.
 
One thing that might be causing this is Terry has given choices to some people about which player they do guest analysis for. In my case, TC asked me to do anyone in round 1, so I chose Travis Henry who I really am high on this year. I'd happily write negatives on a player if I think it is warranted.

Oh, and I think the way the guidelines are is there isn't supposed to be too much discussion on why a player was taken in a particular position, and who was passed by. It should be more an assessment of the player. That is my understanding anyway. First 2 rounds, generally the guys taken have more positives than negatives.
Almost correct, friend. The guest are assigned blind, prior the the draft start. See GUEST SCHEDULE. Thereafter, I often fill in a few picks per round with invites, as a filler. We do have guidelines for the guest analyis. They are.. well let me copy it here for all... Guest analysis are for the "player" selection. They are not to debate the choice... Certainly, you may mention the negatives and a BRIEF contrasting option. Always remember you are to review the player - not the owner's selection.

 
Also, one thing that bothers me about the analysis is no one is critical of any picks. Are all the guest analysis guys in favor of the pick made in that position? There have been a few controversial picks, but the analysis always comes back with a .
well it seems it wont be done there for some reason or another...thin skin?...it will be done here though... :thumbup:
 
That's not quite how I see how Kellogg's 2002 draft went. Kellogg's problem was that the RB he chose, Dominic Rhodes, tore his ACL. That was just rotten luck. His RB1 was Hearst, who at least turned out to be decent with 1200 yards and 9TDs. He took Hearst at 4.04. William Green went at 4.05. Duce Staley went at 4.07. Travis Henry went at 4.09. Another thing that hurt Kellogg was taking Trent Green at 6.04 after already taking his guy McNair in the 5th round. Charlie Garner of the 1900 yards and 11 TDs went at 6.08.Then of course there was the drafting of Dominic Rhodes of the torn ACL at 7.09. Like he was supposed to know that would happen. Three picks later at 7.12 goes Clinton Portis.http://fanexfootball.com/02/FAD/index.htmlLooking back, I really really like what Kellogg did in the 02 FAD. The RBs WERE THERE to make that a monster team. He just whiffed. I think he should make it a 3-year plan. Take stud WRs each year in the top two rounds. I think its likely he'd crush one out of the park in one of those years. He'd select the Portis or Shaun Alexander of the draft and just dominate. In an experts league, I think you need to think out of the box like that. Too bad he didn't stick with it this year.
I thought Kellogg's draft was terrible last year and said so in his many Who Should I Pick Next threads. IMO you are giving his strategy way too much credit.It wasn't so much that he went Moss, Owens with his first two picks. It was that he only drafted 1 RB, Hearst, in the first 6 rounds. In a league that you know will draft RBs early and often, that is suicide. If you have the guts to go WR-WR in the first and second, it is imperative IMO that you must then wait on TE and QB and draft at least 3 RBs in the next 4 rounds.To put his strategy in perspective, when Kellogg took Rhodes in the 7th round as his second RB, he was the 36th RB taken. He ended up with these RBs on his roster: Hearst, Rhodes, Dayne, Mack, Mike Anderson. One guy (Hearst) in a committee and the others all backups. Keep in mind that this league counts points from 2-3 RBs per week. Also note that no transactions are allowed after the draft, so there was no way to make changes later.
 
I think taking his backup QB before filling out some RBs was a BIT much. But as I've already shown, there were PLENTY of capable RBs taken later. He just took the wrong ones.I think the strategy is one that can probably guarantee you 1 title along with several years of disappointments, whereas the conventional route probably guarantees that you contend more often, but the odds of winning it all dim. Its a good "gambler's" style of drafting.

 
I think the strategy is one that can probably guarantee you 1 title along with several years of disappointments, whereas the conventional route probably guarantees that you contend more often, but the odds of winning it all dim. Its a good "gambler's" style of drafting.
:thumbup: It's about winning, not looking good as a respectable 2nd right? When you can have 2 WRs that score as RBs then why not have the lesser RBs try to outpoint your opponents' WRs? In the NFL, back up RBs will become starters...it's a lock. The trick is getting the right ones (luck). It's like betting on filling a flush with 1:5 odds with 8 guys at the table.
 
It's like betting on filling a flush with 1:5 odds with 8 guys at the table.
Yeah, when you're drawing dead to a full house. :thumbup: Here are the RBs that were drafted last year in rounds 6 through 9:

6.01 James Stewart

6.03 DeShaun Foster

6.06 Lamar Smith

6.08 Charlie Garner

7.02 T.J. Duckett

7.03 Kevan Barlow

7.05 James Allen

7.07 Mike Alstott

7.09 Dominic Rhodes

7.12 Clinton Portis

8.04 Ron Dayne

8.07 Tyrone Wheatley

9.01 Stacey Mack

9.07 Ricky Watters

The percentage of those guys who were legitimate starters is pretty low. (I highlighted the guys who finished in the top 24 at their position.)

Compare that list to the wide receivers drafted in those rounds:

6.02 Marty Booker

6.07 James Thrash

6.09 Ed McCaffrey

6.10 Jerry Rice

6.11 Laveranues Coles

6.12 Amani Toomer

6.07 Mushin Muhammad

7.08 Curtis Conway

7.10 Rod Gardner

8.02 Quadry Ismail

8.03 Hines Ward

8.06 Derrick Alexander

9.08 Travis Taylor

9.09 Joey Galloway

9.11 Peerless Price

9.12 Koren Robinson

(Plus Thrash and Galloway were #26 and #27.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here are the RBs that were drafted last year in rounds 6 through 9:

6.01 James Stewart

7.12 Clinton Portis

The percentage of those guys who were legitimate starters is pretty low. (I highlighted those who finished in the top 24.)
To give more meaning to these numbers, consider that 2 of the 3 top finishers were selected by the same team. Times are tough for late round RB drafters.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I really like what Cannon just did in the second round. That was a pro move. When I first saw Eddy George I shook my head at the pick. I am very low on George this year. But Cannon's explanation for why George is decent for this system is solid. His total numbers for the year will be heavy on TDs. Also any remaining RB at this point would be a big reach imo, while George is if nothing else dependable.More importantly, Cannon might have pulled the trigger on McNabb or Culpepper. Knowing that the next team would be taking 2 in a row guarantees that one of those guys will be available in the 3rd(luckilly for him its McNabb).After further review: Just remembered Cannon traded up his 3rd rounder for this pick. I still like the move.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tony Holm with Tomlinson and Bennett will be tough. I think Tomlinson is #1 overall and I also think Bennett will end up as a top ten RB.I like what Kellogg has done this year as well. Drafting young running backs with huge upside is a great strategy. I like those two guys backfields a lot. Kellogg learned a valuable lesson last year. He has started down a very nice road where he'll probably find some quality recievers later in the draft to compliment his powerhouse backfield.

 
MT-

No reason to wait until the 6th or 7th round for RBs but I can see a gambler taking TO, MH then RBs in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th. Then taking his chances with back ups at RB and whatnot. I like what Kellogg did (last year) in rounds 1-2 provided 3-5 were reserved for RB allowing him a chance for his gamble to work.

I understand that casting a net for RBs late isn't as productive as doing so with WRs.

Back to the metaphor, it was like he had four spades and a diamond and discarded two cards to hit a flush. Didn't really give himself a chance to win.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here are the RBs that were drafted last year in rounds 6 through 9:

Compare that list to the wide receivers drafted in those rounds:
MT - that's a self-defeating (or, how about skewed?) way to look at the draft strategy that Kellogg used. Of course more top 24 WRs will be found later because more RBs have already been taken. That said, the Stud WR strategy works best when everyone else is drafting RBs AND QBs, TEs. With the FANEX run of RBs this draft is basically a tiered event: Tier 1 - draw RBs and see who gets luckiest; Tier 2 - fill out your rosters and see who gets luckiest. You can throw VBD, AVT, alphabet soup out the window.
 
No reason to wait until the 6th or 7th round for RBs but I can see a gambler taking TO, MH then RBs in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th.  Then taking his chances with back ups at RB and whatnot.  I like what Kellogg did (last year) in rounds 1-2 provided 3-5 were reserved for RB allowing him a chance for his gamble to work.
Yes, I agreed with Greg's first two picks last year at the time. But he needed to go RB-RB-RB after that and either have them all pan out, or find a late-round RB sleeper (a la Portis) to help. Neither of those is highly likely, but nobody said winning FanEx was easy. You do have to take chances; I just don't think the particular chance Greg took (having to find starting RBs in rounds 7 and beyond) was a good one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe that Gregs strategy from last year can work in a normal league but is suicide in the FAD format. I did something similar last year in one league where I didn't take a RB until round 4. My top three RB's after the draft were Pittman, J.Stewart, and M.Anderson. I was able to recover from that though, by picking up Shipp off waivers and swinging a trade to get Portis (I made the deal before Portis was named the starter and had to give up M.Vick as part of the deal). In the FAD format you cant make those kinds of adjustments, you are stuck with what you draft so I think its imperative to get as many players as possible who are going to be starters for their teams and avoid guys who are in a comittee situation, hence the huge run on RB's early in this league.

 
Of course more top 24 WRs will be found later because more RBs have already been taken.
Yes. This is why you can't wait till the middle rounds to get your RBs, but you can wait till then to get your WRs.
With the FANEX run of RBs this draft is basically a tiered event:  Tier 1 - draw RBs and see who gets luckiest; Tier 2 - fill out your rosters and see who gets luckiest.  You can throw VBD, AVT, alphabet soup out the window.
Whenever you get a bunch of experts together who are all well-informed and all have good draft strategies, luck is going to play a huge part in who wins.However, I don't think the run on RBs is throwing VBD out the window. I think it's a correct application of VBD with a dynamic baseline. Anybody who goes against the grain by not picking three RBs within the first six rounds is not giving himself an equal chance to get lucky, IMO. He's stacking the odds against himself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anybody who goes against the grain by not picking three RBs within the first six rounds is not giving himself an equal chance to get lucky, IMO. He's stacking the odds against himself.
I agree. The lesson I learned in taking WRs early last year was that you must have the discipline to keep taking RBs in the middle rounds, (nearly) regardless of value. I still don't think you must take a RB in either of the first two rounds, though._________________

Last year, I thought that the FAD drafters left RBs on the table too long, but this year I think they're overvalued--especially with the point-per-reception rule. I can't see how 'dynamic-baseline' VBD can justify a FAD pick like Corey Dillon or Curtis Martin over Randy Moss (or even over Eric Moulds or Hines Ward).

The difference between Randy Moss and a fourth-round WR like Isaac Bruce last year would have been 50 points with this scoring system. The difference between CuMart or Dillon and seventh-round 'bust' Mike Alstott was only 60 points.

Flexibility in the middle rounds is an asset, but (like most assets) I would be willing to give it up for the right price.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
When 20 of the first 24 picks are RB's, doesn't that suggest that a rule change might be in order? I think it would be much more interesting if the value of the QB and WR positions was raised, so the positions were drafted more evenly.Right now it's a no-brainer to load up on RB's, so why not change the "Float" scoring position to be a 3rd WR and add a second QB scoring position? I think that would make the teams at least consider going WR/WR, WR/QB, or even QB/QB in the first two rounds.

 
When 20 of the first 24 picks are RB's, doesn't that suggest that a rule change might be in order? I think it would be much more interesting if the value of the QB and WR positions was raised, so the positions were drafted more evenly.
I agree. What fun is a two round RB draft?The problem is, the more RBs get drafted, the more important it is that you draft a RB. So it's a bit of a snowball effect. Since everyone is taking RBs, the other positions will be there when you pick later and RBs won't be. It's dynamic VBD at work.What can be done to fix this: give 1 pt. per reception to WRs and TEs only. If this makes the flex spot favor WRs or TEs too much, then adjust it to 0.5 pts per reception or whatever balances it out. Make TD passes worth 6 pts. and give 1 pt. per 20 yards passing.
 
When 20 of the first 24 picks are RB's, doesn't that suggest that a rule change might be in order?
In other words: they've solved this puzzle; let's give them a new one to work on. :) (Can't say I disagree.)
 
In other words: they've solved this puzzle; let's give them a new one to work on. :wall: (Can't say I disagree.)
I started a thread about this last month. The basic thesis was that our scoring systems and lineup requirements were "ruining" the sport (taking some of the challenge out of it). This RB hysteria is really ruining drafts and strategy in my opinion.
 
I started a thread about this last month. The basic thesis was that our scoring systems and lineup requirements were "ruining" the sport (taking some of the challenge out of it). This RB hysteria is really ruining drafts and strategy in my opinion.
Because of this, I've been an advocate of points per reception, flex position and IDP for quite some time.
 
Bill Green > Randy Moss21 of 25 picks being RBDuce Staley > McNabb26 picks and Vick is still there.Whoever created the scoring system to warrent this abortion of a draft should be drug out and shot.

 
I started a thread about this last month.  The basic thesis was that our scoring systems and lineup requirements were "ruining" the sport (taking some of the challenge out of it).  This RB hysteria is really ruining drafts and strategy in my opinion.
GB developing our FF outside of the mainstream. When we started our league, we used newspaper stats and I was the only one with an actual FF magazine. I could only glean what I thought the standard rules were and was in error in so many places. We kept those rules and evolved a little more towards standard but still have a diversified draft with the top def found at the tail end of the third and an occasional stud TEs being taken from low 2nd (me two years ago) to late third/early 4th. QBs used to dominate round one but that has changed too. We may go back to 6 pt. passing TDs after this year if the RB mania infects our league too.We (I) considered IDP years ago but the stat sources were too difficult to get back then so we didn't use them. Instead, we inflated the importance of defense/ST units (accidentally) by using a PA=1:1 negative point loss. This has the top defs going late 3rd/early 4th.

We use thresholds for performance scoring and FA opens only after trading is over (week #10).

I have to say that this RB cattle call is not terribly impressive or fun. I can't get a realistic mock done. I remember as a newbie here last August lamenting this very phenomenon and being chided for my sacrilege. You guys would have a lot more fun if you'd give TEs a point/reception, and make the defense more valuable.

We have 5 formations that add another level of strategy in drafting.

cracKer's point on IDP has merit but from what I hear there aren't any first round IDPers either. Where do the top IDPers usually go in your drafts?

Nearly everything we do is with an eye towards making the draft reward the prepared and flexible owners. The cost? We have to do our own league management.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whaddya think about that Duce pick guys? I tell ya I think Canidate will point for a team well over half of the time in this format. I think he'll get a lot of receptions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Please explain this to me, why would you have 4 point passing TDs with point per reception? On top of that, some leagues have -2 for INTs. You could argue taking a defense before a passing QB in this system.

 
cracKer's point on IDP has merit but from what I hear there aren't any first round IDPers either. Where do the top IDPers usually go in your drafts?
You'd be surprised. There are enough dum-dum's out there, you could see Urlacher/Lewis go late first/early second. I'd say 5th or 6th round makes a little more sense.
 
Please explain this to me, why would you have 4 point passing TDs with point per reception? On top of that, some leagues have -2 for INTs. You could argue taking a defense before a passing QB in this system.
Point/reception for TEs only. To increase their value.Passing TDs =4 pts to devalue the QBs which back in the heady days of Cunningham/Everett/Montana/Moon made the weaker QBs stronger than some top flight RBs. We didn't and don't subtract for interceptions as it was another stat we felt we didn't need to have to dig up.BINGO! Yes, the defense/ST (over half of a football team) can be more valuable than your QB #1. A bad defense can eliminate two studly performances by offensive players. Remember, we developed this outside of the mainstream and it made sense to make a draft which prioritizes both sides of the ball. As hard as it seems for you to conceive of a defense more valuable than a QB#1, it is hard for me to fathom how a Raven defense from three years ago shouldn't be drafted in the first round.
 
I agree that this league needs a scoring change implemented to make it require more skill.Here are the rule changes that I think would make this a much better draft:- Make it 1 QB, 1 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 flex (RB/WR/TE) and 1 PK and 1 Def- Decrease interceptions to -1 points from -2 points- Give 1 pt for every 25 passing yards for QB and 1 pt for every 15 yards rushing/receiving (like the other positions)- Add points allowed and yards allowed for defenses to create a greater spread- Keep the 1 pt per reception for RBs and WRs, but make it 2 pts per recption for TEs- (Optional) - Making it a ten team league would help too.RBs would still dominate the picks in the first, but not nearly like they do now. The big three WRs plus the running QBs would all move significantly higher. The top TEs would also garner earlier attention with the 2 points per reception.

 
I agree that this league needs a scoring change implemented to make it require more skill.

Here are the rule changes that I think would make this a much better draft:

- Make it 1 QB, 1 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 flex (RB/WR/TE) and 1 PK and 1 Def

- Decrease interceptions to -1 points from -2 points

- Give 1 pt for every 25 passing yards for QB and 1 pt for every 15 yards rushing/receiving (like the other positions)

- Add points allowed and yards allowed for defenses to create a greater spread

- Keep the 1 pt per reception for RBs and WRs, but make it 2 pts per recption for TEs

- (Optional) - Making it a ten team league would help too.

RBs would still dominate the picks in the first, but not nearly like they do now. The big three WRs plus the running QBs would all move significantly higher. The top TEs would also garner earlier attention with the 2 points per reception.
I would agree with most of that. But I would make receptions 1 point per 10 yards to further make the receivers (whether WR, RB, or TE) a little more valuable. Something really needs to be done to encourage a better spread of positions drafted through the 1st few rounds. It's really getting boring seeing most drafts become a RB draft rush with little more than an afterthought to other positions in the 1st two rounds.I would keep it at 12 teams.

BTW, this doesn't just apply to the Fanex league. The vast majority of leagues that I am in and that I watch draft are horribly overbalnced towards taking RBs in the 1st two rounds.

B O R I N G

 
I started a thread about this last month. The basic thesis was that our scoring systems and lineup requirements were "ruining" the sport (taking some of the challenge out of it). This RB hysteria is really ruining drafts and strategy in my opinion.
the league i run is a 10 team, but we start 3 wrs & a te, 1 point per reception, and 6 points for all tds. rbs still go early, but they dont go often. IMO, its more fun when there is a mix of strategys. why be the only guy taking wrs? if everyone else goes rb, there will be high quality wrs left after everyone fills out thier rbs.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, when you're drawing dead to a full house. :wall:Here are the RBs that were drafted last year in rounds 6 through 9:
But why just look at rounds 6 thru 9?You are missing:4.09 THenry5.02 JLewis5.08 TBarberIf he opens with WR-WR-QB, then goes RB in the next 5 rounds, that's 5 shots. Now consider you try this strat over a 4-year period. You have 20 shots, maybe more if you trade around and acquire extra mid-round picks. I bet you hit one stud at LEAST once.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My 12 team league works like this. 1 QB 4 RB/WR/TE flex, 2 RB max, 1 TE, 1 K, 1 DT. Not requiring everyone to use a 2nd RB reduces the need to for a 2nd one. Scoring goes as follows 1 pt for every 20 passing, 10 rush/recieving, 6 points for all TDs, and 9 points for all TDs over 30 yards. The long TD bonus really serves to make WRs and QBs more valuable and it encourages a 3 WR set. The bonus is small, but adds strategy and excitment to gameday.

 
I disagree that this scoring system is wrong or ruining fantasy football. The drafting strategy being used to me is what's wrong. Just because everyone is taking 2 RBs in the 1st 2 rounds, doesn't mean you have to be a sheep and follow suit. Just look at who won last year, who his WRs and RBs were. IMO, taking someone like William Green over Randy Moss or Stephen Davis over Marvin Harrison in this format is absolute madness

 
Last edited by a moderator:
* 2002 FanEx Champions * 2002 FLM FanEx Bowl: Mark Nulty

2001 Total Points Champion: Mark Nulty

2002 Analysis Champion: David Dodds (1473 pts)

QB: Stewart Fiedler Brunnell

RB: Alexander McAllister Stewart

WR: Holt JSmith McCaffrey Schroeder

TE: Heap Walls

PK: Vanderjagt Wilkins

DT: Bucs Cowboys

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That was the regular season champion. This is the FAD Draft which I won.FanEx Champions
you cheated by taking two good RBs :yucky: Terrel Davis at 2.11 was bad. Anthony Thomas over Harrison worked out real well too. Still think you can win it by not taking 2 RBsedit: remembering how early the draft is every year, TD isn't AS bad, but still bad
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I did not take Terrell Davis, Marvin Harrison or Anthony Thomas so I'm guessing this isn't directed at me.I stand by my previous post that FanEx needs to change the scoring in this league or it will be 90% + RBs picked in the first two rounds. Virtually every rule that is part of this league values RBs while devaluing every other position. My only contention is that if they don't change the rules, then the outcome is liklely traced to drawn draft position/luck/injuries at the RB position. That in my opinion doesn't make for the best of leagues. If they tweaked even a few of the things I mentioned before, you would see some shakeup.But until that day happens, everyone is going to draft the way the league is structured. It's just a shame though that it does not correlate with the many drafts that will happen this year that have taken some steps to devalue the RB position (and upgrade the QB and WR positions).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Holm gave up:Round 3, Pick 3 Draft PickRound 6, Pick 10 Draft PickKellogg gave up:Round 3, Pick 6 Draft PickRound 5, Pick 6 Draft Pickand Kellogg took Warrick Dunn with this selection? I loved Kellogg's draft until now. Regardless of the fact where you might personally rank Warrick Dunn (I think this is a big reach here), why would you MOVE UP (and pay a great deal to do that) to get this player. Is there really that much pressure on Warrick Dunn that he would not be there in three picks? Someone needs to explain this one to me because I think this is a case of panic. Wouldn't it make more sense to wait and see if he gets picked? And if he does, then try to secure a trade?

 
Wouldn't it make more sense to wait and see if he gets picked?  And if he does, then try to secure a trade?
'Zactly. He is paying a premium for those spots when the next two guys may not have wanted him anyway. That leaves him to trade only one spot if the guy in front of if him even wanted him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would guess Kellogg's selection of Dunn is due to the incredible run on RBs that you've been lamenting. I bet Kellogg had Dunn rated a bit high, and is one of (if not the only) RB available at the tier he ranked him at. Meanwhile, all but one QB is still on the board and just a few WRs are gone.The question becomes: what is still available at RB? 21/32 RBs were gone.WDunnZereoueAThomasSMackESmithTHambrickMPittmanCandidateJStewartASmithGHearstOut of that group, Kellogg is saying Dunn is head and shoulders above the rest. Personally, I think there actually is one RB H&S above the rest - Zereoue - and I might've traded up to get HIM. But not Dunn, so I didn't like Kellogg's deal. Unless of course, TJDuckett has just been injured and I haven't heard about it, then Dunn clearly is the guy to pick out of that list.I think that Kellogg is going to say is that, unlike WGreen, Duckett got the ball LESS as the season wore on and Dunn clearly became THE GUY. If that is how 2003 plays out, Dunn should be the best of that group.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kellogg just took Dunn. 3 RB in 3 rounds. Congrats on beating him into submission last year guys. I hope he does his FanEx challenge again.

 
OK, but let's look at this Pre-trade:Holm has the pick and has two RBs. He could take RB, but also could take QB or WRHickerson has only 1 RB, but picks twice in this round. One will be a RB for sure.Engel has two Rbs already. Same position as Holm.So looking at this I see no real pressure on Warrick Dunn. Even if Kellogg loves him (and he obviously must), I think the priudent move HAS to be to wait and see what happens. He is too close to getting this player WITHOUT overpaying. Especially with Michael Vick and Donovan McNabb on the board at QB, differences of opinion on the remaining RBs, and the gate ready to break open here soon with WRs. I would have waited. Had Holm picked Dunn, he would likely have made the trade anyway for the player instead of the pick as the offer was a generous one. I am fairly certain all the others would have taken that same offer below Holm. I am guessing here, but I think Dunn had about a 25% chance of being taken at best. That in my opinion is not worth over-paying for. Kellogg wanted somebody so bad that he became blinded by his real/perceived value in my opinion. He then forced this situation when he could have remained calm and got a better deal. Worst case is Dunn gets picked and Kellogg then offers this deal to get him after he has been drafted. I will leave this discussion alone now because I doubt I can be swayed into ever seeing the logic in the trade up regardless to what anyone believes Warrick Dunn will do this season.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Greg's analysis for the trade and selection are below. All other analysis are at FanEx Analysis Draft

Kellogg 3.06 + 5.06 for Holm 3.02 (current) + 6.10

Kellogg: In most leagues one never knows for sure if they are giving up too much when they trade up for a targeted player. FanEx is no exception. Perhaps I could have waited and Warrick Dunn would have fallen to me three picks later, but with Tony Holm, Jerome Hickerson and Scott Engel picking in front of me if I didn't make the trade, I didn't feel safe in that assumption.

Prior to the 3.03 pick, there had been 21 RBs selected. Holm and Engel already had two RBs so the only person I was really concerned about was Hickerson, who had a RB and a WR.

I felt that a drop from my 5.07 pick to Holm's 6.10 slot was worth ensuring I got my targeted player.

Holm: I wasn't overly crazy about the position I was in. To me, there are a decent amount of similar QB's and WR's left on the board and it's a little early to go TE. With no real RB jumping out at me as a must get, I decided to shop this pick around and luckily received a number of offers. I liked Greg's the best and took it. I move down 3 picks in the third as there are more than 3 guys I liked at 3.03 so to me it's really a lateral move as I'll still get a guy I covet.

The gravy was moving up from the 6.10 to the 5.06 slot which is a full 16 picks. It also, I think, helps position me with 3 picks, 4.10, 5.03 and 5.06 right around where I think there'll be some good players to be had.

3.03 RB Dunn ATL by Kellogg

Wow - a third RB before you take your first WR or QB? What are you thinking Kellogg? Well, first of all - I am thinking that the rules force me to start two RBs and ALLOW me to start three. That means I MUST have three starting RBs and WANT to have four.

I realize that WRs will also be at a premium but feel there are enough of them out there that I can hit on a couple sleepers if I can only nab one legitimate Top 10 guy. And the way this draft is going, that should be fairly obtainable.

I am figuring on 5-7 QBs, 1-3 TEs and 6-10 WRs all going before my next pick (4.07). That should leave me with a shot at either a top QB or a top WR.

But why trade up for Warrick Dunn - I mean he shares carries with a first round pick for goodness sake. I like trends - I believe end of season trends portend things for the coming year. I used that philosophy to select RB William Green in the second round.

Over the last six games, in the FanEx scoring system, Clinton Portis (my first round pick) was the top-rated RB. William Green was eighth and Warrick Dunn was 15th. Dunn was 15th despite missing most of the Minnesota game because of a high ankle sprain and sat out the next week and still managed to finish at 15 due in large part to three games where he scored 20+ points. A point per reception aids his value greatly!

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top