FBG Article - Survivor Strategy (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Pasquino]

Check the FREE article that was just posted.

Wide-Outwit, Wide-Outplay, Wide-Outlast

Comments / feedback welcome.

 

[Pictus Cat]

Nice article. Drafting in the Mock Draft forum against you has been fun.

Your willingness to share your team evaluations, rankings, and this article is much appreciated.

Not many would give out this info and compete.

 

[Bri]

I agree with the basic premise that a reliable player is best but I think you could have gone further here, friend.

I think "the homerun hitter" is important in survivor leagues and a good mix is really what's best.

Suppose Jabar Gaffney has 3 150 yard games and 13 games with less than 20. Sure it's good if you have 3 WRs starting that get 80 yards 5-6 catches week in week out but Derrick Mason isn't going to win it for you without a homerun hitter, he'll just keep you "in it".

I haven't won a survivor league, trying to learn from the past though.

Another in this reliability talk is backup TE and backup QB. Last year, I noticed those two(or one of those) were the difference in staying alive or getting knocked out. Outside of a handful of TEs, the predictability or reliability is a bit rough. If one guy(with a quality backup) always has good weeks while the other has these up N down weeks it works out well. This may too be the case with a backup D as well.

Back to QBs I think everyone likes the reliability of QBs in survivor leagues and also realizes the backup QBs worth so no matter when they are drafted it's too early. It's a bit frustrating going from redraft to survivor and banking on a QB falling to you, the sorta tradition that happens in every redraft draft.

I recognize all the above backups values. The problem(I think) I have and many others like me, apparently since only 1 wins, is mixing those backup picks in and having depth at RB and WR. Many drafters will have 7 RBs and WRs (total together) by round 10 some will even have 8. You could have your pick of backups at QB, TE, Def while people are grabbing their 3rd or 4th RB and/or WR. How's your RB or WR depth though? round 8 to about 14 is critical.

I think there's a point that your 2nd D(let's say Jets) outscores your 5th WR with regularity and your backup TE gets more week to week use than your 5th WR. This point is very different than in redrafts.

Thoughts?

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Nice article. Drafting in the Mock Draft forum against you has been fun.Your willingness to share your team evaluations, rankings, and this article is much appreciated.Not many would give out this info and compete.

Pictus.Being on staff and also competing ups the level of difficulty, but that's part of the challenge.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I agree with the basic premise that a reliable player is best but I think you could have gone further here, friend.I think "the homerun hitter" is important in survivor leagues and a good mix is really what's best.Suppose Jabar Gaffney has 3 150 yard games and 13 games with less than 20. Sure it's good if you have 3 WRs starting that get 80 yards 5-6 catches week in week out but Derrick Mason isn't going to win it for you without a homerun hitter, he'll just keep you "in it".I haven't won a survivor league, trying to learn from the past though.Another in this reliability talk is backup TE and backup QB. Last year, I noticed those two(or one of those) were the difference in staying alive or getting knocked out. Outside of a handful of TEs, the predictability or reliability is a bit rough. If one guy(with a quality backup) always has good weeks while the other has these up N down weeks it works out well. This may too be the case with a backup D as well. Back to QBs I think everyone likes the reliability of QBs in survivor leagues and also realizes the backup QBs worth so no matter when they are drafted it's too early. It's a bit frustrating going from redraft to survivor and banking on a QB falling to you, the sorta tradition that happens in every redraft draft. I recognize all the above backups values. The problem(I think) I have and many others like me, apparently since only 1 wins, is mixing those backup picks in and having depth at RB and WR. Many drafters will have 7 RBs and WRs (total together) by round 10 some will even have 8. You could have your pick of backups at QB, TE, Def while people are grabbing their 3rd or 4th RB and/or WR. How's your RB or WR depth though? round 8 to about 14 is critical.I think there's a point that your 2nd D(let's say Jets) outscores your 5th WR with regularity and your backup TE gets more week to week use than your 5th WR. This point is very different than in redrafts.Thoughts?

Hi Bri,You cover alot of ground here. The premise of this article was to focus on two different thoughts - draft stud WRs early, or draft fewer early but add depth quickly thereafter. I was comparing the two strategies and noting that they basically can wind up producing the same WR values - but the difference is that "Team B" that waits on WR can build up their team better at other positions (as they take their RB2/QB/TE earlier).There's no question that you also have to decide on the value of your "2s" - TE2, QB2, Def2 - and decide when to take those off the board before value / worth drops.

 

[David Yudkin]

Nice article. Drafting in the Mock Draft forum against you has been fun.Your willingness to share your team evaluations, rankings, and this article is much appreciated.Not many would give out this info and compete.

This is one of the more interesting side effects of being on staff. Everyone and their brother will know which players you like or dislike, when you will be inclined to draft them, and your overall tendancies over time. It's like playing naked when everyone else has things up their sleeves.It's interesting being in leagues because (at least in my case) I end up with players I wouldn't normally draft because people will grab players I had targeted to spite me and then having to go in a different direction. For example, I was in several leagues playing with the same core of folks last season, and once people saw I was targeting Wes Welker, Kevin Walter, Kevin Curtis, etc. then I could never get them. Such is life . . .

 

[renesauz]

Great stuff Jeff!

 

[Duckboy]

Nice article Jeff.

I've always been of the opinion that, at least in the 16-team FBG survivor leagues, strength at WR vastly outrides that of RB, but it's interesting to see that even waiting somewhat at WR can be of a benefit. This would seem to help those more in the middle of the draft, who can wait to grab the end of the top TE/QB tiers and go something like RB/WR/TE/QB, the RB and WR next 2, then WR for a few rounds and end up with a pretty solid squad.

Also agree on watching for when to get the 2's at QB and TE, but if you end up at the top of a tier, you can afford to wait a bit longer.

 

[Gatorman]

I think I disagree here for past survivor teams, although I think tht with the RB position getting watered down, it may work today.

The truth is I tend to draft about 6-7 wrs in a survivor draft to counteract the "stud WR" argument. Wrs go missing or get hurt (even your studs), so you can be screwed a lot more often even with the best WRs.

Lets take a 18 to 20 man roster for a survivor draft of 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 K and 1 D and look at rosters.

QB...You can take 2, but 3 is a better number to counteract injury vs. non performance

RB ... You need at least 3, and as many as 5

WR... We'll get there.

TE .. 2 is all you need, even if you were to draft 2 studs (Assuming a flex in that case)

K .. again 2

D .. 2

So anyway you slice it, you need 14 - 15 players just to satisfy your "basic" needs for a survivor team (2-3 QBs, 3 RBs, 3 WR, 2 TE, 2 K, and 2 D) so now you have 4 - 6 spots left for RBs and WRs EXTRA depth. How many of those RBs are you going to find post Round 10 that aren't just handcuffs or third down backs vs. Wrs with legitimate upside potential? Since this is Survivor with a fixed roster, guys like Ernest Graham and Ryan Grant may not even be rostered... So where is there better value in the late rounds??? WR, that is where.

When I draft Survivor, the first 10 rounds are 3-4 RBs, 1 QB, 1 TE (2 if there is a flex and I can corner the position), and 3-4 WRs. These 3 - 4 are mixed in between the 10, but usually no more than 2 of them happen by round 5. WRs (even the best ones) are feast or famine, so I prefer to carry more of them on the roster to smooth out their variance, and most of my "legends of survivor formats" do the same.

Now, with all that being said, I am curious to see how the RBBC approach that seems to be trending throughout the league will affect the RB2 position, and consequently their value vs. WR2 and 3 in both survivor and regular leagues. I will say that I have never seen a survivor team that went WR WR win a championship, but I am sure that there are enough leagues out there now to prove that anecdote wrong.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I think I disagree here for past survivor teams, although I think tht with the RB position getting watered down, it may work today.

You'll have to explain the disagreement more.

The truth is I tend to draft about 6-7 wrs in a survivor draft to counteract the "stud WR" argument. Wrs go missing or get hurt (even your studs), so you can be screwed a lot more often even with the best WRs.

I agree.

....When I draft Survivor, the first 10 rounds are 3-4 RBs, 1 QB, 1 TE (2 if there is a flex and I can corner the position), and 3-4 WRs. These 3 - 4 are mixed in between the 10, but usually no more than 2 of them happen by round 5. WRs (even the best ones) are feast or famine, so I prefer to carry more of them on the roster to smooth out their variance, and most of my "legends of survivor formats" do the same.

So based on ADP from SSLs, you have 2 of the Top 30-35 WRs. I don't see a problem here - except I'd definitely want a Top 10-15 guy in the mix.

 

[Gatorman]

I think I disagree here for past survivor teams, although I think tht with the RB position getting watered down, it may work today.

You'll have to explain the disagreement more.

The truth is I tend to draft about 6-7 wrs in a survivor draft to counteract the "stud WR" argument. Wrs go missing or get hurt (even your studs), so you can be screwed a lot more often even with the best WRs.

I agree.

....When I draft Survivor, the first 10 rounds are 3-4 RBs, 1 QB, 1 TE (2 if there is a flex and I can corner the position), and 3-4 WRs. These 3 - 4 are mixed in between the 10, but usually no more than 2 of them happen by round 5. WRs (even the best ones) are feast or famine, so I prefer to carry more of them on the roster to smooth out their variance, and most of my "legends of survivor formats" do the same.

So based on ADP from SSLs, you have 2 of the Top 30-35 WRs. I don't see a problem here - except I'd definitely want a Top 10-15 guy in the mix.

I re-read the article, and I agree that both teams seem similar...however, I think that you can take this a step further if you want. As long as PPR is in the mix, the need for a top WR is there, but what about when there isn't? What about a TD only survivor league? In those cases, I think you can wait even longer for WRs and grab 8 of them....LHUCKS one year went RB RB RB QB ... His team ended up with 3 studs at RB and a decent QB. It was a 20 round survivor and I think he had 9 WRs. I belive he finished in the top 1/2, and maybe even made it to the final 4 or so (not sure about this since I have played in a lot of survivors vs. LHUCKS)

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I think I disagree here for past survivor teams, although I think tht with the RB position getting watered down, it may work today.

You'll have to explain the disagreement more.

The truth is I tend to draft about 6-7 wrs in a survivor draft to counteract the "stud WR" argument. Wrs go missing or get hurt (even your studs), so you can be screwed a lot more often even with the best WRs.

I agree.

....When I draft Survivor, the first 10 rounds are 3-4 RBs, 1 QB, 1 TE (2 if there is a flex and I can corner the position), and 3-4 WRs. These 3 - 4 are mixed in between the 10, but usually no more than 2 of them happen by round 5. WRs (even the best ones) are feast or famine, so I prefer to carry more of them on the roster to smooth out their variance, and most of my "legends of survivor formats" do the same.

So based on ADP from SSLs, you have 2 of the Top 30-35 WRs. I don't see a problem here - except I'd definitely want a Top 10-15 guy in the mix.

I re-read the article, and I agree that both teams seem similar...however, I think that you can take this a step further if you want. As long as PPR is in the mix, the need for a top WR is there, but what about when there isn't? What about a TD only survivor league? In those cases, I think you can wait even longer for WRs and grab 8 of them....LHUCKS one year went RB RB RB QB ... His team ended up with 3 studs at RB and a decent QB. It was a 20 round survivor and I think he had 9 WRs. I belive he finished in the top 1/2, and maybe even made it to the final 4 or so (not sure about this since I have played in a lot of survivors vs. LHUCKS)

Two points, Gatorman.1 - A TD only league does lessen the value of WRs, but I did touch on PPR vs. non-PPR. They basically are about even in WRs that meet a certain scoring threshold (10+ pts for PPR, 7+ for non-PPR).2 - Given the threshold, I think it is a mistake to say "just grab 8 WRs". The key point is that quantity doesn't make up for quality - to a degree. I would say that a quantity of decent quality WRs makes up for higher quality WRs (that is to say, 5 Top 50 WRs can equal 3 Top 30 WRs) - but your statement implies that you can take any 8 WRs. You also made mention that WRs are a value later. I argue that WRs beyond WR50-55 are more of a flyer-type pick and not a stable contributor. Understand that WRs 6+ have to outscore 2 WRs already on your team (aside from byes) and are likely being selected later in your draft. That means that the likelihood of them being of any value at all is minimal.