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.

First 10 Rounds Complete of FBG Draft (1 Viewer)

hypothetical question:

Go back to last August. Pretend that you have the same amount of knowledge you had back then, except you know EXACTLY how Manning is going to do.

where do you draft him?
that's a terrible hypothetical.if you only know how manning will do, you will inflate his draft status if for nothing else there is no risk in his projection compared to every other player.

now if i know how everyone will do, then i can still construct a better team not taking manning with the 2nd pick.

if i told you that you would know how daunte culpepper would do, but not manning, you'd take culpepper if you were smart because you know for certain what his stats will be. no risk, where manning would still have risk.

 
hypothetical question:

Go back to last August. Pretend that you have the same amount of knowledge you had back then, except you know EXACTLY how Manning is going to do.

where do you draft him?
that's a terrible hypothetical.if you only know how manning will do, you will inflate his draft status if for nothing else there is no risk in his projection compared to every other player.

now if i know how everyone will do, then i can still construct a better team not taking manning with the 2nd pick.

if i told you that you would know how daunte culpepper would do, but not manning, you'd take culpepper if you were smart because you know for certain what his stats will be. no risk, where manning would still have risk.
For aaron's exercise, let's say you have perfect projections of what a player would do IF HE STAYED HEALTHY. Your projections for Manning are 49 TDs through his first 15 games, and your playoffs end in week 16. You also have Alexander projected for his actual perormance. However, if either gets injured between now and the start of the season, they'll get 0, and if they get injured in week 3, they're done in week 3. Your projections assume perfect healthy. Do you draft Manning over Alexander?

 
For aaron's exercise, let's say you have perfect projections of what a player would do IF HE STAYED HEALTHY. Your projections for Manning are 49 TDs through his first 15 games, and your playoffs end in week 16. You also have Alexander projected for his actual perormance. However, if either gets injured between now and the start of the season, they'll get 0, and if they get injured in week 3, they're done in week 3. Your projections assume perfect healthy.

Do you draft Manning over Alexander?
At the #2 spot? Shaun Alexander.It's tough with hypotheticals, but here's an easy one...

You know everyone's YTD stats (what most people draft off of) for last year and you build a time machine and go to August 2004 where you draft.

Do you take Manning at the #2 spot? Of course not. Here's why...

He's not even the #1 QB under this format! Granted, he sat out the last game and change. So, I'm in a good mood, let's truncate the stats through week 16 when most people's season's end.

OK, do you take him at the #2 spot now? Nope. Here's why...

Well, he is the #1 QB. That's good. But I can get Culpepper in the late second round. There's only a 9 point differential between the two QBs (per FBGs stats and scoring system) link. But Aaron is stubborn and drafts Manning anyway. Who does he get in the late second round? Let's be generous and give him TO (since Aaron is a smart drafter he'll wait until later rounds to grab Muhammed).

Now let's see what our other options are...I could take Shaun Alexander with the #2 pick. Who can I grab in the late 2nd round? Well, CPep is just as a viable option as TO is at that spot, but we're not going to give him to me. We're not going to be as generous to me as we are to Aaron. I'm in the fbg.com doghouse as it is, so we'll give me McNabb, who while still the #3 QB, was the #3 QB by a large margin through 16 weeks.

After two rounds:

Aaron: 621.1

Me: 635.5

So even knowing eveything we know about last year and drafting last year, picking Peyton Manning at the #2 slot is a mistake! You can still get more value by taking a RB at the #2 slot than you can by taking Manning...even in a record breaking year.

That, my friends, is maximizing value.

What I haven't even gone into is the point that you could have gone RB/RB or RB/WR and grabbed Trent Green in the mid rounds and grabbed even more value. This goes back to the point that there are always other QBs who will perform in the top 5 who you can get significantly later in the draft while picking up RBs and WRs in the first couple of rounds.

 
What I haven't even gone into is the point that you could have gone RB/RB or RB/WR and grabbed Trent Green in the mid rounds and grabbed even more value. This goes back to the point that there are always other QBs who will perform in the top 5 who you can get significantly later in the draft while picking up RBs and WRs in the first couple of rounds.
IIRC, green was pick 3.01Colin
 
What I haven't even gone into is the point that you could have gone RB/RB or RB/WR and grabbed Trent Green in the mid rounds and grabbed even more value. This goes back to the point that there are always other QBs who will perform in the top 5 who you can get significantly later in the draft while picking up RBs and WRs in the first couple of rounds.
IIRC, green was pick 3.01Colin
That was in reference to if we went back in time in 2004, where we knew the stats and drafted from there.Green was a 6th round pick.
 
Another factor that came into play for some of us was I felt there was more depth at RB this year than I've ever seen. 2 reason come into play. 1. More young talent and an anomoly of several 30+ vets gaining 100 yards. 2. Increase in QB scoring. We're seeing a shift in passing yeards and TD's across the NFL. My feeling is that if I can get who I think is the #1 or 2 QB (which usually means significant increase over the remaining field) and still get 1-2 starting RB's then I my end up ahead of the game. In my draft you have to feel Bell is going to be the starter in Denver and Staley will remain healthy and yield 75% of the carries next year. 2004 was a year of scoring changes in the NFL. Most credit the rule change but we witnessed the increase in QB scoring along with the emergence of the TE. Concurrently we observed the RB scoring down at the top end and increased in the middle. Some of that can be attributed to injury no doubt.End result: VBD will likely place Manning & Culpepper in your top 4 overall in most scoring systems with 6 pt TD's.

 
Is that what you do LHUCKS, make picks that are sure to divide people so the ones you get right are more memorable?  I have no particular complaint about Tiki there over Ahman, Jamal and a lot of the usual suspects, but I am interested in why you took him over Edge.  I assume it's a PPR thing...
I took Barber over Edge mostly because I'm weary of Edge's production after he takes in his next signing bonus. Edge isn't in it for the love of the game, it's a business for him. That is obviously a very qualititive approach to him specifically...an approach which I believe is undervalued in the ff community.I picked him as undervalued(as many know) before 2004 because it was a contract year.In 2005 I see him as risky with respect to a mid-first round price tag...no thanks. I'll take Tiki who is probably the second least risky RB in ff IMHO.In terms of your implication that I seek messageboard controversey and/or attention, you are correct to an extent. I make statements to encourage messageboard discussion. Part of the allure of the Tiki pick was that it might provoke a little thought. But don't get me wrong, I'm in this draft to win it and have drafted accordingly.
White paper...cough, cough.
 
So Aaron does not believe in VBD?  Both him and Family Matters just fell into a huge trap with both QBs coming off record seasons.  They won't repeat.I hope the rest of the footballguys.com staff does not fall into this short-term reactionary way of thinking. 

:thumbdown:
:sarcasm:

:popcorn:
:confused:

I really would like to know Aaron's basis of picking a QB coming off a career year 2nd overall? Does he think Manning will outperform a QB that he can get in round two by more than the RB available to him and the corresponding RB? Does he not think that Manning will revert to the mean, by Manning's standards an elite QB certainly, but historically valued as a late 2nd round pick?

It is more likely than not that a QB not named Manning will be the #1 QB next year, let alone being valued at #2 overall.

I would like to think that Aaron is just overreacting to a great season by Manning and going with his heart not his head. I find it troubling that a member of the fbg.com staff thinks it is justifiable to draft a QB #2 overall, and I would like to hear an explanation for it.

This used to be the site that showed the fundamental flaw in drafting a QB early based on value. Now staff is drafting them #2 overall. Either their philosophy has changed or they are hiring people with a very different approach to fantasy football.

I am not sure which is worse.
my rationale for the pick is provided in the initial draft thread. it's all about avoiding risk and when drafting 9 months before the season starts, a QB like Manning is the safest possible pick.

I believe any RB I draft at that spot has a MUCH higher chance of being injured than Manning.

And, if you look at Manning's VBD numbers from last year in a 6pt/pass TD league, the pick was warranted, IMO.

btw, what's the longest you've ever lasted in a survivor league anyway?

:popcorn:
I was going to give Arron the thumbs up until I saw this.

League Results:

GregR - 175.20 (Receives week 3 Amnesty)

RIL - 160.46

Gatorman - 150.62

Cobalt Cruisin' - 142.10

LHUCKS - 140.16

BostonFred - 135.62

Bueno - 123.74

BassNBrew - 118.78

Purplehaze - 117.78

Marc Levin - 116.82

Sandbagger - 113.60 (Booted Week 2)

Aaron Rudnicki - (Booted Off Week 1)
:rotflmao:

if I was LHUCKS, I would say I "beat" Aaron...but in reality I was just the second biggest loser.

:rotflmao:

Love it when you guys :boxing:

 
End result: VBD will likely place Manning & Culpepper in your top 4 overall in most scoring systems with 6 pt TD's.
We'll see. What will be more interesting is if there is a shift in drafting QBs earlier. Once we get some solid mocks by the middle of July you may see people taking decent but not great QBs (i.e. Vick) even earlier since Manning and CPep go so early that it could create a mini QB run seeing 2 go in the first round, 3 or 4 in the second.That to me would open up some huge opportunities for those who are contrarian to this such as myself. While the Manning and CPep owners may not be hurt that bad by this, the ones who are caught on the end of that early QB run will pay for it.
 
What I haven't even gone into is the point that you could have gone RB/RB or RB/WR and grabbed Trent Green in the mid rounds and grabbed even more value. This goes back to the point that there are always other QBs who will perform in the top 5 who you can get significantly later in the draft while picking up RBs and WRs in the first couple of rounds.
IIRC, green was pick 3.01Colin
In WSL, MvNabb went 2.7 as the #3 QB taken. Here is the remaining:1.2 Manning1.4 Culpepper2.16 Green3.1 Vick3.12 Bulger3.13 Brady3.15 Delhomme4.1 Plummer4.6 Hassellbeck4.8 Brooks4.9 Brees5.3 Favre5.5 McNair5.6 Leftwich5.8 Carr5.10 Palmer5.11 Pennington5.12 Big Ben5.13 Collins5.14 Griese6.10 E. Manning
 
End result: VBD will likely place Manning & Culpepper in your top 4 overall in most scoring systems with 6 pt TD's.
We'll see. What will be more interesting is if there is a shift in drafting QBs earlier. Once we get some solid mocks by the middle of July you may see people taking decent but not great QBs (i.e. Vick) even earlier since Manning and CPep go so early that it could create a mini QB run seeing 2 go in the first round, 3 or 4 in the second.That to me would open up some huge opportunities for those who are contrarian to this such as myself. While the Manning and CPep owners may not be hurt that bad by this, the ones who are caught on the end of that early QB run will pay for it.
I think seeing the QB flow from this draft is preemptive to how many drafts will go. I had predicted 30 some days ago that we would see this in next year's draft. In our WSL I said I was curious to see if a draft loaded with sharks would follow that trend. I was surprised when it did. If the sharks are going to do it you can bet others will follow. QB's will cost a little more this year. But like you said, it just means RB value later in the draft. It will still be the same as before just that you will load up on RB's in rounds 2-5 rather than 1-3 unless you want to cound on QB's like Griese to lead your team.
 
OK, you've successfully accounted for a 14 points (2.5 percent) swing in your total numbers. Now let's step away from the hypothetical, and add back in the uncertainty factor. Alexander has the following uncertainty/risks: 1) he may be traded2) he may not be traded, and may share more time with Morris than in the past3) he's a running back, and running backs in general have a 20% chance of getting injured each yearManning has the following uncertainty/risks:1) he's coming off a career year2) his schedule will almost certainly be tougher3) the NFL is considering scheduling playoff games in week 16, which would cause him to throw 4 INTsClearly Manning has risks. But Alexander's risks for the 2005 season seem greater to me in January of 2005. Because I cannot account for Alexander's risks as well as Manning's, it might be reasonable to adjust Alexander's stats downward. Which would account for the 2.5% benefit you got by picking your two guys instead of Manning/Owens (or whoever the hypothetical players might be).

 
End result: VBD will likely place Manning & Culpepper in your top 4 overall in most scoring systems with 6 pt TD's.
We'll see. What will be more interesting is if there is a shift in drafting QBs earlier. Once we get some solid mocks by the middle of July you may see people taking decent but not great QBs (i.e. Vick) even earlier since Manning and CPep go so early that it could create a mini QB run seeing 2 go in the first round, 3 or 4 in the second.That to me would open up some huge opportunities for those who are contrarian to this such as myself. While the Manning and CPep owners may not be hurt that bad by this, the ones who are caught on the end of that early QB run will pay for it.
I think seeing the QB flow from this draft is preemptive to how many drafts will go. I had predicted 30 some days ago that we would see this in next year's draft. In our WSL I said I was curious to see if a draft loaded with sharks would follow that trend. I was surprised when it did. If the sharks are going to do it you can bet others will follow. QB's will cost a little more this year. But like you said, it just means RB value later in the draft. It will still be the same as before just that you will load up on RB's in rounds 2-5 rather than 1-3 unless you want to cound on QB's like Griese to lead your team.
I still think there will be valuable QBs in rounds 4 and 5, even with some of the other going in rounds 1 and 2.To me, with people picking more QBs early, this should enable people to go RB/RB/WR/WR (or some combination therein) getting 2 studs at those positions. Following that up with a Favre, Bulger, Brooks would be fine in my book.The key to this year's draft is to not panic as QBs start flying off the board. Look at what the staff tried to do in the MB vs. Staff challenge. QBs flew off the board but we held strong and drafted value at other spots. This worked well for us. I think the same will be true of next year. QBs will go early. You can either panic and draft an average QB too early, or get value at other positions making the QB drafters pay for their ignroing value.
 
End result: VBD will likely place Manning & Culpepper in your top 4 overall in most scoring systems with 6 pt TD's.
We'll see. What will be more interesting is if there is a shift in drafting QBs earlier. Once we get some solid mocks by the middle of July you may see people taking decent but not great QBs (i.e. Vick) even earlier since Manning and CPep go so early that it could create a mini QB run seeing 2 go in the first round, 3 or 4 in the second.That to me would open up some huge opportunities for those who are contrarian to this such as myself. While the Manning and CPep owners may not be hurt that bad by this, the ones who are caught on the end of that early QB run will pay for it.
I think seeing the QB flow from this draft is preemptive to how many drafts will go. I had predicted 30 some days ago that we would see this in next year's draft. In our WSL I said I was curious to see if a draft loaded with sharks would follow that trend. I was surprised when it did. If the sharks are going to do it you can bet others will follow. QB's will cost a little more this year. But like you said, it just means RB value later in the draft. It will still be the same as before just that you will load up on RB's in rounds 2-5 rather than 1-3 unless you want to cound on QB's like Griese to lead your team.
I still think there will be valuable QBs in rounds 4 and 5, even with some of the other going in rounds 1 and 2.To me, with people picking more QBs early, this should enable people to go RB/RB/WR/WR (or some combination therein) getting 2 studs at those positions. Following that up with a Favre, Bulger, Brooks would be fine in my book.The key to this year's draft is to not panic as QBs start flying off the board. Look at what the staff tried to do in the MB vs. Staff challenge. QBs flew off the board but we held strong and drafted value at other spots. This worked well for us. I think the same will be true of next year. QBs will go early. You can either panic and draft an average QB too early, or get value at other positions making the QB drafters pay for their ignroing value.
I agree with bagger on most of his points. I think those people drafting QBs in round 1 ( or very early) will be hard pressed to "find" RBs and WRs that work out for them. I'd rather have a top 3 RB and gamble with a sure fire top 8 QB than the top QB from last year and the 30th + RB as my 1st RB.
 
OK, you've successfully accounted for a 14 points (2.5 percent) swing in your total numbers. Now let's step away from the hypothetical, and add back in the uncertainty factor. Alexander has the following uncertainty/risks: 1) he may be traded2) he may not be traded, and may share more time with Morris than in the past3) he's a running back, and running backs in general have a 20% chance of getting injured each yearManning has the following uncertainty/risks:1) he's coming off a career year2) his schedule will almost certainly be tougher3) the NFL is considering scheduling playoff games in week 16, which would cause him to throw 4 INTsClearly Manning has risks. But Alexander's risks for the 2005 season seem greater to me in January of 2005. Because I cannot account for Alexander's risks as well as Manning's, it might be reasonable to adjust Alexander's stats downward. Which would account for the 2.5% benefit you got by picking your two guys instead of Manning/Owens (or whoever the hypothetical players might be).
I agree that you should most likely discount Alexander's stats next year (as well as Manning's). However, until the Edgerrin James situation is resolved, I cannot say how great of a running game Indy will have to help Manning out. If Indy loses James, that could be a huge blow to Manning's stats.Even if I agree that Alexander has more risks than Manning, I still think you come ahead value wise. Not just after two rounds, but as you go on in the draft I think that point differential will increase in the favor of the person who drafted Alexander, not Manning.Just look at what Aaron had to do. He had to draft 2 rookie RBs in the first 5 rounds to make up for his Manning pick. With each passing round he got more and more behind the 8 ball in terms of value. While it was only a 2.5% variance in my 2004 example, if we continued out that hypothetical draft, I would imagine that would increase with Aaron having to scramble after making the Manning pick. When you make a mistake in round 1, that compounds the problems you have in each subsequent round.
 
Another factor that came into play for some of us was I felt there was more depth at RB this year than I've ever seen.
This seems to be the case almost every year though. Each offseason, everyone talks about how deep the RB pool is with young guys who stepped up, vets who squeezed in a last good year and the coming NFL draft. It seems the depth stays the same, yet that argument gets trotted out time and time again to justify taking a QB really, really early.Maybe things are shifting in favor of QBs over RB, or maybe Manning just had a great record breaking season that comes along every... 20 years. Until I see a repeat and a threepeat, I'll assume this is the cyclical hills and valleys that QBs go through and stick to tried and true NFL trends. I think it's just as likely, or historically more likely, that some guy comes out of nowhere (Warner) and leads the league in passing in 2005.
 
I agree with bagger's point to a degree. The problem we are facing in this particluar draft is the Survivor format being this early. There are only so many starting spots for QB's. There are many teams with questions still needing to be answered. It is much like how RB's have been in the past. There are only so many to go around, that's why people load up on them early. In a 16 team survivor format you need more than one QB essentially creating the need for two starting spots and possibly three if you have subpar performers or need two to lock up one position. Ex Simms/Greise. This lack of starting running backs in the past when you've traditionaly had two starting RB spots in a Head to Head league left owners drafting them early and often. In this format a higher value is placed on QB for the same reason. Taking Manning in the first almost certianly offers value as it would be beyond feasible for Aaron to draft one QB for the whole team, as Manning gets rid of the ball so quick and knows where his wr's are at all time eliminating a large portion of his chance of injury freeing up valuable roster spots for other postions. I agree with both of your points but in this formats I think drafting QB early and often is a very sound strategy. The quality of Qb is gone after round 4 while you can still get seviceable options for other postions later. I'm not saying grabbing a QB in the first is neccessary but you will certianly need to grab at least one by round 3.

 
I agree with bagger's point to a degree. The problem we are facing in this particluar draft is the Survivor format being this early. There are only so many starting spots for QB's. There are many teams with questions still needing to be answered. It is much like how RB's have been in the past. There are only so many to go around, that's why people load up on them early. In a 16 team survivor format you need more than one QB essentially creating the need for two starting spots and possibly three if you have subpar performers or need two to lock up one position. Ex Simms/Greise. This lack of starting running backs in the past when you've traditionaly had two starting RB spots in a Head to Head league left owners drafting them early and often. In this format a higher value is placed on QB for the same reason. Taking Manning in the first almost certianly offers value as it would be beyond feasible for Aaron to draft one QB for the whole team, as Manning gets rid of the ball so quick and knows where his wr's are at all time eliminating a large portion of his chance of injury freeing up valuable roster spots for other postions. I agree with both of your points but in this formats I think drafting QB early and often is a very sound strategy. The quality of Qb is gone after round 4 while you can still get seviceable options for other postions later. I'm not saying grabbing a QB in the first is neccessary but you will certianly need to grab at least one by round 3.
I'm with you that this draft, given its time frame in January, is very unique. I'm fine with that. I just think that this trend of Manning and CPep in the first will also be representative of many drafts this upcoming August.If it was justified that the only reason that Aaron took Manning was to completely mitigate risk, and that he admitted that he was most likely leaving points on the table, then I guess I can understand that.It just seemed to be the consensus of some that this was the right value move to make. That's where I disagree.
 
I agree with bagger's point to a degree. The problem we are facing in this particluar draft is the Survivor format being this early. There are only so many starting spots for QB's. There are many teams with questions still needing to be answered. It is much like how RB's have been in the past. There are only so many to go around, that's why people load up on them early. In a 16 team survivor format you need more than one QB essentially creating the need for two starting spots and possibly three if you have subpar performers or need two to lock up one position. Ex Simms/Greise. This lack of starting running backs in the past when you've traditionaly had two starting RB spots in a Head to Head league left owners drafting them early and often. In this format a higher value is placed on QB for the same reason. Taking Manning in the first almost certianly offers value as it would be beyond feasible for Aaron to draft one QB for the whole team, as Manning gets rid of the ball so quick and knows where his wr's are at all time eliminating a large portion of his chance of injury freeing up valuable roster spots for other postions. I agree with both of your points but in this formats I think drafting QB early and often is a very sound strategy. The quality of Qb is gone after round 4 while you can still get seviceable options for other postions later. I'm not saying grabbing a QB in the first is neccessary but you will certianly need to grab at least one by round 3.
I'm with you that this draft, given its time frame in January, is very unique. I'm fine with that. I just think that this trend of Manning and CPep in the first will also be representative of many drafts this upcoming August.If it was justified that the only reason that Aaron took Manning was to completely mitigate risk, and that he admitted that he was most likely leaving points on the table, then I guess I can understand that.It just seemed to be the consensus of some that this was the right value move to make. That's where I disagree.
I think Manning and Culpepper will both be drafted in the mid-late first, or early second, of most drafts next year. I think a lot of people with late picks will be playing the waiting game hoping to get one of them, and that that will drop their ADP to 2.1 and 2.5 or so by draft day. Moss and Owens will be the other two hot non-RB commodities, and will be drafted interchangeably between 1.9 and 2.6. Note I say 2.6, because there's usually about eight backs that people would rather take than WRs or QBs, and I don't think many people will start their draft with Culpepper/Moss, Manning/Owens, Manning/Moss, Culpepper/Owens, or Moss/Owens, and I'm pretty sure nobody would take Manning/Culpepper with their first two picks. So while very few drafts will let Moss, Owens, Manning or Culpepper slip back to the end of the second round, I think one of them will last as late as 2.6. From a DVBD perspective, is the 1.2 pick today worth a guy who would be available at 2.1 closer to the season? Only if you think his actual value is close to 1.2, or if all the guys after him have questions that make them likely to slip past 2.1. I think Priest may retire, or be spelled more often. He may not. We'll see. I think Ahman will creep up the depth charts, unless Favre retires, or Davenport is supposed to get more time. I think Alexander may get traded, and if he ends up in Arizona or San Francisco, he'll be a second rounder at best. I think Kevin Jones and Julius Jones benefitted from fresh legs at the end of the season after returning from injury. Who knows how good these guys really are? There's big questions with all the first round backs as of this moment, although a lot of those questions will be resolved by May. As such, what we're really seeing is the initial market being set for these players, and as time goes on, players will move up and down in value as news comes out about them. The VBD and DVBD concepts struggle a little here because there's no ADP and because any projections are going to be wild guesses right now. This is an interesting exercise in setting the market, though, because the first few published mocks set the ADP for key players and are responsible for some of the big ADP movers closer to the draft - the guys who rocket up the charts in July are the ones who were way undervalued in the spring, and the guys who fall off the charts in July are the ones who had name recognition but little else in the spring.
 
I would imagine that drafting them late first or early second may very well be worth it. At least there you would get a top of the line WR or a top 10 RB to go along with him.Drafting him earlier than late first means that you lose out on an elite WR and the RB you get is significantly worse in the later round.I do agree that it will be interesting on seeing how the market is set on these guys.

 
I agree with bagger's point to a degree. The problem we are facing in this particluar draft is the Survivor format being this early.  There are only so many starting spots for QB's.  There are many teams with questions still needing to be answered.  It is much like how RB's have been in the past.  There are only so many to go around, that's why people load up on them early.  In a 16 team survivor format you need more than one QB essentially creating the need for two starting spots and possibly three if you have subpar performers or need two to lock up one position.  Ex Simms/Greise.  This lack of starting running backs in the past when you've traditionaly had two starting RB spots in a Head to Head league left owners drafting them early and often.  In this format a higher value is placed on QB for the same reason.  Taking Manning in the first almost certianly offers value as it would be beyond feasible for Aaron to draft one QB for the whole team, as Manning gets rid of the ball so quick and knows where his wr's are at all time eliminating a large portion of his chance of injury freeing up valuable roster spots for other postions.    I agree with both of your points but in this formats I think drafting QB early and often is a very sound strategy.  The quality of Qb is gone after round 4 while you can still get seviceable options for other postions later.  I'm not saying grabbing a QB in the first is neccessary but you will certianly need to grab at least one by round 3.
I'm with you that this draft, given its time frame in January, is very unique. I'm fine with that. I just think that this trend of Manning and CPep in the first will also be representative of many drafts this upcoming August.If it was justified that the only reason that Aaron took Manning was to completely mitigate risk, and that he admitted that he was most likely leaving points on the table, then I guess I can understand that.It just seemed to be the consensus of some that this was the right value move to make. That's where I disagree.
I think Manning and Culpepper will both be drafted in the mid-late first, or early second, of most drafts next year. I think a lot of people with late picks will be playing the waiting game hoping to get one of them, and that that will drop their ADP to 2.1 and 2.5 or so by draft day. Moss and Owens will be the other two hot non-RB commodities, and will be drafted interchangeably between 1.9 and 2.6. Note I say 2.6, because there's usually about eight backs that people would rather take than WRs or QBs, and I don't think many people will start their draft with Culpepper/Moss, Manning/Owens, Manning/Moss, Culpepper/Owens, or Moss/Owens, and I'm pretty sure nobody would take Manning/Culpepper with their first two picks. So while very few drafts will let Moss, Owens, Manning or Culpepper slip back to the end of the second round, I think one of them will last as late as 2.6. From a DVBD perspective, is the 1.2 pick today worth a guy who would be available at 2.1 closer to the season? Only if you think his actual value is close to 1.2, or if all the guys after him have questions that make them likely to slip past 2.1. I think Priest may retire, or be spelled more often. He may not. We'll see. I think Ahman will creep up the depth charts, unless Favre retires, or Davenport is supposed to get more time. I think Alexander may get traded, and if he ends up in Arizona or San Francisco, he'll be a second rounder at best. I think Kevin Jones and Julius Jones benefitted from fresh legs at the end of the season after returning from injury. Who knows how good these guys really are? There's big questions with all the first round backs as of this moment, although a lot of those questions will be resolved by May. As such, what we're really seeing is the initial market being set for these players, and as time goes on, players will move up and down in value as news comes out about them. The VBD and DVBD concepts struggle a little here because there's no ADP and because any projections are going to be wild guesses right now. This is an interesting exercise in setting the market, though, because the first few published mocks set the ADP for key players and are responsible for some of the big ADP movers closer to the draft - the guys who rocket up the charts in July are the ones who were way undervalued in the spring, and the guys who fall off the charts in July are the ones who had name recognition but little else in the spring.
:goodposting:
 
btw, who can forget this quote? :P

I ***OFFICIALLY*** suck in Survivor format.SSL I: Booted Week 1.$15k contest: Booted Week 2.SII: Booted Week 4.
We can also now add to the list...StaffvsMB II: Booted Week 1.SOSII: Booted Week 2.2005 $15k contest: ???? (did you at least outlast Shuke?)The results from the only 2 H2H leagues I've been in with sandbagger weren't a whole lot better either.My advice: BVWIH ;)
 
So Bagger................if you were targeting Manning in WSL 05, where would you have drafted him.......what's the earliest?Keep in mind 2 basic thoughts........one, he went last year in most of these survivors in late round 2 or very early 3rd. Also, not knowing or having a very good idea of all the starting Qb's around the league is a big disadvantage to waiting too long............really at any of the starting positions. For example, owners in this league will be reaching for there 2nd kicker earlier than usual because there are some question marks out there this early. Do I know for sure Lawrence Tynes is kicking again next year? Are the Vikes tired of Anderson and his 41 yard field goals?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I respect your opinions bagger as you have proven over the years to be knowledgable, but dude...what's with all the angst?

 
btw, who can forget this quote? :P

I ***OFFICIALLY*** suck in Survivor format.SSL I:  Booted Week 1.$15k contest: Booted Week 2.SII: Booted Week 4.
We can also now add to the list...StaffvsMB II: Booted Week 1.SOSII: Booted Week 2.2005 $15k contest: ???? (did you at least outlast Shuke?)The results from the only 2 H2H leagues I've been in with sandbagger weren't a whole lot better either.My advice: BVWIH ;)
i was wondering when aaron would go to the "how have i done in leagues" card. that is basically admitting you knew you made a mistake by not sticking to the issue at hand and diverting attention away from you.rebutt the points i have made regarding your draft aaron, not trying to attack how i have done in other leagues.i expect that from some of the people here, but not a staff member. :no: but since you brought it up, i'll bite.I was in the 2k5 $15k contest until week 7 or so. average.also, in survivor leagues that are invite only, any one of the 12 people that are in the league are very deserving of being there, and know their stuff when it comes to fantasy football. SOSII is an extremely strong group of guys. whoever goes out first has nothing to be ashamed of.in the MB vs. Survivor league i got burned picking Ricky Williams in the first round and i took too much risk in travis henry and shockey drafting them where i did. i made some big mistakes there and i paid for it. in a redraft league i might be able to recoup, but in survivor, you are done.overall i had a HORRIBLE 2005. it happens. in our H2H league i was dominating in total points until TO and Priest got hurt. that killed my season. such is life.no regrets here. i'm ready for 2006.
 
I respect your opinions bagger as you have proven over the years to be knowledgable, but dude...what's with all the angst?
What angst?Divergent opinions is what used to make this site run.In this thread I have not insulted anyone nor have I questioned their fantasy football acumen, something that I have not received in return.I hope that as this site matures, groupthink does not take over and any dissenting view is dismissed. A lot of value would be lost.
 
I respect your opinions bagger as you have proven over the years to be knowledgable, but dude...what's with all the angst?
What angst?Divergent opinions is what used to make this site run.In this thread I have not insulted anyone nor have I questioned their fantasy football acumen, something that I have not received in return.I hope that as this site matures, groupthink does not take over and any dissenting view is dismissed. A lot of value would be lost.
OK, fair enough. The Joe B comment sounded a little angsty, maybe it was just me.And trust me when it comes to divergent opinions, I think I lead the majors in them. So please keep-em coming. :thumbup:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i was wondering when aaron would go to the "how have i done in leagues" card.  that is basically admitting you knew you made a mistake by not sticking to the issue at hand and diverting attention away from you.rebutt the points i have made regarding your draft aaron, not trying to attack how i have done in other leagues.i expect that from some of the people here, but not a staff member.
FYI: you CHOSE to take the discussion in this direction with your comments about my fantasy football knowledge and expertise, and repeatedly questioning Joe's decision to make me a staff member.You're one of my favorite posters on the board and I'm always up for a good debate about things like this. In fact, that is why my first post in this thread says "I can't believe there haven't been any more comments about 2 QBs going in the top 4 picks". But, if you want to keep taking cheap shots at me simply because I'm staff and you're not, then you should at least be prepared to take a few shots yourself.If you want to stick to the issue of my Manning selection, I'll be happy to respond in kind. If you would rather continue to question whether I know what I'm doing or not, then you're fighting a losing battle my friend, and I'll let my track record speak for itself from now on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In this thread I have not insulted anyone nor have I questioned their fantasy football acumen, something that I have not received in return.
:bs:
I find it troubling that a member of the fbg.com staff thinks it is justifiable to draft a QB #2 overall, and I would like to hear an explanation for it.This used to be the site that showed the fundamental flaw in drafting a QB early based on value. Now staff is drafting them #2 overall. Either their philosophy has changed or they are hiring people with a very different approach to fantasy football. I am not sure which is worse.
You'd hope Joe B would at least ensure that his staff know this before hiring them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I respect your opinions bagger as you have proven over the years to be knowledgable, but dude...what's with all the angst?
What angst?Divergent opinions is what used to make this site run.In this thread I have not insulted anyone nor have I questioned their fantasy football acumen, something that I have not received in return.I hope that as this site matures, groupthink does not take over and any dissenting view is dismissed. A lot of value would be lost.
You're right about that bagger................but in my opinion it's the way you kind of attacked Aaron's selections...........calling him out as an FBG staff member and all. To me, that goes beyond football discussion. I don't know you as a person, I'm just givng you my objective opinion.I to think your knowledgeable (at least in football, I think it was you and TommyZ who ripped my Pistons before they played the Lakers last year in the Finals) but sometimes you come across a little blunt.It was funny to see Lhucks ask what the problem was, like he isn't blunt!What I don't like is everyone being so nice to Fro........he's a sneaky drafter. I don't like being on the other end of him, I'd like to be right next to him next time and taking his picks. I liked that he went STUD RB, which we all would have, but the 2 QB's in rounds 2 and 3 is a good move IMO.
 
i was wondering when aaron would go to the "how have i done in leagues" card.  that is basically admitting you knew you made a mistake by not sticking to the issue at hand and diverting attention away from you.rebutt the points i have made regarding your draft aaron, not trying to attack how i have done in other leagues.i expect that from some of the people here, but not a staff member.
FYI: you CHOSE to take the discussion in this direction with your comments about my fantasy football knowledge and expertise, and repeatedly questioning Joe's decision to make me a staff member.You're one of my favorite posters on the board and I'm always up for a good debate about thing like this. In fact, that is why my first post in this thread says "I can't believe there haven't been any more comments about 2 QBs going in the top 4 picks". But, if you want to keep taking cheap shots at me simply because I'm staff and you're not, then you should at least be prepared to take a few shots yourself.If you want to stick to the issue of my Manning selection, I'll be happy to respond in kind. If you would rather continue to question whether I know what I'm doing or not, then you're fighting a losing battle my friend, and I'll let my track record speak for itself from now on.
that had nothing to do with your fantasy knowledge. moreso that your strategy was completely opposite of what this site has preached for years. i found that odd that someone who was hired would take such a different approach to drafting than would the founders.that is what confused me, not the breadth or depth of your knowledge.i think you misunderstood my meaning.
 
this site has never (to my knowledge anyway) given any indication about what an appropriate draft strategy should be in JANUARY for a 16-TEAM SURVIVOR draft.you are comparing apples and oranges here, IMO.

 
What ever fellas, I don't think taking Manning #2 overall is such a bad strategy in this format. Hell, I almost took him number #1 overall. There's no way Rudi takes him #2 overall in a H2H league. I think that this is the point that we will all agree to. Now, lets talk more about how cowboy is right, I'm a sneaky drafter.

 
this site has never (to my knowledge anyway) given any indication about what an appropriate draft strategy should be in JANUARY for a 16-TEAM SURVIVOR draft.
probably true.maybe it's time.
 
There's no way Rudi takes him #2 overall in a H2H league.
That was never made apparent to me. But regardless, maybe the hare wins H2H and the tortoise wins Survivor leagues.Being slow and steady doesn't help much in H2H, but it keeps you out of trouble in Survivor.
 
What ever fellas, I don't think taking Manning #2 overall is such a bad strategy in this format. Hell, I almost took him number #1 overall. There's no way Rudi takes him #2 overall in a H2H league. I think that this is the point that we will all agree to. Now, lets talk more about how cowboy is right, I'm a sneaky drafter.
He meant "Stinky Drifter". :P
 
There's no way Rudi takes him #2 overall in a H2H league.
That was never made apparent to me.
R.I.F.|

|

|

|

|

V

There are 2 main reasons for this pick:

#1 The time of the draft: I've never participated in a draft in January before so I don't have a very good sense of what type of risk is acceptable or not. There are so many question marks surrounding players going into next season at this point, that I wanted to draft the safest player possible with this early of a pick because I knew the talent would drop off considerably by the time my #31 pick rolled around.

#2 The fact that this is a survivor draft where rosters are frozen and lowest score gets eliminated. In a league like this, I try to avoid high-risk/high-reward players as much as possible. Thus, Manning represented the safest possible pick on the board, and his VBD numbers from 2004 suggested that it was not ridiculous to take him this high.

He may not throw 49TDs again, but I believe strongly that he'll reach 40. He plays in a dome and the passing weapons he has at his disposal are just too good to ignore. I also believe there is practically no chance that he'll get injured or benched. I could not say the same about any other players out there.

Believe me, I WANTED to take a RB. I really, truly did, and I would have if the #1 and #2 reasons I listed above were not true. But, when faced with the decision, I didn't believe any of the other RBs deserved to go that high. I just didn't feel comfortable with any of them, other than McGahee, and I wasn't a big enough homer to take that leap.
:yes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I respect your opinions bagger as you have proven over the years to be knowledgable, but dude...what's with all the angst?
What angst?Divergent opinions is what used to make this site run.In this thread I have not insulted anyone nor have I questioned their fantasy football acumen, something that I have not received in return.I hope that as this site matures, groupthink does not take over and any dissenting view is dismissed. A lot of value would be lost.
OK, fair enough. The Joe B comment sounded a little angsty, maybe it was just me.And trust me when it comes to divergent opinions, I think I lead the majors in them. So please keep-em coming. :thumbup:
I agree with this statement...I'd even go as far as to say that when it comes to divergent opinions, I think Lhucks commands respect in them. ;)
 
I respect your opinions bagger as you have proven over the years to be knowledgable, but dude...what's with all the angst?
What angst?Divergent opinions is what used to make this site run.In this thread I have not insulted anyone nor have I questioned their fantasy football acumen, something that I have not received in return.I hope that as this site matures, groupthink does not take over and any dissenting view is dismissed. A lot of value would be lost.
GB the offseason.
 
I respect your opinions bagger as you have proven over the years to be knowledgable, but dude...what's with all the angst?
What angst?Divergent opinions is what used to make this site run.In this thread I have not insulted anyone nor have I questioned their fantasy football acumen, something that I have not received in return.I hope that as this site matures, groupthink does not take over and any dissenting view is dismissed. A lot of value would be lost.
BTW, does anyone else notice the irony here?First, bagger criticizes me for not taking a RB early, for ignoring the principles of VBD, and for drafting differently than other staff members and owners of the site.Then, within the same thread, he says that differing opinions are what make this site run and should be encouraged.To me, the idea that you must ALWAYS take a RB in round 1 no matter what type of league or when you are drafting is more indicative of groupthink taking over. Obviously, I could have taken the obvious path and drafted Priest Holmes or Shaun Alexander, etc. and avoided criticism. Instead, given the parameters of the league that I outlined earlier in this thread, I decided to try a different strategy. We'll have to just wait and see how it works out.Another key point in defense of the Manning selection:His "career year" just happened to coincide with the league's decision to emphasize the 5yd contact rule. I assume that emphasis will continue in the 2005 season, and thus there is good reason to believe that Manning's production in future years will be closer to his 2004 season (49TDs) than to his 1998-2003 average (28TDs/year).I would actually be surprised if he doesn't throw 40 TDs next year. He's clearly in his prime and has everything going for him these days (great WRs, wide open offensive system, playcalling autonomy in the red zone).Regression to the mean is certainly an important concept to keep in mind when projecting players, but I believe it is more appropriate for a player who dramatically exceeds expectations (i.e., Drew Brees this year) than a player like Manning. Even though Manning certainly exceeded expectations this year, I don't think there's anybody out there who wouldn't have picked him as the player most likely to break Marino's record. Factor in the emergence of Wayne and Stokely and the new rules emphasis and it is even less shocking.If you made a habit of avoiding players coming off career years in the past, you would have missed out on the following years:27 TD season by Priest Holmes in 200337 TD season by Jeff Garcia in 200121 TD season by Marshall Faulk in 200118 TD season by Edgerrin James in 200039 TD season by Brett Favre in 1996I know one could list plenty of other examples where a player flopped the year after his career year, but I don't think Manning is going to have that problem this year. Just like the Patriots continue to win in a time when everybody says dynasties aren't possible, Manning will continue to rewrite the record books.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I didn't even realize we were discussing this draft here in the SP. I noticed in this WSL draft, it does seem like many picks were based on last seasons, numbers. And there will be a lot of shuffling this off-season beeween coaches, coordinators, retiremnts, FA, draft etc. This is by far the most difficult draft I have ever been involved in, and the other 15 owners are very sharp, which compounds it's difficulty. Keep in mind that QB's get 6 pts per TD, and RB's get 1 pt per rec. I also believe in the RB's are the most valuable position, due to supply and demand. But the one thing that having P.Manning does in the survivor format, it frees up a roster spot later on. With Favre thinking about retiring, Manning is the only rock solid QB, and he allows you to carry only 2 QB's. Once you get past him, you almost have to go with 3 QB's to survive. Between byes, injuries, FA, poor play, benching etc.. With Manning you only need to cover his bye, and perhaps a bad week or two? This frees up a spot later to grab an extra RB WR or TE, (to cover wherever you are thin or weak) who might put up a huge week now and then? I personally would not take a QB in the 1st round, and I also highly doubt either Manning or CPep will repeat their guady stats from 04, but owning Peyton does offer durability, and flexability, two vital components in Survivor. I'm sure this is the reason Rudi picked Peyton in the 1st round. That's the only shot he had to get him. Plus the fact that in this system, Manning has the potential to be the top 1 or 2 in scoring again? Like I said, I wouldn't have done it, but I didn't think twice about the pick. Perhaps Aaron is leading us into the next generation of FF :D

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top