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)

I thought the Manning pick was solid, but not what I would have done as a lot of my strategy was based on getting Palmer or McNair in the 5th. I think there are several more controversial picks than the Manning pick.:2cents:I'm looking forward to releasing the next 10 rounds...stay tuned as I've already gotten emails from two other website writers who have been following the draft. Probably since it's the first of the offseason.Like Ron mentioned...we have some very astute ffers participating so this should be a good template for pre-NFL-draft, survivor drafts.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Bagger,Don't get down on yourself. Anyone can have a bad year. Just look at my year. I didn't win anything. Not only did I lose but I didn't even finsh in the top half in most of my leagues. Heck I'm even having a bad draft in WSL. But it's not about winning or losing, it's how you play the game. You play to win the game. Hello, you play to win the game.Keep your chin up and remember this, no matter who you draft tell everyone how good that player is and stand behind the pick. Even if you draft Suggs in the 2nd round, just sell it man.Signed your friend and fantasy expert,LHUCKS
 
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.
Bagger,Don't get down on yourself. Anyone can have a bad year. Just look at my year. I didn't win anything. Not only did I lose but I didn't even finsh in the top half in most of my leagues. Heck I'm even having a bad draft in WSL. But it's not about winning or losing, it's how you play the game. You play to win the game. Hello, you play to win the game.Keep your chin up and remember this, no matter who you draft tell everyone how good that player is and stand behind the pick. Even if you draft Suggs in the 2nd round, just sell it man.Signed your friend and fantasy expert,LHUCKS
:rotflmao: Dude...you are going to get so :own3d: by LHUCKS...you may have to go over to FFToday to hide from the inevitable public humiliation ;)I'm looking forward to ranking the teams :devil:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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).
A better reason IMHO is that he has finally had a talented (and healthy) supporting cast around him -- Harrison, Wayne, Stokely, Clark, Pollard. Remember a few years ago when we were all wondering how good Manning would be if he had more players to throw to than just Harrison? Well, now he does.A concern is that Indy will probably lose Pollard and maybe Edge over the offseason. But those are the least important factors in Manning's production. 40 TDs is not a stretch and I would be stunned if he finished below 35, assuming reasonable health.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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:
Where does that say you'd never take him at #2 in a H2H league? That was never explicitly stated so don't act like you made that apparent. You think that Manning will throw for 40+ and that is why you took him. You said that you wanted to mitigate as much risk as possible (both in terms of being only able to draft and time of year).You said, and I quote:

I didn't believe any of the other RBs deserved to go that high.
:thumbdown: It's insulting when you insinuate that I am not reading your posts when in fact that was never stated within your post. Writing is fundamental too.

BTW, I still believe it is short sighted on mitigating risk with your round 1 pick when your overall risk of your team increased dramatically with 2 rookie RBs in the first 5 rounds.

You want to mitigate overall team risk in survivor leagues, not just your first round pick.

You made Manning as your #2 overall pick and now you are trying to backpedal.

Not going to happen.

 
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 little 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.
I'm all for divergent opinions, I just don't agree with yours.Really, if you want to take Manning #2 overall that's great. I just want to hear some solid reasoning behind it. You took him to completely mitigate risk. That's fine. I am saying that by doing so, you crippled the rest of your team. You seem to still disagree. To me, I don't even need to make an argument that you made a mistake. The rest of your draft is evidence that it was.Your Manning pick is not nearly as bad as taking 2 rookies in the first five rounds.Again, I'd like to see anyone other than you who would rather have Manning and Benson over Alexander and Vick.
 
I said the main 2 reasons for this pick were the time of the draft and the survivor nature. If you take away one of those, I would have chosen a RB.That means: If this were a H2H league and/or we were drafting during the summertime, I would have taken a RB.why is that so hard to understand?:shrug:Dude, I'm trying something different out. I wouldn't recommend this pick for anybody in any situation.

 
I said the main 2 reasons for this pick were the time of the draft and the survivor nature. If you take away one of those, I would have chosen a RB.That means: If this were a H2H league and/or we were drafting during the summertime, I would have taken a RB.why is that so hard to understand?:shrug:Dude, I'm trying something different out. I wouldn't recommend this pick for anybody in any situation.
It's cool. I just wanted to know your reasoning behind it. Like I said earlier in the thread, mitigation of risk in survivor leagues has a lot of value and is something I have not paid enough attention to in the past.Really, while I was harping on you specifically, the point I was ultimately making was that there are going to be a lot of people in 2005 taking QBs with the first 5 picks.I am showing here why I think that is a mistake.For the record, I think Aaron is extremely bright when it comes to fantasy football, and we've been in a few leagues together. That is why I was probably giving him a little more grief than I would have some random poster.
 
Really, if you want to take Manning #2 overall that's great. I just want to hear some solid reasoning behind it. You took him to completely mitigate risk. That's fine. I am saying that by doing so, you crippled the rest of your team.
Do you think it's possible to take Manning with an early pick this year and still field a good team? What about in a 12 team league? Would it be better to take him with an early first or a late first (keeping in mind that the late first would be taking their RB2 no earlier than the late third round)? Where do you think Manning should go?
Your Manning pick is not nearly as bad as taking 2 rookies in the first five rounds.
Had to say. In a 16 team league, this is a huge swing for the fences. There's a good chance that both of these rookies will be starting running backs for a team that needs them right away, and this could be the biggest bargain in the draft. Or there's a good chance that the top rookies end up like they did in 2004 - Kevin Jones, Stephen Jackson and Chris Perry were considered the top three backs headed into the draft last year, and not one of them would have been a good survivor pick this year except as depth on a team with other solid RBs. I tend to think that this is a more highly anticipated draft class for running backs than last year, so I like the move more this year than last.
Again, I'd like to see anyone other than you who would rather have Manning and Benson over Alexander and Vick.
Well, like I said, it's hard to say what Benson's going to do, but I don't like Vick in this format at all. 6 pt passing TDs aside, Vick's way too inconsistent from week to week, although if I could get Dunn and Duckett, I would take him in a minute. And Doug, if you're reading this, yes, I did just say that player X is inconsistent.
 
Fred explained my reasoning well. But, I'll add a few more comments.By taking Manning, I gave myself no chance of landing a RB1-type of player. To counter that, I decided to go with a riskier strategy at RB and I feel that Benson and Cadillac's value will only climb as we get closer and closer to the season. In retrospect, I might have jumped the gun on Benson a bit because he is being talked about as a possible #2 overall pick. But, I still like him to have the best chance of being an opening day starter among all the rookies. If that happens, he could easily outproduce the other RBs that were available to me at that spot (i.e., Barlow, Henry, etc.). I feel the same about Cadillac and thought he was a steal where I got him. If I had grabbed Duckett, I would have assured myself of having 2 of my top 3 RBs on bye during the same week - and that is never a good idea. Larry Johnson could very well ride the pine when Priest is healthy so I didn't like that possibility either.With Benson, Dunn, and Cadillac on my roster, I think there is a pretty decent chance that I will wind up with 2 top-25 RBs this season (or at least top-30). Rookie RBs have a long history of doing well, and if I hit on just 1 of the 2, I'll be in great shape with Manning at QB and my group of strong WRs. IF I happen to hit on both of them, then my team is going to last a long time.Another factor to consider:Several veteran RBs will get injured (or unexpectedly retire) or start off the season slow. It happens every year. Teams that drafted those guys are going to be at a disadvantage early on in the season, and I think with Manning and my WRs, I'll be able to outproduce them. Then, once the number of teams starts narrowing down to 12 and fewer, I should be able to count on getting more production from my rookie RBs to offset bye weeks and an occasional low scoring week from my studs.The Manning AND rookie RB picks are both part of my strategy for this league, and I'm very interested to see how it works out. As I've said numerous times, the main reason I'm doing this is because this is January. I hope that I'm buying these rookie RBs when their value is at its lowest point and that it will continue to rise up until and following the draft once we see what team they are on and what kind of competition they will have for playing time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This has already been talked through but I'll add a viewpoint...I kind of like Aaron's rookie RB strategy because it's fairly easy to survive in the first four weeks with a league this size. Thus, he can take the hit at RB while his rookie runners are getting acclimated to the NFL.It's a very agressive strategy that could very well payoff IMHO.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This has already been talked through but I'll add a viewpoint...I kind of like Aaron's rookie RB strategy because it's fairly easy to survive in the first four weeks with a league this size. Thus, he can take the hit at RB while his rookie runners are getting acclimated to the NFL.It's a very agressive strategy that could very well payoff IMHO.
To counter: One bad week from Manning in the early part of the season could spell doom. EXTERMINATED BIYATCHES!
 
despite waiting until round 5 to grab a WR, I think my group is very strong in a pt/rec league and will be a big asset.Derrick Mason, Larry Fitzgerald, Rod Smith, Keyshawn Johnson, David Givensto build this group, I had to ignore the TE position though, so it may wind up hurting me in the end if Boo Williams doesn't produce.

 
despite waiting until round 5 to grab a WR, I think my group is very strong in a pt/rec league and will be a big asset.Derrick Mason, Larry Fitzgerald, Rod Smith, Keyshawn Johnson, David Givensto build this group, I had to ignore the TE position though, so it may wind up hurting me in the end if Boo Williams doesn't produce.
So if Boo does his average you'll be disappointed? He is one of those guys we always expect more from but just never seems to happen.
 
So if Boo does his average you'll be disappointed? He is one of those guys we always expect more from but just never seems to happen.
I'm not sure I understand your question/comment.In 2003, he was a stud.In 2004, he was a dud.What do you mean by "does his average"? Also, how can one "always" expect more and be disappointed by a player who has just played 2 seasons as a starter, finishing top-5 in one of them?In this league, I drafted him very late so I can't really expect too much from him. If he improves on his 2004 numbers, then I'll be happy. If he continues to look like the 2004 version, then my team will need big years from other players to make up for ignoring the TE position the way I did.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you think it's possible to take Manning with an early pick this year and still field a good team? What about in a 12 team league? Would it be better to take him with an early first or a late first (keeping in mind that the late first would be taking their RB2 no earlier than the late third round)? Where do you think Manning should go?
I think a late 1st round pick might be viable. I haven't run numbers on it yet, but if you didn't want to take the last of an "elite" RB and didn't think a WR was viable at 1.8 or 1.9, I think Manning there could be the right play.
 
So if Boo does his average you'll be disappointed? He is one of those guys we always expect more from but just never seems to happen.
I'm not sure I understand your question/comment.In 2003, he was a stud.In 2004, he was a dud.What do you mean by "does his average"? Also, how can one "always" expect more and be disappointed by a player who has just played 2 seasons as a starter, finishing top-5 in one of them?In this league, I drafted him very late so I can't really expect too much from him. If he improves on his 2004 numbers, then I'll be happy. If he continues to look like the 2004 version, then my team will need big years from other players to make up for ignoring the TE position the way I did.
I think your comment of him finishing 5th doesn't really do the analysis justice. Here are the stats from my league:2003: 38-402-5 5th place for 83 points versus league leader of 161.2004: 32-344-2 23rd place for 54 points versus keague leader of 200.Career: 107-1143-12 starting 21 games.He clearly isn't improving. In fact compared to the TE explosion of '04 he is losing ground to the leaders. While his performance stayed close to the same as the year before. So if he hits his avg of the the last 2 years his stats might be:35-373-4 which would likely be around 15-20 out of TE's in this league. Finally, I not heard that there is any information to suggest he will become a bigger focus in this offense.As to my comment of expectations, I've read numerous projections that thought he would be a top 5 TE. I just do not see him being that guy based on past performance. With that said, I do not think he is utilzed effectively. They would be a more potent offense if they utilized him more in this offense.
 
despite waiting until round 5 to grab a WR, I think my group is very strong in a pt/rec league and will be a big asset.Derrick Mason, Larry Fitzgerald, Rod Smith, Keyshawn Johnson, David Givensto build this group, I had to ignore the TE position though, so it may wind up hurting me in the end if Boo Williams doesn't produce.
I agree that you did a great job with your WR corps. After getting manning and your backs, your strategy of focusing on WRs in the middle rounds (my bread and butter) was good.I agree with Fro that you need to survive the early weeks before the rookie backs get going. Will Dunn and your next best RB do that? I don't think so, but if one of those rookies can just do something, anything, maybe you can weather the early storm.
 
I think your comment of him finishing 5th doesn't really do the analysis justice. Here are the stats from my league:2003: 38-402-5 5th place for 83 points versus league leader of 161.2004: 32-344-2 23rd place for 54 points versus keague leader of 200.Career: 107-1143-12 starting 21 games.He clearly isn't improving. In fact compared to the TE explosion of '04 he is losing ground to the leaders. While his performance stayed close to the same as the year before. So if he hits his avg of the the last 2 years his stats might be:35-373-4 which would likely be around 15-20 out of TE's in this league. Finally, I not heard that there is any information to suggest he will become a bigger focus in this offense.As to my comment of expectations, I've read numerous projections that thought he would be a top 5 TE. I just do not see him being that guy based on past performance. With that said, I do not think he is utilzed effectively. They would be a more potent offense if they utilized him more in this offense.
Boo had 41 receptions in 2003 according to PFR: LINKAlso, recall that Ernie Conwell began that year as the starter and was on a tear before getting injured. Boo didn't take over the starting job until midway through the season, and over the last 9 games or so, he was simply dominant.Based on that finish, many (myself included) expected big things from him in 2004 and he ended up being a huge disappointment.I didn't want to draft him in this league, but after waiting so long, he was the only viable option.As a converted WR, he certainly has the athletic ability to be a bigger factor in the passing game. Now that the Saints will be getting a new offensive coordinator in 2005, there is some hope that he will better utilized and become a regular contributor to my squad. Otherwise, I'm going to need to find a super sleeper TE at some point in the next 5 rounds.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think your comment of him finishing 5th doesn't really do the analysis justice. Here are the stats from my league:2003: 38-402-5 5th place for 83 points versus league leader of 161.2004: 32-344-2 23rd place for 54 points versus keague leader of 200.Career: 107-1143-12 starting 21 games.He clearly isn't improving. In fact compared to the TE explosion of '04 he is losing ground to the leaders. While his performance stayed close to the same as the year before. So if he hits his avg of the the last 2 years his stats might be:35-373-4 which would likely be around 15-20 out of TE's in this league. Finally, I not heard that there is any information to suggest he will become a bigger focus in this offense.As to my comment of expectations, I've read numerous projections that thought he would be a top 5 TE. I just do not see him being that guy based on past performance. With that said, I do not think he is utilzed effectively. They would be a more potent offense if they utilized him more in this offense.
Boo had 41 receptions in 2003 according to PFR: LINKAlso, recall that Ernie Conwell began that year as the starter and was on a tear before getting injured. Boo didn't take over the starting job until midway through the season, and over the last 9 games or so, he was simply dominant.Based on that finish, many (myself included) expected big things from him in 2004 and he ended up being a huge disappointment.I didn't want to draft him in this league, but after waiting so long, he was the only viable option.As a converted WR, he certainly has the athletic ability to be a bigger factor in the passing game. Now that the Saints will be getting a new offensive coordinator in 2005, there is some hope that he will better utilized and become a regular contributor to my squad. Otherwise, I'm going to need to find a super sleeper TE at some point in the next 5 rounds.
I was only looking at the fantasy season weeks 1-16. Sorry, I should of said that. The career stats are all regular season games.Based on your situation he was the best option. While he should maintain his numbers he could easily improve on them. Considering the value of the pick I like it. When you look at your WR's I tink you did fine. After all it's all about the team total, regardless of where the points come from and you WR's being one of the strongest in the league will carry your team for you.
 
Surprised there haven't been any comments on 2 QBs going in the top 4 picks.
Not true, I already said I thought one of them was a good pick.
his 2nd half of the season wasn't all that great, was it?
Moss was coming back from injury. Give him a whole healthy year and let Culpepper get some more time with burgeoning stud Burleson and first year Vike Robinson. Culpepper's numbers have always been reliant on Moss. This year we just got to see the proof.
I agree with bostonfred.
 
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 2003

37 TD season by Jeff Garcia in 2001

21 TD season by Marshall Faulk in 2001

18 TD season by Edgerrin James in 2000

39 TD season by Brett Favre in 1996

I 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.
:goodposting: ;)
 
O gpt ot.
Rads has posted (in code) the key to everyone's draft this year. Now if I could just find my decoder ring I got in my Crackerjack box last week.....Great stuff. :thumbup: Can you breakdown the redrafts this year too? :P

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top