I broke ESPN's FF rule #6 (1 Viewer)

[jbird]

From what I gather on this board, many are breaking this rule (don't draft a WR early). He (not sure who the expert is) said WR's are inconsistent so don't burn a high pick on one.

Many on this board seem to be straying from RB RB due to the question marks of many of the #2 RBs and taking a WR in the 2nd round (is this considered early, I would say so). I took the most consistent WR in the past 6 years with the 16th pick in a 12 team PPR redraft, Torry Holt, with no regrets (I usually do the RB RB thing).

Now that I think about it, I propably made this pick due to this rule. I think many feel the same way with the likes of Holt, Fitz/Boldin, Harrison/Wayne and Chad going in the 2nd round. These are guys that you'd like to think can provide you with a consistent floor of 5 receptions, 70 yards, and .65 TDs per game (please don't pick apart the fraction of TDs, you know what I mean).

Perhaps he's right in a standard scoring league. What are your thoughts to breaking this 'rule'?

 

[AnonymousBob]

The fantasy rules ESPN is doing are a joke.

 

[There it is]

The fantasy rules ESPN is doing are a joke.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

How anybody who works for them is called an expert I will never figure out. None of their people would be a top ten fantasy player in my best 12 team league.

 

[CalBear]

From what I gather on this board, many are breaking this rule (don't draft a WR early). He (not sure who the expert is) said WR's are inconsistent so don't burn a high pick on one.

The data mining I've done on the question has found that WRs are just as consistent as RBs at a given average scoring level. That is, if you compare WRs who score 150 points on the year with RBs who score 150 points on the year, they both have about the same level of consistency. RBs who score 200 points are more "consistent" than WRs who score 150 points simply because they score more points; the standard deviation of their point scoring is even higher than the 150-point WRs, but their low scores aren't as low.That said, it depends on what you mean by "high pick". Spending a top-8 pick on a WR seems foolish most years, but after that you really have to look at what's available and where the value really lies.

 

[jbird]

The fantasy rules ESPN is doing are a joke.

I agree that the 'experts' on the NFL stations (ESPN, NBC, etc.) are not fantasy experts but I will follow rule #1 in all my drafts - TO will not be on any of my rosters.

 

[Pittsburgh United]

The fantasy rules ESPN is doing are a joke.

I agree that the 'experts' on the NFL stations (ESPN, NBC, etc.) are not fantasy experts but I will follow rule #1 in all my drafts - TO will not be on any of my rosters.

 

[The Kansas Comet]

How anybody who works for them is called an expert I will never figure out. None of their people would be a top ten fantasy player in my best 12 team league.

Oh come on, they just had their 'experts' do a grueling 8 team draft recently. Plenty of fantasy-worthy knowledge to be gleaned from that one.

 

[Coolerheads]

Would I take a WR if I were in your shoes? It depends. Were the other 15 players picked before yours WR all RB'S? Then, yeah, I probably would, figuring the rest of the people before you pick again won't take their third RB before you get your second. BUT, if they don't, and also grab the top X number of WR before yours would have gone, then it gets dicey. See that "drafting with guppies article"-- one of the best i've read here...

As far as ESPN, don't listen to a word they say under any circumstances regarding FF. That's why you came here in the first place, right?

Holt at 16 is a reach in any case, but having said that, I hope I get him on all my teams this year-- but much later. Good luck-- and more imprtainly, who are your RB2 and RB3?

 

[NoFBinLA]

The rule they forget over there most often is 'there are no absolutes'.

Everything with them is 'you CAN NEVER do this' or 'NEVER do that'. It's ridiculous. Scott Engel is ESPECIALLY annoying in that way. Some of his advice is godawful.....

I've heard that no matter what he says online, he sucks hard in alot of his leagues....

I enjoy some of ESPN's fantasy content - gems slide through the dirt at times and the writing can be pretty good - but overall I usually read it, then do the opposite.....

 

[thecardiackid]

How anybody who works for them is called an expert I will never figure out. None of their people would be a top ten fantasy player in my best 12 team league.

Easy there. I think FBG'er Drienen just signed on to do some "expert" FF work for ESPN (magazine IIRC). You are entitled to your opinion of ESPN's product, I'd just stay away from blasting "anybody" who work for them.

 

[jbird]

Would I take a WR if I were in your shoes? It depends. Were the other 15 players picked before yours WR all RB'S? Then, yeah, I probably would, figuring the rest of the people before you pick again won't take their third RB before you get your second. BUT, if they don't, and also grab the top X number of WR before yours would have gone, then it gets dicey. See that "drafting with guppies article"-- one of the best i've read here...As far as ESPN, don't listen to a word they say under any circumstances regarding FF. That's why you came here in the first place, right? Holt at 16 is a reach in any case, but having said that, I hope I get him on all my teams this year-- but much later. Good luck-- and more imprtainly, who are your RB2 and RB3?

Draft is ongoing, don't know who RB #2 & #3 are. Of the first 15 picks, 13 were RB. Owens and Fitz went before Holt. I can get an equivalent RB#2 with my 3rd pick as I could have here. Holt is only a reach if I could have gotten him with my 3rd pick. I'm satisifed to have the #1 WR on my board (and safest WR, based on production from the past 6 years, IMO). I'm assuming that when you say that you'd like Holt on all your teams, but much later, you are referring to the 3rd round at the earliest - yeah, good luck with that.Anyway, I'm not here to debate my team, I'm just looking for opinions.

 

[wannabee]

yes, and all FF rules apply to all leagues, that is what makes them rules .....

 

[mbuehner]

Somebody tell Torry Holt how inconsistent he is.

 

[Mister CIA]

Well, I just figured out the "point to the shirt."

... And I know what elderado means ....

, but I need help.

What is ESPN?

 

[Darcimer]

The rule they forget over there most often is 'there are no absolutes'.

Yep...And how do they know everyone's lineup requirements and scoring? The single most important piece of information in any league is the league size, followed closely by starter requirements and the scoring system. A 14 or 16 man league with ppr and only 1 RB starter ( others are flex, etc...), I think a WR would be a given in the first round.

 

[barndog]

What is ESPN?

A chic name for a kid these daysI wish everyone would call these things what they are: GUIDELINES. And everyone knows, guidelines were made to be broken

 

[SSOG]

How anybody who works for them is called an expert I will never figure out. None of their people would be a top ten fantasy player in my best 12 team league.

Oh come on, they just had their 'experts' do a grueling 8 team draft recently. Plenty of fantasy-worthy knowledge to be gleaned from that one.

I hate the FBG elitist attitude that 8-teamers require no skill. 8-teamers require just as much skill as any other league, if not more. They reduce the luck factor, because injuries play a smaller role (which means, automatically, that projections play a bigger role). They also emphasize the ability to correctly identify starters (which is every bit as much of a skill as anything else in the game). They're different than 12-teamers, but they require every bit as much skill.To be honest, the best league I could think of in terms of pitting skill against skill would be a 2-teamer, best ball, start 12 QB/18 RB/24 WR. Injuries in that league would mean absolutely nothing. Getting lucky on one late pick (like LJ, SanMoss, or Galloway) would mean absolutely nothing. That league would be all about projections and correctly identifying value, nothing more.

 

[hawaiiankrush]

VBD and ADP is what it's all about in the first several rounds. Don't listen to those JOKERS on ESPN...all of them.

 

[Coolerheads]

jbird -- OK, knowing that, I like your pick. It really depends on where you get him, how many other teams there are, how many at each position, who they took, and a billion other variables. I think you did right. If you are like most leauges and start 2 RB, your next pick won't be substantially better than if you had taken RB 14, as everyone else would have gotten their second RB by your next pick, anyway.

One thing I have learned: If you REALLY like a player, and can justify it after you have done your homework, PULL THE TRIGGER. People thought my buddy was reaching for Larry Johnson at the tail end of round six last year, but he REALLY wanted him, and knew he wouldn't be there at the end of round eight. So he pulled the trigger, and drafted him "too early". Hell, my projections for a few players every year are sooo far out of whack with what the sources say, I know it's either I look stupid or a genius; but FF isn't an exact science-- for example, no matter what Brian Westbrook's ADP is, I just won't take him that high, until he stays healthy for a whole season. That, also, is going with your gut. And I think it's underrated-- you have done all your homework here, but don't let that be the end of it... some people study well (now), some people test well (the draft.)

Oh, and thanks for wishing me good luck, even if you were being sarcastic; what I meant was, I am drafting second in a 12 team leauge, and if I get him in the second round, or even better, at the start of the third, I would be very happy. And if not, more (better) running backs for me...

Oh, and maybe this is stirring the pot, but an 8 team leauge does NOT require as much skill as a 12 team leauge. Using that logic, a 2 team leauge should be the toughest of them all; so if I drafted Holmes and Manning last year, I should have beaten Alexander and ... whoever? Point is, injuries are more spread with a higher # of teams drafting, thus reducing luck. Having said that, I do like 8 man leauges-- getting a pro-bowl WR in the 10th round is a gas...

 

[jbird]

Oh, and thanks for wishing me good luck, even if you were being sarcastic; what I meant was, I am drafting second in a 12 team leauge, and if I get him in the second round, or even better, at the start of the third, I would be very happy. And if not, more (better) running backs for me...

This makes much more sense than your previous post. I'd be hoping he falls to me at that spot too. I wouldn't wait until the third if he's there, if you covet him as much as I do.

 

[SSOG]

Oh, and maybe this is stirring the pot, but an 8 team leauge does NOT require as much skill as a 12 team leauge. Using that logic, a 2 team leauge should be the toughest of them all; so if I drafted Holmes and Manning last year, I should have beaten Alexander and ... whoever? Point is, injuries are more spread with a higher # of teams drafting, thus reducing luck. Having said that, I do like 8 man leauges-- getting a pro-bowl WR in the 10th round is a gas...

Let's go with the two extreme examples. Let's start with a 32 team league, start 1 QB/RB/WR. You draft Peyton Manning. Peyton Manning gets injured. Your season is over. Your team has so few quality starters that a single injury is more than enough to entirely wreck any chance you could possibly have at a championship.Example #2- 2 team league, start 16 QB/RB/WR. You draft Peyton Manning. He goes down with injury, but you really only lose slightly more than a 16th of your QB production. As you can see, in this instance, injuries play far less of a factor than quality projections and talent evaluation.Your problem is that when you look at smaller leagues, you assume there are fewer starters. Just as many players play in a 2 team-start 16 as do in a 32 team-start 1. Another big thing that you're overlooking is WDIS decisions are another fantasy skill- an often overlooked one, at that. If you could start 2 RBs, and you had Tomlinson, LJ, and Tiki Barber... well then, correct evaluation of matchups and decision making is key to your success.Regardless, I still maintain that the league that best showcases quality of projections is a 2-team league, start 12 QB/16 RB/24 WR

 

[Coolerheads]

"Your problem"? Oh man, you don't even know the start of it...

It amazes me that when talking about variables, people always seem to go to extremes. ( Yes, myself included.) To jump from a two team leauge with 18 rounds, to a 14 team leauge where you start 3 rb's (like I am in) is pretty huge, and doesn't paint the whole picture...

The point being, in a 2 man leauge with 9 starters and 9 on the bench, you still have a huge amount of FA's to grab at any position, regardless of who you drafted; not so in bigger leauges.

So, if you want to qualify that as "It's harder with fewer people and no trade/free-agency", then, yeah, I will bite. Otherwise, no way.

And hey-- thanks for posting.

P.S.--Start 12 qb/ 16 rb/24 wr-- sounds pretty cool. Won't have to worry about byes. Let me know where I can sign up for that one.

 

[DoubleG]

P.S.--Start 12 qb/ 16 rb/24 wr-- sounds pretty cool. Won't have to worry about byes. Let me know where I can sign up for that one.

Ummm, call your brother/cousin/father/friend/coworker...it's a 2 team league.

 

[simmonjm]

Oh, and maybe this is stirring the pot, but an 8 team leauge does NOT require as much skill as a 12 team leauge. Using that logic, a 2 team leauge should be the toughest of them all; so if I drafted Holmes and Manning last year, I should have beaten Alexander and ... whoever? Point is, injuries are more spread with a higher # of teams drafting, thus reducing luck. Having said that, I do like 8 man leauges-- getting a pro-bowl WR in the 10th round is a gas...

Let's go with the two extreme examples. Let's start with a 32 team league, start 1 QB/RB/WR. You draft Peyton Manning. Peyton Manning gets injured. Your season is over. Your team has so few quality starters that a single injury is more than enough to entirely wreck any chance you could possibly have at a championship.Example #2- 2 team league, start 16 QB/RB/WR. You draft Peyton Manning. He goes down with injury, but you really only lose slightly more than a 16th of your QB production. As you can see, in this instance, injuries play far less of a factor than quality projections and talent evaluation.Your problem is that when you look at smaller leagues, you assume there are fewer starters. Just as many players play in a 2 team-start 16 as do in a 32 team-start 1. Another big thing that you're overlooking is WDIS decisions are another fantasy skill- an often overlooked one, at that. If you could start 2 RBs, and you had Tomlinson, LJ, and Tiki Barber... well then, correct evaluation of matchups and decision making is key to your success.Regardless, I still maintain that the league that best showcases quality of projections is a 2-team league, start 12 QB/16 RB/24 WR

To take it even further I think the most challenging league would be a 1 team league. Imagine the quality of players in the later rounds. You would really have to have strong projections to be able to compete in a one team league.

 

[SSOG]

Oh, and maybe this is stirring the pot, but an 8 team leauge does NOT require as much skill as a 12 team leauge. Using that logic, a 2 team leauge should be the toughest of them all; so if I drafted Holmes and Manning last year, I should have beaten Alexander and ... whoever? Point is, injuries are more spread with a higher # of teams drafting, thus reducing luck. Having said that, I do like 8 man leauges-- getting a pro-bowl WR in the 10th round is a gas...

Let's go with the two extreme examples. Let's start with a 32 team league, start 1 QB/RB/WR. You draft Peyton Manning. Peyton Manning gets injured. Your season is over. Your team has so few quality starters that a single injury is more than enough to entirely wreck any chance you could possibly have at a championship.Example #2- 2 team league, start 16 QB/RB/WR. You draft Peyton Manning. He goes down with injury, but you really only lose slightly more than a 16th of your QB production. As you can see, in this instance, injuries play far less of a factor than quality projections and talent evaluation.Your problem is that when you look at smaller leagues, you assume there are fewer starters. Just as many players play in a 2 team-start 16 as do in a 32 team-start 1. Another big thing that you're overlooking is WDIS decisions are another fantasy skill- an often overlooked one, at that. If you could start 2 RBs, and you had Tomlinson, LJ, and Tiki Barber... well then, correct evaluation of matchups and decision making is key to your success.Regardless, I still maintain that the league that best showcases quality of projections is a 2-team league, start 12 QB/16 RB/24 WR

To take it even further I think the most challenging league would be a 1 team league. Imagine the quality of players in the later rounds. You would really have to have strong projections to be able to compete in a one team league.

Cute.I'm not saying that a two-team league will be the league that you have the lowest percentage chance of winning. I'm saying that, in terms of long-run results, the results of a two-team league will more accurately represent your fantasy skill. If you play someone in 100 two-team leagues, and you win 70 of them (exactly 40% more than expected), then you can very clearly and definitively say that you are a significantly better fantasy player than that person. If you play in 100 14-team leagues, and you win 10 of them (exactly 40% more than expected), then any claims you make would be much weaker. There's a lot less statistical evidence suggesting you won more due to superior skill and not due to superior luck, especially since the top-heavy nature of the teams in larger leagues means luck in the form of injuries plays a much bigger role (i.e. losing LJ is a much bigger blow in a 14-teamer than a 2-teamer).

 

[Tick]

We should all root for ESPN to stay stupid regarding FF - if they took hired anyone from the FBG staff or most of the posters here, all the guppies in your work league would improve dramatically.

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

I actually agree with the "Do Not Draft Tony Gonzalez" rule....

Does anybody have 'all the ESPN Fantasy Football Rules'????

 

[TinHat]

One observation on this hobby:

Anybody who calls themselves or other people "experts" doesn't really understand the game.

 

[twistd]

From what I gather on this board, many are breaking this rule (don't draft a WR early). He (not sure who the expert is) said WR's are inconsistent so don't burn a high pick on one. Many on this board seem to be straying from RB RB due to the question marks of many of the #2 RBs and taking a WR in the 2nd round (is this considered early, I would say so). I took the most consistent WR in the past 6 years with the 16th pick in a 12 team PPR redraft, Torry Holt, with no regrets (I usually do the RB RB thing). Now that I think about it, I propably made this pick due to this rule. I think many feel the same way with the likes of Holt, Fitz/Boldin, Harrison/Wayne and Chad going in the 2nd round. These are guys that you'd like to think can provide you with a consistent floor of 5 receptions, 70 yards, and .65 TDs per game (please don't pick apart the fraction of TDs, you know what I mean). Perhaps he's right in a standard scoring league. What are your thoughts to breaking this 'rule'?

I lean towards drafting RB/RB most of the time. However this year, after about the 12th ranked runner there is a serious dropoff. The next 6 or 8 backs are very close. If you don't see much difference you are better off taking the best wide in that situation and then take your pick of the backs that drop. There is a lot of room for creativity this year.

 

[mojorizin]

Ended up somehow with both Fitz and Boldin in my lap at 2.6 and 3.7. Not what I wanted to do, but couldnt pass it up. Didnt bother to take another damned wideout until the 10th Round.

 

[massraider]

Oh, and maybe this is stirring the pot, but an 8 team leauge does NOT require as much skill as a 12 team leauge. Using that logic, a 2 team leauge should be the toughest of them all; so if I drafted Holmes and Manning last year, I should have beaten Alexander and ... whoever? Point is, injuries are more spread with a higher # of teams drafting, thus reducing luck. Having said that, I do like 8 man leauges-- getting a pro-bowl WR in the 10th round is a gas...

Let's go with the two extreme examples. Let's start with a 32 team league, start 1 QB/RB/WR. You draft Peyton Manning. Peyton Manning gets injured. Your season is over. Your team has so few quality starters that a single injury is more than enough to entirely wreck any chance you could possibly have at a championship.Example #2- 2 team league, start 16 QB/RB/WR. You draft Peyton Manning. He goes down with injury, but you really only lose slightly more than a 16th of your QB production. As you can see, in this instance, injuries play far less of a factor than quality projections and talent evaluation.Your problem is that when you look at smaller leagues, you assume there are fewer starters. Just as many players play in a 2 team-start 16 as do in a 32 team-start 1. Another big thing that you're overlooking is WDIS decisions are another fantasy skill- an often overlooked one, at that. If you could start 2 RBs, and you had Tomlinson, LJ, and Tiki Barber... well then, correct evaluation of matchups and decision making is key to your success.Regardless, I still maintain that the league that best showcases quality of projections is a 2-team league, start 12 QB/16 RB/24 WR

To take it even further I think the most challenging league would be a 1 team league. Imagine the quality of players in the later rounds. You would really have to have strong projections to be able to compete in a one team league.

Cute.I'm not saying that a two-team league will be the league that you have the lowest percentage chance of winning. I'm saying that, in terms of long-run results, the results of a two-team league will more accurately represent your fantasy skill. If you play someone in 100 two-team leagues, and you win 70 of them (exactly 40% more than expected), then you can very clearly and definitively say that you are a significantly better fantasy player than that person. If you play in 100 14-team leagues, and you win 10 of them (exactly 40% more than expected), then any claims you make would be much weaker. There's a lot less statistical evidence suggesting you won more due to superior skill and not due to superior luck, especially since the top-heavy nature of the teams in larger leagues means luck in the form of injuries plays a much bigger role (i.e. losing LJ is a much bigger blow in a 14-teamer than a 2-teamer).

If it makes you feel any better, I understand your point.

 

[SSOG]

Oh, and maybe this is stirring the pot, but an 8 team leauge does NOT require as much skill as a 12 team leauge. Using that logic, a 2 team leauge should be the toughest of them all; so if I drafted Holmes and Manning last year, I should have beaten Alexander and ... whoever? Point is, injuries are more spread with a higher # of teams drafting, thus reducing luck. Having said that, I do like 8 man leauges-- getting a pro-bowl WR in the 10th round is a gas...

Let's go with the two extreme examples. Let's start with a 32 team league, start 1 QB/RB/WR. You draft Peyton Manning. Peyton Manning gets injured. Your season is over. Your team has so few quality starters that a single injury is more than enough to entirely wreck any chance you could possibly have at a championship.Example #2- 2 team league, start 16 QB/RB/WR. You draft Peyton Manning. He goes down with injury, but you really only lose slightly more than a 16th of your QB production. As you can see, in this instance, injuries play far less of a factor than quality projections and talent evaluation.Your problem is that when you look at smaller leagues, you assume there are fewer starters. Just as many players play in a 2 team-start 16 as do in a 32 team-start 1. Another big thing that you're overlooking is WDIS decisions are another fantasy skill- an often overlooked one, at that. If you could start 2 RBs, and you had Tomlinson, LJ, and Tiki Barber... well then, correct evaluation of matchups and decision making is key to your success.Regardless, I still maintain that the league that best showcases quality of projections is a 2-team league, start 12 QB/16 RB/24 WR

To take it even further I think the most challenging league would be a 1 team league. Imagine the quality of players in the later rounds. You would really have to have strong projections to be able to compete in a one team league.

Cute.I'm not saying that a two-team league will be the league that you have the lowest percentage chance of winning. I'm saying that, in terms of long-run results, the results of a two-team league will more accurately represent your fantasy skill. If you play someone in 100 two-team leagues, and you win 70 of them (exactly 40% more than expected), then you can very clearly and definitively say that you are a significantly better fantasy player than that person. If you play in 100 14-team leagues, and you win 10 of them (exactly 40% more than expected), then any claims you make would be much weaker. There's a lot less statistical evidence suggesting you won more due to superior skill and not due to superior luck, especially since the top-heavy nature of the teams in larger leagues means luck in the form of injuries plays a much bigger role (i.e. losing LJ is a much bigger blow in a 14-teamer than a 2-teamer).

If it makes you feel any better, I understand your point.

Actually, that does make me feel better.

 

[turkishkamel]

IIRC this ESPN "expert" used yardage as his basis for this rule (something about 100 yard games over the last 5 years). doubt he has any idea what PPR stands for

 

[Coolerheads]

I know this isn't the right place to post it, but as a contiuation of this thread, I would like to invite SSOG and any other member to compete in my yahoo leauge.

4 teams, start 3:qb,te,k,d; start 6 rb; start 7 wr. Standard yahoo scoring; no trades, total points. no bench.

leauge# 631606

pw: yahooblows

live draft at 530 pm est thursday aug 31.

We'll see...

 

[chris1969]

Screw what anybody tells you about 8 team leagues being easy or 14 team leagues being hard, they are 2 different animals.

I've played in all types of leagues and it all comes down to the other players in it. If they are sharks your league is tough no matter what the size or scoring method.

If your in a 14 team league you gotta spend alot more time before the draft preparing. You have to hope that your main guys don't get hurt. You have to play more handcuffs and even steal the other guys handcuffs if needed. Once you've drafted you won't find alot on the waiver wire and even if you do, the other guys have probably seen the same thing and you'll only get the guy if you have the highest waiver position. You have to play with what you got like Romeo Crennell trying to make a 3-4 defense out of what the Browns had last year.

If your in a 8 team league, you don't need a ton of draft prep. Your cheat sheet may have 16 QB's, 24 RB's, 32 WR's, 8 TE's, 8 Defs and 8 Kickers on it. You'll probably waive at least 1/3 of the players you drafted by the end of the season. You'll be getting guys off the waiver wire almost every week to play match-ups. You may have a handcuff for your best player, but probably that's it. You are gonna have to keep up with your team like a rotisserie baseball team to be competitive.

Either way tough would be a matter of what your better at preparation or being opportunistic.

 

[corpcow]

The rule they forget over there most often is 'there are no absolutes'.Everything with them is 'you CAN NEVER do this' or 'NEVER do that'. It's ridiculous. Scott Engel is ESPECIALLY annoying in that way. Some of his advice is godawful.....I've heard that no matter what he says online, he sucks hard in alot of his leagues....I enjoy some of ESPN's fantasy content - gems slide through the dirt at times and the writing can be pretty good - but overall I usually read it, then do the opposite.....

The only rule I follow is to be flexible and go against trends as much as possible. That's how you get value, and that's how you win leagues. Prescriptive rules are worthless. But then having these rules codified is a good thing, because it makes the trends more likely. So maybe they are experts after all....

 

[corpcow]

Screw what anybody tells you about 8 team leagues being easy or 14 team leagues being hard, they are 2 different animals.Either way tough would be a matter of what your better at preparation or being opportunistic.

I'm in a league that's been running for a number of years with friends from college, but we lost a couple of guys this year. We decided to go with 8, but bump it up to 2QB,4WR, 3RB, 2TE, 2K and 2 DEF. (We wanted to add O-line and punter since some of us played that in college, but... haha!)Last year, my primary league was 14 teams starting QB, 2WR, 2RB, WR/RB, TE, K, DEF. In that case, you're talking about 28-42 RBs and WRs, though it was generally closer to 28 than 42 for RBs. Now, in the 8 team league, but we're starting 24 RBs, 32 WRs - both in the same range as a 12-14 team league. Plus 16 QBs, 16 TEs, 16 Ks, and 16 DEF. Furthermore, there's less "luck" involved in getting a high pick, where a stud like LT/LJ/SA is amplified because everything is diluted. It's only 8 teams, so people's top 4-5 rounds are going to be pretty beefy but relatively even. In my mind, this league is going to be won - even moreso than a "bigger" league - in the mid and late rounds.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

In my 16 teamer last night, I just went

1.14 Chad Johnson

2.04 Randy Moss

3.14 Donald Driver

I still ended up with Gore, Rhodes, Mike Bell and I only have to start 1 RB. Deeper in the draft, I picked up B. Jacobs, Michael Turner, Bennett and Mo Jones Drew.

 

[barndog]

Ended up somehow with both Fitz and Boldin in my lap at 2.6 and 3.7. Not what I wanted to do, but couldnt pass it up. Didnt bother to take another damned wideout until the 10th Round.

Please report back late in the season on how this worked out, since it "violates" all kinds of 'rules', including the "Don't take two of the same skill position players from the same team (excluding handcuffs)!"

 

[Gandalf]

I broke ESPN's FF rule #1: don't draft Terrell Owens. When he fell to me late in the third round of my re-draft league, I couldn't believe it. Many, many WRs were taken before him. Thanks ESPN!

 

[-OZ-]

Seems everyone is ignoring rule #19: ignore the preseason

 

[mojorizin]

Ended up somehow with both Fitz and Boldin in my lap at 2.6 and 3.7. Not what I wanted to do, but couldnt pass it up. Didnt bother to take another damned wideout until the 10th Round.

Please report back late in the season on how this worked out, since it "violates" all kinds of 'rules', including the "Don't take two of the same skill position players from the same team (excluding handcuffs)!"

Plus longstanding rule "Dont draft Arizona Cardinals" Its tough to believe they'll perform the way the did last season as a tandem. That said, they were irresistible considering the players available at the time. Boldin, naturally, was the second drafted. Guys taken right after included DJax, S Moss, A Johnson, J Walker. Each one has a much bigger ? than Boldin. I wish I had a nickel for everytime I played matchups with WRs and ended up with 4 catches for 60 yards. For the most part, Fitz and Boldin have an opportunity to eclipse that every week. There wasnt another WR on the board who's potential numbers were as attractive as AQ. RBs at that point were pretty unattractive with Dillon, KJ, Droughns. Ended up with Dunn coming back around and I like him every bit as much.