If We Had to Draft Today - Bears D (1 Viewer)

[Islander]

I posted some of these thoughts in another thread, but I am creating a new one since the other thread was not specific to the Bears D.

My question is - if we were to draft today, what do you think the Bears defense ADP would be?

For drafts held in May-August, it is conventional wisdom to wait for the latter part of the draft before taking a defense because they are not as predictable as QBs, RBs, WRs. Almost nobody drafts a defense in the first 4 rounds. The Bears defense was the #1 defense taken based on preseason ADP and they were going at 7.3 on average.

However after 6 weeks, we can say defenses are a lot more predictable going forward than they were pre-season. Same for other positions you might say, but this is why whoever is ranked #1 at each position is more valuable now than in the preseason because some of the uncertainty has been removed (LT is now clearly ahead of LJ, S Alex; CJ is clearly not as valuable as Holt and S Smith, etc.).

I believe if we were to draft today, the Bears D would be picked a lot earlier than where the #1 defense was taken in our preseason drafts.

So far the Bears D dominates other defenses so much that their VBD in the first six weeks has been sky high. If we drafted today, what matters is their expected value for weeks #7-17. I believe it's also fairly high.

I think if it was me, I would consider them in the 3rd round with the RB17-RB19 or WR10-WR11. They are that valuable. And I am sure some people here would even go higher than 3rd round based on VBD principles.

If you would not pick them any earlier than their preaseason ADP (7.3), what is your reasoning?

By the way, the Bears D trade value as shown in the top 250 forward is way too low in my opinion based on the above.

 

[beavers]

Honestly, I would have drafted them in the first round. This year, the commish changed the league to a defense heavy league. The Bears have scored 100 more points than the 4th ranked DST. And the owner who has them has only one loss. It sucks to have defenses worth so much. The top 3 owners in total points have the top 3 defenses and an average fantasy team.

 

[Lord Lucan]

My main league is also heavily defense-oriented - but the Bears aren't actually the top-performing D right now. They are a point behind the Ravens, whom I own, but I must admit I'd trade straight up in a heartbeat.

Chicago went in the 6th and Baltimore in the ninth in this league. I doubt I'd take the Bears higher than the third if we were re-drafting now, though, because we also know much more about the skill position studs as well.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Currently, the Bears D is scoring ahead of everyone in my league except Donovan McNabb and Torry Holt.

McNabb would be #1 overall, based upon the difference between him and the next QB...

The argument could be made that the Chicago D should be number 2...the difference between them and the next D in our league is gargantuan.

 

[John Mamula]

 

[rolliehouliranson]

Completely depends on your scoring system. In my league scoring, they only are averaging 10 points per game.

17-9-3-7-8-21.

Next highest defense (Ravens) has 51.

Given that, I say draft them in the same place, 5th-7th round.

 

[Chase Stuart]

However after 6 weeks, we can say defenses are a lot more predictable going forward than they were pre-season. Same for other positions you might say, but this is why whoever is ranked #1 at each position is more valuable now than in the preseason because some of the uncertainty has been removed (LT is now clearly ahead of LJ, S Alex; CJ is clearly not as valuable as Holt and S Smith, etc.).

I have no idea if this is true, but I have my doubts. If I had to guess, I'd say our predictions for fantasy rankings for weeks 7-17 are only going to be slightly better than our predictions for full 2006 rankings were in early September.I could be wrong here, but I've seen no proof supporting what you claim (not that I'd expect you to have any), but that's what my intuition tells me.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

My presumptions were if everyone in the league knew in advance the scoring breakdown of each player and position and were drafting with that information in mind.It doesn't take into account biases against defensive drafting, which would probably allow you to get this value at a later spot...it just takes into account its now known value vs. the whole and its relative value in a vbd system.In my league that I referred to the Chicago D has more than doubled the score of the next highest scoring D (ravens)The only other player showing any similar distancing from the pack is McNabb.

 

[John Mamula]

My presumptions were if everyone in the league knew in advance the scoring breakdown of each player and position and were drafting with that information in mind.It doesn't take into account biases against defensive drafting, which would probably allow you to get this value at a later spot...it just takes into account its now known value vs. the whole and its relative value in a vbd system.In my league that I referred to the Chicago D has more than doubled the score of the next highest scoring D (ravens)The only other player showing any similar distancing from the pack is McNabb.

if your league does not have "traditional" scoring rules, then it could be argued that they are worth a first round pick...but that doesn't apply to the vast majority of leagues. knowing what i know now i would maybe take them in the 9th...maybe.bottom line, i think CHI will revert to the mean as they will not be scoring multiple TDs every week and the fact that they are going into their bye week other teams who have already had a bye will catch up.also, i think platooning a couple different defenses will work out to get you close to CHI's production, and the difference that CHI may outscore you by there, you can easily make up with the 7th round pick (or 3rd or 1st as some people are talking about here) you picked by not making CHI.this is a classic example of people looking at VBD as some wonderful analytical tool to get you to a perfect draft, when in essence it is often fool's gold.

 

[MelvinTScupper]

My presumptions were if everyone in the league knew in advance the scoring breakdown of each player and position and were drafting with that information in mind.It doesn't take into account biases against defensive drafting, which would probably allow you to get this value at a later spot...it just takes into account its now known value vs. the whole and its relative value in a vbd system.In my league that I referred to the Chicago D has more than doubled the score of the next highest scoring D (ravens)The only other player showing any similar distancing from the pack is McNabb.

if your league does not have "traditional" scoring rules, then it could be argued that they are worth a first round pick...but that doesn't apply to the vast majority of leagues. knowing what i know now i would maybe take them in the 9th...maybe.bottom line, i think CHI will revert to the mean as they will not be scoring multiple TDs every week and the fact that they are going into their bye week other teams who have already had a bye will catch up.also, i think platooning a couple different defenses will work out to get you close to CHI's production, and the difference that CHI may outscore you by there, you can easily make up with the 7th round pick (or 3rd or 1st as some people are talking about here) you picked by not making CHI.this is a classic example of people looking at VBD as some wonderful analytical tool to get you to a perfect draft, when in essence it is often fool's gold.

I agree with joffer's sig.

 

[John Mamula]

My presumptions were if everyone in the league knew in advance the scoring breakdown of each player and position and were drafting with that information in mind.It doesn't take into account biases against defensive drafting, which would probably allow you to get this value at a later spot...it just takes into account its now known value vs. the whole and its relative value in a vbd system.In my league that I referred to the Chicago D has more than doubled the score of the next highest scoring D (ravens)The only other player showing any similar distancing from the pack is McNabb.

if your league does not have "traditional" scoring rules, then it could be argued that they are worth a first round pick...but that doesn't apply to the vast majority of leagues. knowing what i know now i would maybe take them in the 9th...maybe.bottom line, i think CHI will revert to the mean as they will not be scoring multiple TDs every week and the fact that they are going into their bye week other teams who have already had a bye will catch up.also, i think platooning a couple different defenses will work out to get you close to CHI's production, and the difference that CHI may outscore you by there, you can easily make up with the 7th round pick (or 3rd or 1st as some people are talking about here) you picked by not making CHI.this is a classic example of people looking at VBD as some wonderful analytical tool to get you to a perfect draft, when in essence it is often fool's gold.

I agree with joffer's sig.

sigs turned off...

 

[ImTheScientist]

I would pass on them and pick up a WW D or go Defense by commitee. Picking a D in round 5-7 is insane and not the best move that could be made.

 

[428143]

I would pass on them and pick up a WW D or go Defense by commitee. Picking a D in round 5-7 is insane and not the best move that could be made.

I disagree, we have a fairly traditional scoring format for team defense, and the Bears are a top 10 scorer/ppg in our league. The owner that picked them, in the 6th round, is 6-0, mainly due to the consistant dominance of the Bears D. Well worth a fifth rounder, IMO...I know this doesn't fit in with the "traditional" FF thinking, but sometimes logic is thrown out the window, and this appears to a case where this applies.

 

[Blue-Kun]

I would pass on them and pick up a WW D or go Defense by commitee. Picking a D in round 5-7 is insane and not the best move that could be made.

Sure would've beat Rod Smith or Derrick Mason...

 

[Islander]

To answer a few of the points raised so far...

I have no idea if this is true, but I have my doubts. If I had to guess, I'd say our predictions for fantasy rankings for weeks 7-17 are only going to be slightly better than our predictions for full 2006 rankings were in early September.

I could be wrong here, but I've seen no proof supporting what you claim (not that I'd expect you to have any), but that's what my intuition tells me.

Unfortunately I do not have hard data to back that up. If I find time I will try to do a quantitative analysis. But here are some of my thoughts about the issue. Making projections is difficult due to uncertainties. I am confident there are fewer uncertainties now than in the preseason, which allows us to make better rankings. We could group uncertainties that would cause a player to be better/worse than expected into two groups:1. In-season injuries to the player themself or players around him

2. Other factors (which may include previous injuries).

Regarding #1, of course players have the same chance of being injured in any given game now than when making projections in the preseason. But for #2, we can get better prediction due to less uncertainty.

For example:

A. Is player X recovered from a previous injury - will he perform well? Bulger: yes. C Palmer: probably yes. Brees: probably yes. Roethlisberger: maybe not. Culpepper: no. This impacts other players like Chambers, Holt.

B. Is a new offensive system going to impact player X? Bulger/Holt: no, they are still doing well. L Jordan's number of receptions: yes, it's now much lower.

In the preseason, the range of opinions about L Jordan's receptions for 2006 was probably ranging from 1 per game to 4.5 per game. Today, the range of opinions for his receptions per game for week 7-17 is probably more like 1 to 3. There is less uncertainty now because we have seen 6 weeks of football.

I am confident that our rankings would be more solid today than in the preseason because of the simple fact that we have more information. You seem to agree that our rankings would be better, I guess the question is how much better. Tough to say.

By looking at last year, here are some examples of what I mean:

1. Last year, the Ravens and Pats were the top two defenses based on ADP. They struggled early, and they did not revert to their "mean" in the 2nd half. They were not top 5 in the second half.

2. Last year, LT, S Alex, and E James were doing well early (as expected) and continued to do so.

3. K Jones, J Lewis, were disappointing and continued to do so.

I am not saying nothing ever changes, but quickly glancing at the 2005 ADP, rankings at mid-season, and 2nd half results, I say it's the case. The first 6 weeks give us some valuable info about the 2nd half of the season.

bottom line, i think CHI will revert to the mean as they will not be scoring multiple TDs every week and the fact that they are going into their bye week other teams who have already had a bye will catch up.

Of course TDs by defenses are unpredictable. I am not talking about that. Remove their 3 TDs last week and they are still a top defense in standard scoring systems.

I would pass on them and pick up a WW D or go Defense by commitee. Picking a D in round 5-7 is insane and not the best move that could be made.

Maybe in the preseason round 5-7 is too high. But I am asking about their ADP if we drafted today, not in the preseason. Even if you wouldn't pick them early now, what's your opinion about their ADP? It was 7.3 in the preseason. Whether you agree with it or not, you can still guess if the Bears would go 1, 2, 3 rounds earlier if we drafted now. I believe the closer we get to the end of the season, the more valuable starters become, and the less valuable backups become.

This is the case for two reasons:

1. Projections are more solid and there is less uncertainty about them, as I mentioned above. The result is this: in the preason, if I draft the 5th ranked QB McNabb as my QB1, there are still many uncertainties about him (impact of TO's departure, McNabb's injury in 2005, etc.) so I feel I need a decent backup because I might need the backup a few times during the season. Backups are important. However, if I drafted the 5th ranked QB today (Bulger, Hasselbeck?), that guy would have a lot less uncertainty about him than McNabb in the preseason. Therefore, I would feel comfortable with a very low ranked backup QB because I would feel I won't need him much except for an injury. I would think there is a much lower probability that the non-injury factors would result in my QB sucking or disappointing since I have seen him perform for 5-6 games already. This lowers the value of backup QBs (and other positions).

2. We have 6 fewer weeks left in the season, so there is less of a window of opportunity for my starter to get injured or to be negatively affected by whatever reason. Think of it this way: if we are in the last week of the season, what's the value of RB25 assuming 12 team-league and two starting RBs? The value of RB25 is zero. There is no need for backups if you draft for a one-week fantasy football season. So the top ranked defense (Bears) is a lot more valuable than RB25, and probably a lot more valuable than RB15 as a matter of fact. Of course this is an extreme example, but I think it supports my assumption that after 6 weeks, the top ranked players at each position are worth more than the top ranked players at each position in the preseason.

Why should we care about what the ADP would be if we drafted today? Because it's a good driver of trade value today.

 

[Tiger Fan]

This is why I stick in the FFA

 

[bostonfred]

1.1 Grossman

1.2 Bears D

 

[roboticelephant]

I'd take them in rd 12 which is extremely high for me to take d.

 

[pyite76]

1.1 Grossman1.2 Bears D

3. Ditka4. Polish Sausage5. Coach

 

[bostonfred]

1.1 Grossman1.2 Bears D

3. Ditka4. Polish Sausage5. Coach

Ditka vs. da Bears

 

[MSULions]

They have 94 points in my main league...Ravens have 89. The one thing that would make them worth a higher pick (5-7) would be a huge disparity between them and the rest....which simply doesn't exist. 12 teams are over 50 points - most of whom have had their bye so count one less game. that's simply not a big enough disparity to make it worthwhile imho. Jax has 55 points, and a game in hand. yes, it's plenty less, but I took them in the 12th round....Delhomme, Horn, and Deuce were my picks in 6,7,8. that's a no brainer. Getting the currently 8th ranked RB and a top 20 wr in those rounds is worth a lot more than the top D.

 

[radballs]

No kidding. They probably should go number one overall.

However after 6 weeks, we can say defenses are a lot more predictable going forward than they were pre-season. Same for other positions you might say, but this is why whoever is ranked #1 at each position is more valuable now than in the preseason because some of the uncertainty has been removed (LT is now clearly ahead of LJ, S Alex; CJ is clearly not as valuable as Holt and S Smith, etc.).

I have no idea if this is true, but I have my doubts. If I had to guess, I'd say our predictions for fantasy rankings for weeks 7-17 are only going to be slightly better than our predictions for full 2006 rankings were in early September.I could be wrong here, but I've seen no proof supporting what you claim (not that I'd expect you to have any), but that's what my intuition tells me.

I agree with CS here in that their scoring will probably not be predictably higher than other defenses that will emerge during the rest of the season. In most leagues scoring system, even if you could retroactively add Chi's points back to week one and decide when to draft them, their value probably still wouldn't be anywhere above the 7th round (obviously again depending on scoring system and lineup - definitely not in WCOFF).

 

[radballs]

They have 94 points in my main league...Ravens have 89. The one thing that would make them worth a higher pick (5-7) would be a huge disparity between them and the rest....which simply doesn't exist. 12 teams are over 50 points - most of whom have had their bye so count one less game. that's simply not a big enough disparity to make it worthwhile imho. Jax has 55 points, and a game in hand. yes, it's plenty less, but I took them in the 12th round....Delhomme, Horn, and Deuce were my picks in 6,7,8. that's a no brainer. Getting the currently 8th ranked RB and a top 20 wr in those rounds is worth a lot more than the top D.