In what round of a fantasy draft should you start targeting (1 Viewer)

[KCC]

A few points to consider before answering:

1) I know the key to successful any draft is flexibility. I'm looking for more of a general guideline type response rather than a hard fast rule that you would never ever deviate from in any draft.

2) Please provide the logic behind your answer. I'm far more interested in how you came up with the draft round rather than the actual answer itself.

3) Assume 12-team league with 16 rounds, standard scoring - no PPR (if the scoring criteria matters)

 

[SSOG]

Depends on the player. Two years ago, Larry Johnson was the ultimate "boom or bust" player, and he was going in the 5th, sometimes even the 4th. This year, I don't see any boom-or-buster with that kind of upside, so there's no one I'd consider in the 5th (except for possibly Michael Turner in dynasty).

More generally, my least favorite rounds in the entire draft tend to be rounds 7ish to 11ish. Basically, you're still trying to fill out substantial holes on your team (drafting players you think are either going to start, or at least be primary backups), but everyone left by that point is a bundle of question marks. I really like the draft starting at round 12 or so again, because your roster is already filled with the guys you're counting on depending on (usually 2 QBs, 3-4 RBs, 4-5 WRs, a TE or two, and maybe even a defense), so you can spend picks on guys based on nothing more than their upside. That's generally what I consider the "boom or bust" period, where I deliberately seek out the risk/reward players, simply because I'm operating under the assumption that my lineup is solid and I'm only interested in looking for a player with a chance (however miniscule) to break into it.

I hate 16 round drafts, by the way. No depth, and barely any time at all spent in the "boom or bust" phase. I tend to be a fan of deeper leagues with larger rosters where I can stash some players if I feel like it without feeling a pinch. I also feel like reducing the amount of quality prospects that are available on waivers rewards more talented fantasy football players for doing their research.

 

[radballs]

WCOFF = 20 rounds

I agree with a lot your points.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Never. I like to win championships and you can't do that with a bunch of boom/busts picks. I would like to see some examples of these boom/busts picks you speak of though. None of the top10 WR last year would be considered boom or bust. RB???None leap off the page at me either.

I go for topline talent for as many rounds as the draft provides...it always makes me happy when guys start reaching for rookie WR not named Calvin Johnson in the 5th-8th rounds...insane when you still have solid players on the board.

I am having a hard time coming up with a boom/bust player I drafted in recent memory.

 

[benbadman]

Never. I like to win championships and you can't do that with a bunch of boom/busts picks. I would like to see some examples of these boom/busts picks you speak of though. None of the top10 WR last year would be considered boom or bust. RB???None leap off the page at me either.I go for topline talent for as many rounds as the draft provides...it always makes me happy when guys start reaching for rookie WR not named Calvin Johnson in the 5th-8th rounds...insane when you still have solid players on the board. I am having a hard time coming up with a boom/bust player I drafted in recent memory.

i took Drew Bennett in round 11 before i took Reggie Brown in round 12 last year. i liked brown more than i liked Bennett, but i was pretty sure Bennet wouldnt survive until my next pick, and Brown was more ofa sleeper, a 2nd year WRactually right after the draft I traded Bennett for Keyshawn (bennett fell pretty far in our draft compared to opninion of him).. then like 3 weeks later i traded Keyshawn & Dhominic Rhodes (i was gonna cut him for a bye week k/d soon anyways) for Joey galloway.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

Depend how big the potential boom and how likely the potential bust.

 

[rikishiboy]

In my opinion its proably best to play it fairly safe when acquiring your starters. Though I did take A. Peterson in rd 2 of a dynasty, but that was because I felt my rb 1 was solid and feel Peterson upside is worth the gamble. However when I start acquiring my bench players I generally go young with multiple picks because you never can really tell who you will be right on..so get more than 1..don&t fixate on 1 guy you really like. It is also important though when utilizing this strategy that you do add vets in occasionally as protection for your younins.

 

[LHUCKS]

Depends on the league format, in WCOFF you take all upside guys IMHO.

In your home league where you can outdtraft the majority of your competition I take risks as well because I know I can get away with it.

In expert leagues I go safe early and take risk/reward guys in the middle to late rounds.

In survivior I stay away from risk reward guys.

In summary, it depends on the league.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

A few points to consider before answering:

1) I know the key to successful any draft is flexibility. I'm looking for more of a general guideline type response rather than a hard fast rule that you would never ever deviate from in any draft.

2) Please provide the logic behind your answer. I'm far more interested in how you came up with the draft round rather than the actual answer itself.

3) Assume 12-team league with 16 rounds, standard scoring - no PPR (if the scoring criteria matters)

16 rounds, I'll assume you start 1/2/3/1/1/1 (9 starters).After you take your starters and their first backups, I'm looking for home run potential. I can get a "solid" guy off the waiver wire with 192 players / K / D teams taken, so I only want guys that can (A) outplay the guys on the wire and (B) someone who can outperform a starter with his upside.

Assuming I take 2 QB, 3 RB, 4 WR, and 1 TE (that's 10) I'm circling the 3-4 guys with upside to draft next and taking them down as soon as I can. K and D are likely to slide unless value presents (especially at D - K's are easy to replace).

You may want to read this from last year:

Prime Number Drafting

 

[H.K.]

Every round I try to draft the boom guys, and not draft the bust guys.

Not a sarcastic response either.

 

[duaneok66]

Depends on the player. Two years ago, Larry Johnson was the ultimate "boom or bust" player, and he was going in the 5th, sometimes even the 4th. This year, I don't see any boom-or-buster with that kind of upside, so there's no one I'd consider in the 5th (except for possibly Michael Turner in dynasty).

More generally, my least favorite rounds in the entire draft tend to be rounds 7ish to 11ish. Basically, you're still trying to fill out substantial holes on your team (drafting players you think are either going to start, or at least be primary backups), but everyone left by that point is a bundle of question marks. I really like the draft starting at round 12 or so again, because your roster is already filled with the guys you're counting on depending on (usually 2 QBs, 3-4 RBs, 4-5 WRs, a TE or two, and maybe even a defense), so you can spend picks on guys based on nothing more than their upside. That's generally what I consider the "boom or bust" period, where I deliberately seek out the risk/reward players, simply because I'm operating under the assumption that my lineup is solid and I'm only interested in looking for a player with a chance (however miniscule) to break into it.

I hate 16 round drafts, by the way. No depth, and barely any time at all spent in the "boom or bust" phase. I tend to be a fan of deeper leagues with larger rosters where I can stash some players if I feel like it without feeling a pinch. I also feel like reducing the amount of quality prospects that are available on waivers rewards more talented fantasy football players for doing their research.

I concur . . .

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Depends on the player. Two years ago, Larry Johnson was the ultimate "boom or bust" player, and he was going in the 5th, sometimes even the 4th. This year, I don't see any boom-or-buster with that kind of upside, so there's no one I'd consider in the 5th (except for possibly Michael Turner in dynasty).

More generally, my least favorite rounds in the entire draft tend to be rounds 7ish to 11ish. Basically, you're still trying to fill out substantial holes on your team (drafting players you think are either going to start, or at least be primary backups), but everyone left by that point is a bundle of question marks. I really like the draft starting at round 12 or so again, because your roster is already filled with the guys you're counting on depending on (usually 2 QBs, 3-4 RBs, 4-5 WRs, a TE or two, and maybe even a defense), so you can spend picks on guys based on nothing more than their upside. That's generally what I consider the "boom or bust" period, where I deliberately seek out the risk/reward players, simply because I'm operating under the assumption that my lineup is solid and I'm only interested in looking for a player with a chance (however miniscule) to break into it.

I hate 16 round drafts, by the way. No depth, and barely any time at all spent in the "boom or bust" phase. I tend to be a fan of deeper leagues with larger rosters where I can stash some players if I feel like it without feeling a pinch. I also feel like reducing the amount of quality prospects that are available on waivers rewards more talented fantasy football players for doing their research.

I concur . . .

Absolutely.I still laugh when I am in a draft (some local, some national) and every time as it nears the end, there are people scrambling in the final rounds (this also usually triggers a kicker run).

It doesn't matter if it is 14, 16, 18 or 20 rounds - someone is always unprepared to draft after the Top 140-150 go off the board. If you can grab 3 or more sleepers whilst everyone scrambles to figure out who hasn't retired, you'll be far ahead.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Without saying it depends on the player/situation etc - I think a respectable general rule is # of starting positions in league not counting K/DT -1. Many people would rather keep drafting to fill out their starting bunch before taking chances on others, so if you do it a round early you will get a chance to take a shot at most of the players available.

 

[David Yudkin]

IMO, there gets to a point once your team has enough proven guys that you really DO need to start swinging for the fences. Picking up a marginal player on a marginal team with marginal upside won't help your team even if he does start seeing some action. So I would rather draft a WR that may average 10 ppg if he gets in the lineup but a 0 every week he doesn't play (as a fantasy WR5 or WR6) than a guy that may consistently get 3-4 points a week all year long but has no real value more than "better than nothing if I had to start him."

As far as RBs go, every year there is normally a lot of change from Week 1 to Week 17. Some years it's as high as 40-50% in terms of who emerges as the primary ball carrier in the fantasy playoffs. That could be by coach's decision, injury, better perfromance by a backup, or any number of reasons. IIRC, there were 8-9 teams that fell in this category last year and even more the season before.

Given that knowledge, people in drafts will essentially overpay for RBs on draft day that won't be starting by the time the year is over. And guys that will replace them will be available for a discount (relatively speaking). Many times, that's why I will load up on mid to late round RBs because many times those will be the guys that will take you to the title. Last year I had a bunch of those guys stashed away (MJD, Norwood, Henry, MBell, LWashington to name a few) that became valuable commodities once some other players got banged up. Unfortunately, there no telling which starting RB will get hurt so there's a huge element of luck in who to pick up. But IMO I'd rather have an extra RB than a 2nd or 3rd TE, PK, DEF, etc.

 

[KCC]

A few points to consider before answering:

1) I know the key to successful any draft is flexibility. I'm looking for more of a general guideline type response rather than a hard fast rule that you would never ever deviate from in any draft.

2) Please provide the logic behind your answer. I'm far more interested in how you came up with the draft round rather than the actual answer itself.

3) Assume 12-team league with 16 rounds, standard scoring - no PPR (if the scoring criteria matters)

16 rounds, I'll assume you start 1/2/3/1/1/1 (9 starters).After you take your starters and their first backups, I'm looking for home run potential. I can get a "solid" guy off the waiver wire with 192 players / K / D teams taken, so I only want guys that can (A) outplay the guys on the wire and (B) someone who can outperform a starter with his upside.

Assuming I take 2 QB, 3 RB, 4 WR, and 1 TE (that's 10) I'm circling the 3-4 guys with upside to draft next and taking them down as soon as I can. K and D are likely to slide unless value presents (especially at D - K's are easy to replace).

You may want to read this from last year:

Prime Number Drafting

Very nice work. I hadn't seen that article before, and I not only read it, but printed a copy to hang onto and re-read as my draft approaches (I'm bad at finding older threads). Many thanks, Jeff.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Depends on the player. Two years ago, Larry Johnson was the ultimate "boom or bust" player, and he was going in the 5th, sometimes even the 4th.

I think the question is really: when does boom-or-bustness become a plus instead of a minus? When Larry Johnson was picked in the 5th round a couple years ago, I think the projections for him warranted picking him that high. I don't think he got a boost from his boom-or-bustness. I give some thoughts on when to start preferring boom-or-bustness in drafts in this article (under "Risk Management"). Basically, it should be after you've got your starters at prime positions filled out, at the point in the draft when the players remaining are, on average, not likely to be fantasy starters or premium backups, but are more likely to be, on average, non-premium backups or worse.

 

[JayMan]

IMO, there gets to a point once your team has enough proven guys that you really DO need to start swinging for the fences. Picking up a marginal player on a marginal team with marginal upside won't help your team even if he does start seeing some action. So I would rather draft a WR that may average 10 ppg if he gets in the lineup but a 0 every week he doesn't play (as a fantasy WR5 or WR6) than a guy that may consistently get 3-4 points a week all year long but has no real value more than "better than nothing if I had to start him."

(redraft assumptions here) Your WR5 only has value if he's on your starting lineup... what's the point of having Bobby Engram on your bench all season long when you can place Anthony Gonzalez there...Engram will give you 0 points this season... while, if Gonzalez catch fire or Harrison breaks his left ankle or Peyton wants to toss 50tds this year - you can get him into your lineup as WR3 (with good matchups) or have some trade value for him... not much downside risk here...