This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Godspeed.
I'm thinking about taking him at 1.06 in a non-ppr league. I believe it will be either Brady, Chris Johnson, or McFadden there for me. I have to crunch the numbers, but I can get a QB1 in round 5 (romo, peyton, etc.) and get very good WRs in 2nd & 3rd rounds (Andre, Nicks, Julio, etc.), but can I live with Reggie Bush, Bradshaw, Hillis and a ton of fliers at RB? The shark pools thoughts?
So what you're telling me is that the Stud QB's will have more Stud Games? BRILLIANT! What Mr. Berry seems to not take into account is the opportunity cost of selecting a stud QB so early.
Opportunity cost of what? If you are taking a QB over one of the top 3 RBs, sure. Some question for CJ2 and McFadden, so I'll give you them. After that? I think the opportunity cost of reaching for a RB that is sharing carries and/or is not yet really proven and/or has injury issues rather than a more sure thing is different this year than in any other. RB imo is the "safe" route only in that it feels comfortable. But I don't know that it really makes sense if you can make some good choices at RB later, and know that RB perhaps more than any other position provides breakout guys during the season if you play your cards right.
What he is eluding to is playing the better odds and taking the more consistent position noting how much turnover is at the RB position. You have more of a chance of ya 1st rd pick being a bust at the RB position
Seems like we discuss this each and every year but yet people cannot comprehend that the running back turnover is insane.
My question is why would you not look to pick a RB (possibly two depending on how things turn out) at 3-4? To condemn not going RB in the first two rounds by not going RB in the first 4 rounds doesnt seem very fair.I had a draft a week back at the 10 slot, it ended up with the following in .5ppr:1.10 Newton 2.3 Graham3.10 A Peterson 4.3 Colston (Going to be anyone from Welker/Roddy White through Steve Smith / Colston, the latter two being fall back options. 5.10 McGahee6.3 Bowe7.10 Ryan Williams8.3 Toby Gerhart (would rather reach than be snipped in the 9th)9.10 Greg Little10.3 J Rodgers11.10 S. Vereen (was looking better a week back but still some upside)12.3 D Amendola (one of my better picks looking back, as he could be a nice flex option if the high upside guys done work out)Hardly perfect, but I'd prefer to play for upside, especially after getting some security at QB and TE. Peterson has health issues, and I would probably take Martin there at this point. McGahee should be solid, not spectacular. Colston and Bowe are not bad, and I think after your top few WRs, its pretty flat, and even #2-5 WRs arent, imo much better than the next tier.Obviously up to you, and you need to pick the guys you want (i.e. Decker or V Jax over Bowe), and some of the late round RBs are more clear now after the third preseason game, but I think it's a viable strategy for some. Just hard to get over the idea of not taking a RB in the first two.
I can't decide if this guy is more Walter White or Kenny Powers.
I just don't see that the RBs available in the 2nd in many/most drafts aren't crappy themselves.The best, whom may be gone, are Forte (no goal lines, no martz, injury issues), Murray (not much of a track record, concerns about the team, returning from injury.Then who do you have, really? Whomever you take there, imo, is not that much better than the RBs available a round or two later, with RB being the best position regarding mid season waiver options.I don't like crappy combo of RB either, but I feel like you might have that even if you take a RB in the second, or late first even.
A lot has to do with the size of the league. I would feel more comfortable doing this in a 10 team league where I could have an advantage at QB and TE over the other teams. In a 12 team or deeper league, RB scarcity is even greater so I would rather take 2 of the Charles/Forte/Murray types and have some depth rather then get stuck with the the Shonne Greenes and Donald Browns of the world.
But do you read anything at FBG? Waldman has articles espousing different draft plans and better written than what you brought here
Opportunity cost of selecting someone else with that pick and then selecting a QB later. I'm not saying the result of the analysis is wrong, but the method certainly is. He simply ranks the top 10 players who had "stud" games (whatever that means, he doesn't give us an actual definition) and notices that most of them are QB's. Thus you need a Stud QB. He doesn't even glance toward how much better a McFadden or Forte or whoever would be over a Donald Brown or Shonn Greene or a Gore. What he's basically done is say, Oh look QB's score the most points, you want the best one. RB might not make sense early if you think there are some good choices at RB later. But the same could be said for WR and QB and TE too. This year, the one place I don't want to draft is the 9 through 12. I don't like any of the RB's available. I don't think any of the WR's there are worth that high a selection. Rodgers is probably gone. I'm not high on Brady (i know i'm probably one of the only ones).
Yes, but the QB position is pretty much so consistent that you can formulate a strategy taking into account the fact that you already know how many points behind you'll be by waiting on a QB. So you can figure out if it's worth it to draft a QB in the first or go RB/RB or whatever. Had Berry done this, I'd be fine with it. He just seems to ignore the fact that by selecting a QB in the first it means you can't select a RB/WR/TE there, and are now behind every one else who did. Again, I'm not saying his strategy or result is wrong. I'm saying his method is flawed.
Fair enough. I didnt pay attention to his method, just the philosophy of waiting on RBs. As you state, its true for any position - if you feel you can target and get guys later at any specific position, you would rather wait. For those of us that are picking 9-12, then you can take a RB you don't feel comfortable with, or try something new. In my case, I really don't want to waste those early picks, so while I'd prefer to have taken a RB, the QB and TE gave me more confidence, allowing me to focus on RB grabs later, knowing that WR at least is fairly deep.It also depends upon scoring, ppr, etc league to league (my league is a little QB friendly, for example)
Really now is this really that much different thinking than Matt Waldmans upside down draft strategy?
Nope. My biggest problem with Berry isn't his strategy so much as every time I read him it seems like he's chasing last years results rather than trying to forecast this years results. If it were as easy as using last years stats, FF would be quite the dull hobby.
I believe his theory behind this is sure maybe u can wait on QB and make up the difference elsewhere but when doing that factor in the volatility of the other positions especially RB? Yea if u saying for sure you are drafting top 10 rbs u can make up the difference but with the turnover at rb how can you be sure? While most of the time the elite QB STAY ELITE!! Elite Rb change every yr outside of AP so why not start off with a position that u kno gonna get you 25 to 35 pts every week and build from there
Agreed. Too many people are getting sucked into "I gotta have a stud QB or TE in the first two rounds." A team with a QB like Rivers or Romo, a TE like Pettigrew or Gresham, decent WR, and has McFadden and SJax as their RBs are going to outscore a team with Brady, Graham, and a RB combo of McGahee and Shonne Greene.
Agreed. Too many people are getting sucked into "I gotta have a stud QB or TE in the first two rounds." A team with a QB like Rivers or Romo, a TE like Pettigrew or Gresham, decent WR, and has McFadden and Charles as their RBs are going to outscore a team with Brady, Graham, and a RB combo of McGahee and Shonne Greene.
Agreed. Too many people are getting sucked into "I gotta have a stud QB or TE in the first two rounds." The fact of the matter is, a team with Rivers at QB, Pettigrew as a TE, good WR, and has McFadden and Charles as their RBs are going to outscore a team with Brady, Graham, and a RB combo of McGahee and Shonne Greene.
Not according to FBG. Not really close either. And besides that, I wouldn't feel particularly comfortable with investing my two top picks in a veteran RB who has only broken 200 carries once in his career, while the other is returning from a major injury and has a potential GL vulture behind him. I have the 4th pick tonight. I hope Rodgers goes somewhere in the top 3 leaving one of those 3 RBs for me. Absent that though, I'll be taking Rodgers and would be very happy to get Graham in the 2nd based on what I'm expecting to be available.Last night I had a keeper auction, so it was very different in that way, but my strategy going in was similar. I came out of it with Richardson, Turner, David Wilson, Donald Brown, Toby Gerhart, and Ronnie Hillman. Depending on how your league values Richardson's injury, you could come away with something similar if you go QB/TE early (especially in a PPR league where Turner loses value).
Pretty much my thoughts, although I can see the argument that to have the RB upside is better than the QB upside.The real question, imo, comes with the 9-12 picks, when you no longer have McFadden and likely not CJ2 either... now suddenly the upside and safety of a QB (Brees, Newton, Stafford late first or early / mid second) has an appeal. When you then get to the 2nd round, you can still get a RB in that tier, or if they are gone, or you think there is RB value later, can consider the TE.
I think you have a basis for a nice draft, but would have gone RB in one of those 3-5 picks, probably in two of them. Which RBs were on the board when you took Nelson / White / Harvin (and surprised Nelson went before White)
I'd take this in a heartbeat. Steady, consistent production will get you into the playoffs in a head to head league. QB is the most consistent followed by TE. You have the best QB & best TE.
I get what he's saying and like I said before I don't necessarily think that he's wrong. He just goes through all this stuff that doesn't prove anything because the logic of his argument is flawed, his process basically says QB's score the most points consistently, so get a high scoring QB. It doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong.
Not exactly...he's saying that QBs score consistently and that consistency gets you wins - per the stats he quoted earlier in his article.
See this is much better analysis than what Mr. Berry wrote. As an aside, did you check to see if McFadden had "injury time" built into his projections? IIRC, I think a couple of the projections has him already missing 1 or 2 games.
he used numbers to back up his argument, matt berry uses, well, nothing.
Which stats are these?I see stats about how scoring more points on average will win you a higher percentage of games. And I see stats on "stud" weeks. I see no stats on the effect of consistency on wins.
To be fair, Berry does use a lot of numbers. They're just seemingly random and not very useful, either that or painfully obvious.
You mean...twice?That's what I find funniest about the opposition to this strategy -- those who make it seem like 6 people per league will be coming out of the first two rounds with QB/TE.
This is misleading. You're only playing behind from 1 position in each team you face not 3. And part of that disparity is made up because when you play them, they're playing from behind in RB. You're point is taken in the turnover between top RB's, but unless you can tell me which ones they are, I'm not sure it matters. Year to year most of them tend to fall off to injury, which I don't think you can predict. Tell me who do you think is more likely to be in the top 10 at the end of the year, a RB that finished 2011 in the top 10, or a RB that finished outside the top 10 in 2011?
