Interesting draft theory (1 Viewer)

[We Tigers]

To everyone who thinks this is a far fetched strategy remember over half of the top 10 RB from last Yr will not be top 10 this yr so if you don't get a big 3 RB and you pass on Big 3 QB you start off from behind at 2 positions then you pass on elite Te you behind at 3 positions! So not only have you conceded you're gonna play from behind but if you go 2 or 3 RB chances are 1 of those RB will be a bust just doesn't seem logical to me

Half of the top ten RBs from last year might not repeat, but not many of them are even projected to repeat. The market has already figured this out. Forte, CJ, McFadden, Murray, Charles, and Peterson are all currently in the top 10 RBs selected, by most measures of ADP. None of them finished in the top 10 in standard scoring in 2011! In every case but CJ's, it was because they got injured (or, in Murray's case, got injured after only becoming the starter halfway through the season). Forte, McFadden, Murray, and Peterson surely would have been top 10 backs last year had they not gotten hurt.If you're looking for an indicator to show that drafting RBs early is a bad idea, you should be concerned with performance vs. projections, not vs. the previous year's finish.

 

[ppierce]

To everyone who thinks this is a far fetched strategy remember over half of the top 10 RB from last Yr will not be top 10 this yr so if you don't get a big 3 RB and you pass on Big 3 QB you start off from behind at 2 positions then you pass on elite Te you behind at 3 positions! So not only have you conceded you're gonna play from behind but if you go 2 or 3 RB chances are 1 of those RB will be a bust just doesn't seem logical to me

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?

Facts show that only half that finished top 10 are likely. The other half come from elsewhere.

 

[Modog814]

To everyone who thinks this is a far fetched strategy remember over half of the top 10 RB from last Yr will not be top 10 this yr so if you don't get a big 3 RB and you pass on Big 3 QB you start off from behind at 2 positions then you pass on elite Te you behind at 3 positions! So not only have you conceded you're gonna play from behind but if you go 2 or 3 RB chances are 1 of those RB will be a bust just doesn't seem logical to me

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?

Facts show that only half that finished top 10 are likely. The other half come from elsewhere.

Ok, so you're saying that if I draft a "top 10" back, I have a 50% chance of him finishing a top 10 back (5 out of the 10 repeat). But if I take a back outside of the top 10 I have a (let's say 1 back per team for simplicitiy) 5/22 or 22.7% chance of getting a top 10 back.

 

[jdubs952]

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

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.

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.

Sorry, it was this article: http://m.espn.go.com/general/fantasy/story?storyId=8048797&wjb

 

[hotboyz]

To everyone who thinks this is a far fetched strategy remember over half of the top 10 RB from last Yr will not be top 10 this yr so if you don't get a big 3 RB and you pass on Big 3 QB you start off from behind at 2 positions then you pass on elite Te you behind at 3 positions! So not only have you conceded you're gonna play from behind but if you go 2 or 3 RB chances are 1 of those RB will be a bust just doesn't seem logical to me

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?

But that's just it you don't kno which RB will be different but you kno better chance for a QB to stay in the top 10 and if you're gambling and that's all what ff is why would I not play the odds'? And how is it misleading if you drafting in middle of 1st rd and you know you not getting rice foster McCoy you not getting megatron you passing on Rogers Brady brees you don't see going back to back RB as playing from behind at 2 positions? Let's say the Rice owner follows that up with Graham and a Fred Jackson you are behind at 2 positions!

 

[hotboyz]

To everyone who thinks this is a far fetched strategy remember over half of the top 10 RB from last Yr will not be top 10 this yr so if you don't get a big 3 RB and you pass on Big 3 QB you start off from behind at 2 positions then you pass on elite Te you behind at 3 positions! So not only have you conceded you're gonna play from behind but if you go 2 or 3 RB chances are 1 of those RB will be a bust just doesn't seem logical to me

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?

Facts show that only half that finished top 10 are likely. The other half come from elsewhere.

Ok, so you're saying that if I draft a "top 10" back, I have a 50% chance of him finishing a top 10 back (5 out of the 10 repeat). But if I take a back outside of the top 10 I have a (let's say 1 back per team for simplicitiy) 5/22 or 22.7% chance of getting a top 10 back.

No I'm saying if the odds are better that the elite QB and Elite Te are gonna remain Elite why would you not go in that direction if you are gonna be Rollin the Dice on Rb anyway why not go with a surer thing

 

[We Tigers]

To everyone who thinks this is a far fetched strategy remember over half of the top 10 RB from last Yr will not be top 10 this yr so if you don't get a big 3 RB and you pass on Big 3 QB you start off from behind at 2 positions then you pass on elite Te you behind at 3 positions! So not only have you conceded you're gonna play from behind but if you go 2 or 3 RB chances are 1 of those RB will be a bust just doesn't seem logical to me

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?

Facts show that only half that finished top 10 are likely. The other half come from elsewhere.

Ok, so you're saying that if I draft a "top 10" back, I have a 50% chance of him finishing a top 10 back (5 out of the 10 repeat). But if I take a back outside of the top 10 I have a (let's say 1 back per team for simplicitiy) 5/22 or 22.7% chance of getting a top 10 back.

No I'm saying if the odds are better that the elite QB and Elite Te are gonna remain Elite why would you not go in that direction if you are gonna be Rollin the Dice on Rb anyway why not go with a surer thing

Again, your "half the backs fall out of the top ten" reference doesn't apply here--see my post, first on this page--but you answer your own question here. If QBs and TEs are more consistent, as you claim, then they are more consistent across the board, which means the likelihood of finding a replacement-level player later in the draft is higher than when you draft RBs. It's about scarcity. There are certainly different ways to build a team, but one way doesn't flatly put you "behind at 3 positions," as you so reductively claim.

 

[hotboyz]

To everyone who thinks this is a far fetched strategy remember over half of the top 10 RB from last Yr will not be top 10 this yr so if you don't get a big 3 RB and you pass on Big 3 QB you start off from behind at 2 positions then you pass on elite Te you behind at 3 positions! So not only have you conceded you're gonna play from behind but if you go 2 or 3 RB chances are 1 of those RB will be a bust just doesn't seem logical to me

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?

Facts show that only half that finished top 10 are likely. The other half come from elsewhere.

Ok, so you're saying that if I draft a "top 10" back, I have a 50% chance of him finishing a top 10 back (5 out of the 10 repeat). But if I take a back outside of the top 10 I have a (let's say 1 back per team for simplicitiy) 5/22 or 22.7% chance of getting a top 10 back.

No I'm saying if the odds are better that the elite QB and Elite Te are gonna remain Elite why would you not go in that direction if you are gonna be Rollin the Dice on Rb anyway why not go with a surer thing

Again, your "half the backs fall out of the top ten" reference doesn't apply here--see my post, first on this page--but you answer your own question here. If QBs and TEs are more consistent, as you claim, then they are more consistent across the board, which means the likelihood of finding a replacement-level player later in the draft is higher than when you draft RBs. It's about scarcity. There are certainly different ways to build a team, but one way doesn't flatly put you "behind at 3 positions," as you so reductively claim.

So using your argument if TE and QB stay consistent across the board The Elite TE is 7pts a game better than the pack and the elite qb you talking almost 10 pts per game better?? with my league scoring anyway and thats from QB #1 to QB #6

 

[Modog814]

To everyone who thinks this is a far fetched strategy remember over half of the top 10 RB from last Yr will not be top 10 this yr so if you don't get a big 3 RB and you pass on Big 3 QB you start off from behind at 2 positions then you pass on elite Te you behind at 3 positions! So not only have you conceded you're gonna play from behind but if you go 2 or 3 RB chances are 1 of those RB will be a bust just doesn't seem logical to me

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?

But that's just it you don't kno which RB will be different but you kno better chance for a QB to stay in the top 10 and if you're gambling and that's all what ff is why would I not play the odds'? And how is it misleading if you drafting in middle of 1st rd and you know you not getting rice foster McCoy you not getting megatron you passing on Rogers Brady brees you don't see going back to back RB as playing from behind at 2 positions? Let's say the Rice owner follows that up with Graham and a Fred Jackson you are behind at 2 positions!

Okay and then next time around I take a QB and WR and now he's behind me at 2 positions too!BTW I'm not arguing that you should take a RB at all costs. I'm arguing you shouldn't go into a draft with a rigid specific strategy. Don't care if it's to go RB/RB or QB/TE. The key is to be flexible. If Rodgers drops in my lap, I'll happily take him ahead of Forte and Murray.

 

[pantherclub]

To everyone who thinks this is a far fetched strategy remember over half of the top 10 RB from last Yr will not be top 10 this yr so if you don't get a big 3 RB and you pass on Big 3 QB you start off from behind at 2 positions then you pass on elite Te you behind at 3 positions! So not only have you conceded you're gonna play from behind but if you go 2 or 3 RB chances are 1 of those RB will be a bust just doesn't seem logical to me

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?

But that's just it you don't kno which RB will be different but you kno better chance for a QB to stay in the top 10 and if you're gambling and that's all what ff is why would I not play the odds'? And how is it misleading if you drafting in middle of 1st rd and you know you not getting rice foster McCoy you not getting megatron you passing on Rogers Brady brees you don't see going back to back RB as playing from behind at 2 positions? Let's say the Rice owner follows that up with Graham and a Fred Jackson you are behind at 2 positions!

Okay and then next time around I take a QB and WR and now he's behind me at 2 positions too!BTW I'm not arguing that you should take a RB at all costs. I'm arguing you shouldn't go into a draft with a rigid specific strategy. Don't care if it's to go RB/RB or QB/TE. The key is to be flexible. If Rodgers drops in my lap, I'll happily take him ahead of Forte and Murray.

How would Rodgers fall into the Murray/Forte range in any league format?