Just for BostonFred (1 Viewer)

[suspected]

Fantastic thread, I agree it would be extremely helpful to compare this to preseason ADP. It's great knowing the numbers after the fact, but are there positions that are inherently more predictable heading into the draft?What I would find extremely interesting is to take preseason ADP and make the following calculation:Take preseason rankings 1-6, 7-12, 13-18, 19-24 (tiers of 6 players or every 1/2 round). Determine how many RB, QB, WR, TE were ranked preseason in each tier. Then look at actual VBD numbers in each tier by position over several years. I would try to do this both including and excluding injuries to see if there are major differences.For example this would tell us if selecting a RB or WR in positions 13-18 has historically yielded better value. It might give us information about selecting a TE in round 3 or 4.

 

[-OZ-]

Good thread It got me wondering though, is there a similar list for those who exceeded their draft position by 75 or 100 points? I'd be interested to see if there's a trend, either by position or age.

 

[David Yudkin]

There's a fairly comprehensive list and discussion on 2004 ADP vs value in THIS THREAD.

If I can get things to format right, here were the Top 25

Rnk...Pts...Val...ADP...Dval...Player..1...440...171....11.....10...Culpepper, Daunte MIN..2...307...152.....5......3...Alexander, Shaun SEA..3...418...149....10......7...Manning, Peyton IND..4...299...144....40.....36...Barber, Tiki NYG..5...288...133.....2.....-3...Tomlinson, Ladainian SDC..6...240...132...132....126...Muhammad, Muhsin CHI..7...278...123....43.....36...Martin, Curtis NYJ..8...264...109....19.....11...Davis, Domanick HOU..9...261...106.....7.....-2...James, Edgerrin IND.10...174...103...129....119...Gates, Antonio SDC.11...211...103....58.....47...Walker, Javon GBP.12...208...100....31.....19...Horn, Joe NOS.13...254....99....15......2...Dillon, Corey NEP.14...169....98....32.....18...Gonzalez, Tony KCC.15...204....96....17......2...Owens, Terrell PHI.16...202....94....12.....-4...Harrison, Marvin IND.17...198....90...145....128...Bennett, Drew TEN.18...198....90....14.....-4...Holt, Torry STL.19...194....86....82.....63...Wayne, Reggie IND.20...352....83....21......1...McNabb, Donovan PHI.21...187....79....24......3...Johnson, Chad CIN.22...178....70...119.....97...Driver, Donald GBP.23...225....70....20.....-3...Johnson, Rudi CIN.24...137....66...173....149...Witten, Jason DAL.25...331....62....37.....12...Green, Trent KCC

 

[David Yudkin]

When I have some time today, I will post the 3-year value totals by position. These nubers were compiled by adding the values from 2002, 2003, and 2004 together--so they were not added all together and then recalculated.QBDaunte Culpepper 323Peyton Manning 263Trent Green 138Aaron Brooks 105Donovan McNabb 82Brett Favre 68Michael Vick 66Tom Brady 60Steve McNair 58Jake Plummer 52Drew Bledsoe 52Marc Bulger 48Jake Delhomme 41Matt Hasselbeck 37Jeff Garcia 29Dree Brees 15Jon Kitna 11Brad Johnson 8RBPriest Holmes 492LaDainian Tomlinson 487Shaun Alexander 395Clinton Portis 314Ahman Green 307Tiki Barber 298Deuce McAllister 267Ricky Williams 261Jamal Lewis 236Curtis Martin 183Fred Taylor 180Travis Henry 180Edgerrin James 179Domanick Davis 148Corey Dillon 145Marshall Faulk 92Rudi Johnson 91Eddie George 81Warrick Dunn 69Brian Westbrook 67Stephen Davis 66Ducce Staley 53Willis McGahee 50Michael Bennett 48Moe Williams 45Michael Pittman 39Reuben Droughns 39Kevan Barlow 33Garrison Hearst 31Marcel Shipp 26Jerome Bettis 24Thomas Jones 22James Stewart 19Antowain Smith 18TJ Duckett 11Kevin Jones 10Nick Goings 6Emmitt Smith 6WRMarvin Harrison 276Randy Moss 257Torry Holt 244Terrell Owens 238Joe Horn 187Hines Ward 183Chad Johnson 175Derrick Mason 117Muhsin Muhammad 111David Boston 109Javon Walker 104Isaac Bruce 98Darrell Jackson 98Laveranues Coles 96Donald Driver 95Amani Toomer 94Reggie Wayne 86Anquan Boldin 84Eric Moulds 78Chris Chambers 73Santana Moss 73Drew Bennett 70Keenan McCardell 61Plaxico Burress 59Peerless Price 58Rod Smith 56Steve Smith 53Jimmy Smith 51Koren Robinson 50Jerry Rice 45Eddie Kennison 43Brandon Stokely 40Marty Booker 40Andre Johnson 40Michael Clayton 37Peter Warrick 34Nate Burleson 32Jerry Porter 29Rod Gardner 28Keyshawn Johnson 27Ashley Lelie 24Justin McCareins 20Quincy Morgan 19Lee Evans 19Travis Taylor 13Curtis Conway 12Joey Galloway 10Terry Glenn 6James Thrash 4Wayne Chrebet 3Johnnie Morton 3Roy Williams 2TETony Gonzalez 242Antonio Gates 105Todd Heap 86Shannon Sharpe 84Jeremy Shockey 73Jason Witten 65Alge Crumpler 65Randy McMichael 51Bubba Franks 38Marcus Pollard 28Eric Johnson 25Jermaine Wiggins 25Billy Miller 16Daniel Graham 9Boo Williams 9Itula Mili 8Kyle Brady 7Freddie Jones 5Christian Fauria 4Dallas Clark 3Jim Kleinsasser 1

 

[bostonfred]

great thread.  still very raw, but at first glance, it appears that going RB-WR may be the most rewarded draft strategy, since the top WRs seem to be pulling away as the RBs become more diluted as a whole.

I reluctantly agree

- reluctantly since I still have this nagging feeling with no numbers in support that grabbing a top-2 or top-3 QB that lives up to that billing can really anchor your squad as well as the top RB/WR

- agree b/c it is much more likely you will be able to build around a star RB/WR whie making up the ground lost at QB later in the draft or with some modified form of a committee. Also agree that he RB pool is becominfg very diluted an dit seems easy to find a suitable RB replacement for a few weeks on a team that has a decent running game while it is nigh on impossible to replace that stud WR (see Moss last year) mid-season.

I thought WRs were pulling away, since there was such a clear top tier, but looking at these VBD numbers, it seems that the clear top tier was hindered by the fact that there was such a deep middle tier. While it might be very nice to distinguish your team at WR, it sure looks like (in last year's historic year for QBs), it was better to get the QB. QB:

Daunte Culpepper 166

Peyton Manning 150

Donovan McNabb 82

RB:

Shaun Alexander 149

Tiki Barber 142

LaDainian Tomlinson 130

Curtis Martin 121

Domanick Davis 104

Edgerrin James 100

Corey Dillon 94

WR:

Muhsin Muhammad 111

Javon Walker 83

Joe Horn 79

Terrell Owens 76

If we assume that Muhammad was a fluke, and that Culpepper's numbers will drop off significantly, then the next thing I see is that Manning/McNabb both look to be at least as valuable as the best WR.

Take that a step further and assume some regression for Manning, but add in some stats to McNabb who sat out the last 2 games, and it seems like maybe the value pick out of all this might be McNabb. Remember that he was the #1 QB a few years ago, even without a top WR.

 

[David Yudkin]

So here's the 3-year list of most valuable players (based on points scored over baseline added up over 3 years)riest Holmes 492LaDainian Tomlinson 487Shaun Alexander 395Daunte Culpepper 323Clinton Portis 314Ahman Green 307Tiki Barber 298Marvin Harrison 276Deuce McAllister 267Peyton Manning 263Ricky Williams 261Randy Moss 257Torry Holt 244Tony Gonzalez 242Terrell Owens 238Jamal Lewis 236Joe Horn 187Hines Ward 183Curtis Martin 183Fred Taylor 180Travis Henry 180Edgerrin James 179Chad Johnson 175Domanick Davis 148Corey Dillon 145Trent Green 138Derrick Mason 117Muhsin Muhammad 111David Boston 109Antonio Gates 105Aaron Brooks 105Javon Walker 104Note that there are only 32 players that had value scores of over 100 points.4 QBs, 15 RB, 11 WR, 2 TE

 

[Marc Levin]

great thread.  still very raw, but at first glance, it appears that going RB-WR may be the most rewarded draft strategy, since the top WRs seem to be pulling away as the RBs become more diluted as a whole.

I reluctantly agree

- reluctantly since I still have this nagging feeling with no numbers in support that grabbing a top-2 or top-3 QB that lives up to that billing can really anchor your squad as well as the top RB/WR

- agree b/c it is much more likely you will be able to build around a star RB/WR whie making up the ground lost at QB later in the draft or with some modified form of a committee. Also agree that he RB pool is becominfg very diluted an dit seems easy to find a suitable RB replacement for a few weeks on a team that has a decent running game while it is nigh on impossible to replace that stud WR (see Moss last year) mid-season.

I thought WRs were pulling away, since there was such a clear top tier, but looking at these VBD numbers, it seems that the clear top tier was hindered by the fact that there was such a deep middle tier. While it might be very nice to distinguish your team at WR, it sure looks like (in last year's historic year for QBs), it was better to get the QB. QB:

Daunte Culpepper 166

Peyton Manning 150

Donovan McNabb 82

RB:

Shaun Alexander 149

Tiki Barber 142

LaDainian Tomlinson 130

Curtis Martin 121

Domanick Davis 104

Edgerrin James 100

Corey Dillon 94

WR:

Muhsin Muhammad 111

Javon Walker 83

Joe Horn 79

Terrell Owens 76

If we assume that Muhammad was a fluke, and that Culpepper's numbers will drop off significantly, then the next thing I see is that Manning/McNabb both look to be at least as valuable as the best WR.

Take that a step further and assume some regression for Manning, but add in some stats to McNabb who sat out the last 2 games, and it seems like maybe the value pick out of all this might be McNabb. Remember that he was the #1 QB a few years ago, even without a top WR.

Completely agree - this falls under the "reluctantly" category above. Here are the numbers to support my reluctance - you are better off, or just as good off, anchoring your team behind a top-3 QB that lives up to that billing in value numbers than a stud WR - note, too, that none of the stud WRs above would have been selected as a top-3 WR (Holt, Moss, Harrison were the consensus 1-3) while at least C-Pepp and Manning were 1-2 in every draft I saw.

 

[bostonfred]

Completely agree - this falls under the "reluctantly" category above. Here are the numbers to support my reluctance - you are better off, or just as good off, anchoring your team behind a top-3 QB that lives up to that billing in value numbers than a stud WR - note, too, that none of the stud WRs above would have been selected as a top-3 WR (Holt, Moss, Harrison were the consensus 1-3) while at least C-Pepp and Manning were 1-2 in every draft I saw.

Last year was an anomaly. Moss, Harrison and Owens have consistently been top five every year prior to last year, and have consistently performed to or above their draft position. Holt has also consistently been good to great.

 

[Marc Levin]

Last year was an anomaly. Moss, Harrison and Owens have consistently been top five every year prior to last year, and have consistently performed to or above their draft position.

I think I pointed that out elsewhere - but you know you don't need to "teach" me that one.I disagree with the second sentence about meeting their draft spot - with WRs (really with any skill spots, but especially with WRs b/c taking one early puts you behind at the RB race), if your top-3 WR performs as the #5 WR you kind of got screwed.It's been a real long time, but somewhere in the annals of our threads is proof that the top-3 WRs year to year are valuable, but there is historically significantly less dropoff from the #4 WR to the # 15 WR versus the #3 WR to the #4 WR. That is, IMO, huge - you take a WR with your first round pick that performs at the #6 WR level and you got screwed.CVontrarily, if you take a RB with your first round pick as, say, the #8 RB off the board, and he performs as the #11 RB you have not lost anywhere near as much - same with the QB taken #2 who performs as the #5 QB.Those are just examples, but I think you see my point re: performance at "draft spot" versus "position spot"

 

[BassNBrew]

You guys are missing the boat on a very important factor...INJURIES. I think this data needs to be adjust to ppg basis, possibly throwing out those with 4 or less starts. TO and Moss were studs last year. Priest and co as well as THE Denver RBs were quite studly too? Worse case, you should add WR4 numbers to the Moss and TO numbers to get an accurate representation of what drafting them provided their owner.

 

[BassNBrew]

Good to see bagger cooking up a new scheme...it's nice to have the token Browns in the league.

 

[tommyGunZ]

You guys are missing the boat on a very important factor...INJURIES. I think this data needs to be adjust to ppg basis, possibly throwing out those with 4 or less starts. TO and Moss were studs last year. Priest and co as well as THE Denver RBs were quite studly too? Worse case, you should add WR4 numbers to the Moss and TO numbers to get an accurate representation of what drafting them provided their owner.

I doubt that a single TO owner from last year is complaining about taking him in the late 2nd.

 

[David Yudkin]

You guys are missing the boat on a very important factor...INJURIES. I think this data needs to be adjust to ppg basis, possibly throwing out those with 4 or less starts. TO and Moss were studs last year. Priest and co as well as THE Denver RBs were quite studly too? Worse case, you should add WR4 numbers to the Moss and TO numbers to get an accurate representation of what drafting them provided their owner.

I'm not sure I agree with this one. You get what you pay for, and if you end up paying for a guy that misses half the season, you get half a season of zeroes from that draft slot. As you said, you can plug someone else in there anyway, but that player will essentially be (in theory) WORSE than the baseline established in the value comparison. Bottom line, the guy you picked wasn't playing, so you can't count what he didn't produce.

 

[Marc Levin]

You guys are missing the boat on a very important factor...INJURIES.  I think this data needs to be adjust to ppg basis, possibly throwing out those with 4 or less starts.  TO and Moss were studs last year.  Priest and co as well as THE Denver RBs were quite studly too?  Worse case, you should add WR4 numbers to the Moss and TO numbers to get an accurate representation of what drafting them provided their owner.

I'm not sure I agree with this one. You get what you pay for, and if you end up paying for a guy that misses half the season, you get half a season of zeroes from that draft slot. As you said, you can plug someone else in there anyway, but that player will essentially be (in theory) WORSE than the baseline established in the value comparison. Bottom line, the guy you picked wasn't playing, so you can't count what he didn't produce.

When we analyze players "worth" their draft spot, the entire year is what should be taken into account. And, in context of the initial discussion prssented, that someone missed games due to injuries - esp. in Priest's situation and Moss' situation - is HUGE.

There is acknowledgment in this thhread regarding the Den. and KC situations in that if you spend on Priest, and were able to secure Blaylock/Johnson to replace him that was one thing - but no matter how many Burlesons or Robinsons you own, Moss is irreplaceable.

 

[BassNBrew]

You guys are missing the boat on a very important factor...INJURIES.  I think this data needs to be adjust to ppg basis, possibly throwing out those with 4 or less starts.  TO and Moss were studs last year.  Priest and co as well as THE Denver RBs were quite studly too?  Worse case, you should add WR4 numbers to the Moss and TO numbers to get an accurate representation of what drafting them provided their owner.

I'm not sure I agree with this one. You get what you pay for, and if you end up paying for a guy that misses half the season, you get half a season of zeroes from that draft slot. As you said, you can plug someone else in there anyway, but that player will essentially be (in theory) WORSE than the baseline established in the value comparison. Bottom line, the guy you picked wasn't playing, so you can't count what he didn't produce.

We don't start draft slots in a weekly lineup so the zero is irrelevant. If Moss puts up 1200/12 in 12 games and your replacement posts 200/2 in the remaining 4 games, you basically got 1400/14 by drafting Moss.I see people talking about RB performance being off last year. This is going to be hard to explain to LJ/Droughens/McGahee/etc owners. I've enjoyed looking at the data posted in this thread, but it's so skewed by injuries that it shouldn't be used to draw conclusions. For example, QBs get injured often spawns the ill-fated "QB squeeze". I had to listen to explanations right and left explaining why 3 solid QBs was a must when history show winners in that format had below average QBs. If you want to know where your draft value is best spent, you need to peel the oninon back further the the raw points layer.

 

[BassNBrew]

You guys are missing the boat on a very important factor...INJURIES.  I think this data needs to be adjust to ppg basis, possibly throwing out those with 4 or less starts.  TO and Moss were studs last year.  Priest and co as well as THE Denver RBs were quite studly too?  Worse case, you should add WR4 numbers to the Moss and TO numbers to get an accurate representation of what drafting them provided their owner.

I'm not sure I agree with this one. You get what you pay for, and if you end up paying for a guy that misses half the season, you get half a season of zeroes from that draft slot. As you said, you can plug someone else in there anyway, but that player will essentially be (in theory) WORSE than the baseline established in the value comparison. Bottom line, the guy you picked wasn't playing, so you can't count what he didn't produce.

When we analyze players "worth" their draft spot, the entire year is what should be taken into account. And, in context of the initial discussion prssented, that someone missed games due to injuries - esp. in Priest's situation and Moss' situation - is HUGE.

There is acknowledgment in this thhread regarding the Den. and KC situations in that if you spend on Priest, and were able to secure Blaylock/Johnson to replace him that was one thing - but no matter how many Burlesons or Robinsons you own, Moss is irreplaceable.

So you're saying because Moss and TO were injured last year in route to stellar seasons that we should draft QBs because they have better raw numbers. You may be able to peddle that to the unwashed masses in your jury boxes counselor, but it ain't flying in the shark pool.

 

[David Yudkin]

We don't start draft slots in a weekly lineup so the zero is irrelevant. If Moss puts up 1200/12 in 12 games and your replacement posts 200/2 in the remaining 4 games, you basically got 1400/14 by drafting Moss.

You actually drafted two guys in your example. You can also look at it that you got AN EXTRA 800/8 (if your replacement was a 800/8 guy) in your example. Two guys vs one guy is not a fair comparison.If the 800/8 PLAYER B produced was BELOW the baseline, then not playing Moss would hurt you team at a level BELOW the baseline. You also lost out at better performance from another player had you taken a player that was not injured due to Moss' NOT playing (your "advantage" gained from your first round pick vs other more ordinary players).No one is suggesting that YOUR TEAM takes a goose egg, only that for evaluation purposes that that INDIVIDUAL can't get credit for what he didn't do.

 

[Family Matters]

You guys are missing the boat on a very important factor...INJURIES. I think this data needs to be adjust to ppg basis, possibly throwing out those with 4 or less starts. TO and Moss were studs last year. Priest and co as well as THE Denver RBs were quite studly too? Worse case, you should add WR4 numbers to the Moss and TO numbers to get an accurate representation of what drafting them provided their owner.

Good point. Injuries from last year have skewed the numbers to the point that people are going to undervalue RB's this year and regret their decision. It's evidenced by some of the posts I've read these last few weeks that RB value will be abundant in the late first round.

 

[Family Matters]

You guys are missing the boat on a very important factor...INJURIES.  I think this data needs to be adjust to ppg basis, possibly throwing out those with 4 or less starts.  TO and Moss were studs last year.  Priest and co as well as THE Denver RBs were quite studly too?  Worse case, you should add WR4 numbers to the Moss and TO numbers to get an accurate representation of what drafting them provided their owner.

I doubt that a single TO owner from last year is complaining about taking him in the late 2nd.

Except for the fact he didn't make the fantasy playoffs for us. That cost me a title last year.

 

[BassNBrew]

Let me simplify this further...which would you rather have.Player A: 240 fantasy pts in 16 gamesPlayer B: 200 fantasy pts in 10 games and a sub for 60 fantasy points in 6 gamesPlayer A looks better in the eoy rankings, Player B and his replacement posted more points for your fantasy team.

 

[Family Matters]

You guys are missing the boat on a very important factor...INJURIES.  I think this data needs to be adjust to ppg basis, possibly throwing out those with 4 or less starts.  TO and Moss were studs last year.  Priest and co as well as THE Denver RBs were quite studly too?  Worse case, you should add WR4 numbers to the Moss and TO numbers to get an accurate representation of what drafting them provided their owner.

I'm not sure I agree with this one. You get what you pay for, and if you end up paying for a guy that misses half the season, you get half a season of zeroes from that draft slot. As you said, you can plug someone else in there anyway, but that player will essentially be (in theory) WORSE than the baseline established in the value comparison. Bottom line, the guy you picked wasn't playing, so you can't count what he didn't produce.

When we analyze players "worth" their draft spot, the entire year is what should be taken into account. And, in context of the initial discussion prssented, that someone missed games due to injuries - esp. in Priest's situation and Moss' situation - is HUGE.

There is acknowledgment in this thhread regarding the Den. and KC situations in that if you spend on Priest, and were able to secure Blaylock/Johnson to replace him that was one thing - but no matter how many Burlesons or Robinsons you own, Moss is irreplaceable.

So you're saying because Moss and TO were injured last year in route to stellar seasons that we should draft QBs because they have better raw numbers. You may be able to peddle that to the unwashed masses in your jury boxes counselor, but it ain't flying in the shark pool.

I don't think that's what they are saying. The point you made and that Marc made are both valid. I always look at ppg but you must also account for the number of games played. It's a tough way to go finding suitable replacements every week when your key players are injured. Isn't that right David?

 

[BassNBrew]

You actually drafted two guys in your example. You can also look at it that you got AN EXTRA 800/8 (if your replacement was a 800/8 guy) in your example. Two guys vs one guy is not a fair comparison.

Yes it is a fair comparision. Your Houshmandzadeh is sitting on your bench while you start Holt...my Lee Evans is starting while Moss is on my bench. Comparing 2 v. 2 in a situation where you can only start one. Your bench points for the WR7 you drafted are earning you a big donut while mine are treading enough water to maintain the huge lead I built up over you.

 

[BassNBrew]

You guys are missing the boat on a very important factor...INJURIES.  I think this data needs to be adjust to ppg basis, possibly throwing out those with 4 or less starts.  TO and Moss were studs last year.  Priest and co as well as THE Denver RBs were quite studly too?  Worse case, you should add WR4 numbers to the Moss and TO numbers to get an accurate representation of what drafting them provided their owner.

I'm not sure I agree with this one. You get what you pay for, and if you end up paying for a guy that misses half the season, you get half a season of zeroes from that draft slot. As you said, you can plug someone else in there anyway, but that player will essentially be (in theory) WORSE than the baseline established in the value comparison. Bottom line, the guy you picked wasn't playing, so you can't count what he didn't produce.

When we analyze players "worth" their draft spot, the entire year is what should be taken into account. And, in context of the initial discussion prssented, that someone missed games due to injuries - esp. in Priest's situation and Moss' situation - is HUGE.

There is acknowledgment in this thhread regarding the Den. and KC situations in that if you spend on Priest, and were able to secure Blaylock/Johnson to replace him that was one thing - but no matter how many Burlesons or Robinsons you own, Moss is irreplaceable.

So you're saying because Moss and TO were injured last year in route to stellar seasons that we should draft QBs because they have better raw numbers. You may be able to peddle that to the unwashed masses in your jury boxes counselor, but it ain't flying in the shark pool.

I don't think that's what they are saying. The point you made and that Marc made are both valid. I always look at ppg but you must also account for the number of games played. It's a tough way to go finding suitable replacements every week when your key players are injured. Isn't that right David?

I'll look at games played by individuals once someone can accurately predict individual injuries. When I model drafts for survivor leagues, I look at AVT based on ppg from previous years and then modify the numbers based on the historical games played by position. This gives you the sound basis for picking a particular postion over another. With the theory perfect, then it's only a matter of correctly ranking the players.

 

[Marc Levin]

So you're saying because Moss and TO were injured last year in route to stellar seasons that we should draft QBs because they have better raw numbers. You may be able to peddle that to the unwashed masses in your jury boxes counselor, but it ain't flying in the shark pool.

Did I? Show me where I stated that one. Bolded section above was cute - but unnecessary to make your point.

 

[BassNBrew]

Did I? Show me where I stated that one.

Bolded section above was cute - but unnecessary to make your point.

You didn't specifically make any conclusions (just muddied the waters with far-fetched reasonable doubts), however other's here are taking the same line of reasoning to draw faulty conclusions.Maybe unnecessary, but it got your attention. Welcome back to the shark pool.

 

[Family Matters]

You guys are missing the boat on a very important factor...INJURIES.  I think this data needs to be adjust to ppg basis, possibly throwing out those with 4 or less starts.  TO and Moss were studs last year.  Priest and co as well as THE Denver RBs were quite studly too?  Worse case, you should add WR4 numbers to the Moss and TO numbers to get an accurate representation of what drafting them provided their owner.

I'm not sure I agree with this one. You get what you pay for, and if you end up paying for a guy that misses half the season, you get half a season of zeroes from that draft slot. As you said, you can plug someone else in there anyway, but that player will essentially be (in theory) WORSE than the baseline established in the value comparison. Bottom line, the guy you picked wasn't playing, so you can't count what he didn't produce.

When we analyze players "worth" their draft spot, the entire year is what should be taken into account. And, in context of the initial discussion prssented, that someone missed games due to injuries - esp. in Priest's situation and Moss' situation - is HUGE.

There is acknowledgment in this thhread regarding the Den. and KC situations in that if you spend on Priest, and were able to secure Blaylock/Johnson to replace him that was one thing - but no matter how many Burlesons or Robinsons you own, Moss is irreplaceable.

So you're saying because Moss and TO were injured last year in route to stellar seasons that we should draft QBs because they have better raw numbers. You may be able to peddle that to the unwashed masses in your jury boxes counselor, but it ain't flying in the shark pool.

I don't think that's what they are saying. The point you made and that Marc made are both valid. I always look at ppg but you must also account for the number of games played. It's a tough way to go finding suitable replacements every week when your key players are injured. Isn't that right David?

I'll look at games played by individuals once someone can accurately predict individual injuries. When I model drafts for survivor leagues, I look at AVT based on ppg from previous years and then modify the numbers based on the historical games played by position. This gives you the sound basis for picking a particular postion over another. With the theory perfect, then it's only a matter of correctly ranking the players.

Actually we're on the same page. I thought you were suggesting something else.

 

[bagger.]

You guys are missing the boat on a very important factor...INJURIES.  I think this data needs to be adjust to ppg basis, possibly throwing out those with 4 or less starts.  TO and Moss were studs last year.  Priest and co as well as THE Denver RBs were quite studly too?  Worse case, you should add WR4 numbers to the Moss and TO numbers to get an accurate representation of what drafting them provided their owner.

I'm not sure I agree with this one. You get what you pay for, and if you end up paying for a guy that misses half the season, you get half a season of zeroes from that draft slot. As you said, you can plug someone else in there anyway, but that player will essentially be (in theory) WORSE than the baseline established in the value comparison. Bottom line, the guy you picked wasn't playing, so you can't count what he didn't produce.

When we analyze players "worth" their draft spot, the entire year is what should be taken into account. And, in context of the initial discussion prssented, that someone missed games due to injuries - esp. in Priest's situation and Moss' situation - is HUGE.

There is acknowledgment in this thhread regarding the Den. and KC situations in that if you spend on Priest, and were able to secure Blaylock/Johnson to replace him that was one thing - but no matter how many Burlesons or Robinsons you own, Moss is irreplaceable.

So you're saying because Moss and TO were injured last year in route to stellar seasons that we should draft QBs because they have better raw numbers. You may be able to peddle that to the unwashed masses in your jury boxes counselor, but it ain't flying in the shark pool.

I don't think that's what they are saying. The point you made and that Marc made are both valid. I always look at ppg but you must also account for the number of games played. It's a tough way to go finding suitable replacements every week when your key players are injured. Isn't that right David?

I'll look at games played by individuals once someone can accurately predict individual injuries. When I model drafts for survivor leagues, I look at AVT based on ppg from previous years and then modify the numbers based on the historical games played by position. This gives you the sound basis for picking a particular postion over another. With the theory perfect, then it's only a matter of correctly ranking the players.

looking at PPG is very much related to what i'm looking at.obviously i am doing projections based on entire years, but ranking QBs who may split time and put up 100 points over 10 games should be reflected as contributing 10 points per game to your fantasy team.

while the majority of players i will project will be projected to play 16 games, some subs and and people who i think will split time have probably been too devalued in years past.

this isn't the main theory, but a part of it.

while on its face when you do projections many may think there is no difference between PPG and total points, but there are some hidden gems in draft strategy that i think can be exploited by using PPG over total points, especially from a VBD or DVBD standpoint.

 

[bagger.]

i should add though that AVT, while it has its place, is more useful IMO as a verification that your rankings are accurate, rather than using them to rank cheatsheets.

 

[Marc Levin]

Maybe unnecessary, but it got your attention. Welcome back to the shark pool.

True dat - it's kind of funny that my return to the FFA was received kind of friendly, but my return to the Pool gives me a quick sock to the jaw! LOL!!Looking froward to "Son of Son of" since nearly half of that draft have chimed in here now.

 

[David Yudkin]

You actually drafted two guys in your example.  You can also look at it that you got AN EXTRA 800/8 (if your replacement was a 800/8 guy) in your example.  Two guys vs one guy is not a fair comparison.

Yes it is a fair comparision. Your Houshmandzadeh is sitting on your bench while you start Holt...my Lee Evans is starting while Moss is on my bench. Comparing 2 v. 2 in a situation where you can only start one. Your bench points for the WR7 you drafted are earning you a big donut while mine are treading enough water to maintain the huge lead I built up over you.

And the guy you DIDN'T take instead of Moss is chugging along for me while your Lee Evans is starting with Moss on your bench. And if that guy was say, Domanick Davis, I think it's safe to say that DDavis > Evans. So you get passable results with a fill-in while I am still getting first round production from my guy.In fact, it's possible that you could lose out TWICE:

- The difference between Moss and Evans while Moss was hurt

- The difference in the RB or QB that you WOULD have taken instead of Moss compared to the decreased production you received from the guy you DID draft at RB or QB

So in our example (hypothesizing that you had TJones at RB)

Moss (14.2 ppg) - Evans (9.2 ppg) = a loss of 5 ppg with Moss' replacement

Davis (16.4 ppg) - TJones (11.2 ppg) = a loss of 5.2 ppg lost in scoring differential from RB drafted later on

So by taking Moss instead of someone else AND Moss getting hurt, on paper you would be losing 10.2 ppg (less the scoring differential compared to my inferior WR1).

I know that the players involved could alter the outcome, but hopefully you see the point . . .

 

[BassNBrew]

You actually drafted two guys in your example.  You can also look at it that you got AN EXTRA 800/8 (if your replacement was a 800/8 guy) in your example.  Two guys vs one guy is not a fair comparison.

Yes it is a fair comparision. Your Houshmandzadeh is sitting on your bench while you start Holt...my Lee Evans is starting while Moss is on my bench. Comparing 2 v. 2 in a situation where you can only start one. Your bench points for the WR7 you drafted are earning you a big donut while mine are treading enough water to maintain the huge lead I built up over you.

And the guy you DIDN'T take instead of Moss is chugging along for me while your Lee Evans is starting with Moss on your bench. And if that guy was say, Domanick Davis, I think it's safe to say that DDavis > Evans. So you get passable results with a fill-in while I am still getting first round production from my guy.In fact, it's possible that you could lose out TWICE:

- The difference between Moss and Evans while Moss was hurt

- The difference in the RB or QB that you WOULD have taken instead of Moss compared to the decreased production you received from the guy you DID draft at RB or QB

So in our example (hypothesizing that you had TJones at RB)

Moss (14.2 ppg) - Evans (9.2 ppg) = a loss of 5 ppg with Moss' replacement

Davis (16.4 ppg) - TJones (11.2 ppg) = a loss of 5.2 ppg lost in scoring differential from RB drafted later on

So by taking Moss instead of someone else AND Moss getting hurt, on paper you would be losing 10.2 ppg (less the scoring differential compared to my inferior WR1).

I know that the players involved could alter the outcome, but hopefully you see the point . . .

Your example is flawed because your RB could have been Taylor, Henry, Barlow, or any number of other guys.How many seasons are both Moss and TO going to miss time? I would say the odds are very slim. If the average WR playes 14 games a year, you better factor the projections of all WRs by that amount unless you have a valid reason to suggest moss or TO are more suspectible to injury. Hence, you better be modeling your future projections with at least one of them cracking the elite level. That said, my main point is that they were still elite players last year, even if they didn't crack some arbitary VBD number. Either Moss or TO plus a sub would have meant the guidelines were talking about.

I forget the year, but it was about 4-5 years ago when QBs were going down left and right. The following year numerous RBs blew out ACLs. These injuries grouped together in a limited sample (32 NFL teams) can greatly impact your yearly models, especially at RB when your going 32 (RBx2) deep with only 32 primary RBs available in theory. My premise is that you aren't going to be able to identify trends correctly unless you factor out injuries that aren't a frequent occurence.

 

[Marc Levin]

Your example is flawed because your RB could have been Taylor, Henry, Barlow, or any number of other guys.

I reluctantly agree with the drunk beer drinking guy.

 

[David Yudkin]

OK . . . let's try this again.ALL OF THIS IS "THORETICAL," since there is no way of knowing BEFORE the season starts what will happen AFTER the season is over.The example I gave had specific players, but if you leave the players out and only look at injuries, simply replacing the stud with a bench player will have negative effects.No matter what position player played, the likely replacement player would not normally be a Top 12 QB, a Top 24 RB, or a Top 36 WR (unless the fantasy owner had the NFL stud's replacement and he put up similar numbers).So in terms of value of the original player, what ever games he missed would be replaced with baseline value of 0 (by definition of vlue to begin with).So if someone drafted Holmes last year, you would have received 8 games of Holmes and whatever else you had to scrape by with as his replacement. If you also added Blaylock AND Johnson, then you effectively received the "value" of Holmes' draft slot (but needed 3 roster spots to get it).If you didn't have the other Chiefs RB, you could have had scrubs at RB and taken a major hit in your RB production.No one is suggesting that in terms of scoring from your RB1 slot that you get zip chewy once your player got hurt--but depending upon what your options were beyond that it's possible that it could have been costly. If the team had other guys get hurt, Holmes' injury could have been a season ender for some fantasy teams.

 

[Family Matters]

You actually drafted two guys in your example.  You can also look at it that you got AN EXTRA 800/8 (if your replacement was a 800/8 guy) in your example.  Two guys vs one guy is not a fair comparison.

Yes it is a fair comparision. Your Houshmandzadeh is sitting on your bench while you start Holt...my Lee Evans is starting while Moss is on my bench. Comparing 2 v. 2 in a situation where you can only start one. Your bench points for the WR7 you drafted are earning you a big donut while mine are treading enough water to maintain the huge lead I built up over you.

And the guy you DIDN'T take instead of Moss is chugging along for me while your Lee Evans is starting with Moss on your bench. And if that guy was say, Domanick Davis, I think it's safe to say that DDavis > Evans. So you get passable results with a fill-in while I am still getting first round production from my guy.In fact, it's possible that you could lose out TWICE:

- The difference between Moss and Evans while Moss was hurt

- The difference in the RB or QB that you WOULD have taken instead of Moss compared to the decreased production you received from the guy you DID draft at RB or QB

So in our example (hypothesizing that you had TJones at RB)

Moss (14.2 ppg) - Evans (9.2 ppg) = a loss of 5 ppg with Moss' replacement

Davis (16.4 ppg) - TJones (11.2 ppg) = a loss of 5.2 ppg lost in scoring differential from RB drafted later on

So by taking Moss instead of someone else AND Moss getting hurt, on paper you would be losing 10.2 ppg (less the scoring differential compared to my inferior WR1).

I know that the players involved could alter the outcome, but hopefully you see the point . . .

Your example is flawed because your RB could have been Taylor, Henry, Barlow, or any number of other guys.How many seasons are both Moss and TO going to miss time? I would say the odds are very slim. If the average WR playes 14 games a year, you better factor the projections of all WRs by that amount unless you have a valid reason to suggest moss or TO are more suspectible to injury. Hence, you better be modeling your future projections with at least one of them cracking the elite level. That said, my main point is that they were still elite players last year, even if they didn't crack some arbitary VBD number. Either Moss or TO plus a sub would have meant the guidelines were talking about.

I forget the year, but it was about 4-5 years ago when QBs were going down left and right. The following year numerous RBs blew out ACLs. These injuries grouped together in a limited sample (32 NFL teams) can greatly impact your yearly models, especially at RB when your going 32 (RBx2) deep with only 32 primary RBs available in theory. My premise is that you aren't going to be able to identify trends correctly unless you factor out injuries that aren't a frequent occurence.

Are you guys suggesting that projections include players missing games? You're suggesting that you project injuries? No way I would do that. You would have to project everyone to play the same number of games and then make your decision to draft the one's you feel more comfortable with. Maybe a risk factor but I'm not real comfortable with that either. Make your your projections and don't worry about injuries. We have no way of knowing who will be injured anyway.

Of course there are a few exceptions that common sense will guide you from time to time. But project injuries? No way. Ain't possible.

 

[BassNBrew]

OK . . . let's try this again.

ALL OF THIS IS "THORETICAL," since there is no way of knowing BEFORE the season starts what will happen AFTER the season is over.

The example I gave had specific players, but if you leave the players out and only look at injuries, simply replacing the stud with a bench player will have negative effects.

No matter what position player played, the likely replacement player would not normally be a Top 12 QB, a Top 24 RB, or a Top 36 WR (unless the fantasy owner had the NFL stud's replacement and he put up similar numbers).

So in terms of value of the original player, what ever games he missed would be replaced with baseline value of 0 (by definition of vlue to begin with).

So if someone drafted Holmes last year, you would have received 8 games of Holmes and whatever else you had to scrape by with as his replacement. If you also added Blaylock AND Johnson, then you effectively received the "value" of Holmes' draft slot (but needed 3 roster spots to get it).

If you didn't have the other Chiefs RB, you could have had scrubs at RB and taken a major hit in your RB production.

No one is suggesting that in terms of scoring from your RB1 slot that you get zip chewy once your player got hurt--but depending upon what your options were beyond that it's possible that it could have been costly. If the team had other guys get hurt, Holmes' injury could have been a season ender for some fantasy teams.

Holmes averaged 25 ppg x 8 games = 200 ptsRB 25 averaged 12 ppg x 8 games = 96 pts

That's a total of 296 fantasy pts or good for number 3 in the league at the position. If Priest had played 16 games putting up huge numbers in 8 and pedestrian numbers in the other 8, you'd have the same outcome.

From a fantasy football VBD perspective, you now have one more RB to add to the list in Holmes. I'd also add the following for consideration.

McGahee + Henry + Williams = 276

Droughens + Bell + Griffin = 318

Bettis + Staley = 276

I've IDed 4 other potential stud RBs hiding within the stats. This would get last year's class on par with previous years. In 3 of 4 of these situations, injuries were the key reason behind this. The Denver situation looks a lot clearer at this point in time.

 

[BassNBrew]

You actually drafted two guys in your example.  You can also look at it that you got AN EXTRA 800/8 (if your replacement was a 800/8 guy) in your example.  Two guys vs one guy is not a fair comparison.

Yes it is a fair comparision. Your Houshmandzadeh is sitting on your bench while you start Holt...my Lee Evans is starting while Moss is on my bench. Comparing 2 v. 2 in a situation where you can only start one. Your bench points for the WR7 you drafted are earning you a big donut while mine are treading enough water to maintain the huge lead I built up over you.

And the guy you DIDN'T take instead of Moss is chugging along for me while your Lee Evans is starting with Moss on your bench. And if that guy was say, Domanick Davis, I think it's safe to say that DDavis > Evans. So you get passable results with a fill-in while I am still getting first round production from my guy.In fact, it's possible that you could lose out TWICE:

- The difference between Moss and Evans while Moss was hurt

- The difference in the RB or QB that you WOULD have taken instead of Moss compared to the decreased production you received from the guy you DID draft at RB or QB

So in our example (hypothesizing that you had TJones at RB)

Moss (14.2 ppg) - Evans (9.2 ppg) = a loss of 5 ppg with Moss' replacement

Davis (16.4 ppg) - TJones (11.2 ppg) = a loss of 5.2 ppg lost in scoring differential from RB drafted later on

So by taking Moss instead of someone else AND Moss getting hurt, on paper you would be losing 10.2 ppg (less the scoring differential compared to my inferior WR1).

I know that the players involved could alter the outcome, but hopefully you see the point . . .

Your example is flawed because your RB could have been Taylor, Henry, Barlow, or any number of other guys.How many seasons are both Moss and TO going to miss time? I would say the odds are very slim. If the average WR playes 14 games a year, you better factor the projections of all WRs by that amount unless you have a valid reason to suggest moss or TO are more suspectible to injury. Hence, you better be modeling your future projections with at least one of them cracking the elite level. That said, my main point is that they were still elite players last year, even if they didn't crack some arbitary VBD number. Either Moss or TO plus a sub would have meant the guidelines were talking about.

I forget the year, but it was about 4-5 years ago when QBs were going down left and right. The following year numerous RBs blew out ACLs. These injuries grouped together in a limited sample (32 NFL teams) can greatly impact your yearly models, especially at RB when your going 32 (RBx2) deep with only 32 primary RBs available in theory. My premise is that you aren't going to be able to identify trends correctly unless you factor out injuries that aren't a frequent occurence.

Are you guys suggesting that projections include players missing games? You're suggesting that you project injuries? No way I would do that. You would have to project everyone to play the same number of games and then make your decision to draft the one's you feel more comfortable with. Maybe a risk factor but I'm not real comfortable with that either. Make your your projections and don't worry about injuries. We have no way of knowing who will be injured anyway.

Of course there are a few exceptions that common sense will guide you from time to time. But project injuries? No way. Ain't possible.

I project missing games in best starter survivor leagues based on history for the position to weight the importance of each position (byes too). Last year it pegged WR (start 3) being almost as important as RB and significantly more important then QB which was the basis for my hypothesis that the "QB squeeze" would go down in flames.

 

[David Yudkin]

McGahee + Henry + Williams = 276Droughens + Bell + Griffin = 318Bettis + Staley = 276

But you wouldn't automatically be able to score these points, and you also had those players in the same games, so it's not a fair comparison.You could probably say that about any player and his backups to come up with high fantasy totals.Injuries have occurred every year and have been built into the evaluation system.

 

[BassNBrew]

McGahee + Henry + Williams = 276

Droughens + Bell + Griffin = 318

Bettis + Staley = 276

But you wouldn't automatically be able to score these points, and you also had those players in the same games, so it's not a fair comparison.You could probably say that about any player and his backups to come up with high fantasy totals.

Injuries have occurred every year and have been built into the evaluation system.

True to some extent on the first point, but I picked the examples that contained very little overlap. Actually you can't say it about any player and his backups if we're looking for the elite level of 275+ points. Injuries don't occur occur in the same frequency every year and have a huge impact on sample sizes this small. If we're talking historically seeing only 3-8 elite performances at the RB position each year, then removing Priest is diluting your numbers by 13-33%.Several people have made the point that RBs aren't as valuable in years past. I don't buy it and am arguing that a couple of anomolies in a small sample group have skew the results and are not a definable trend. I'm looking forward to Priest sliding to me in the second and third rounds.

 

[David Yudkin]

B&B -A lot of this gets covered in the 3-year values O listed, as it shows who was dominant and who wasn't Even missing half a season, Holmes was still the top player overall over the past 3 years. So minor injuries get filtered out as having mininmal impact (which is what you have been advocating all along).

 

[Marc Levin]

Holmes averaged 25 ppg x 8 games = 200 ptsRB 25 averaged 12 ppg x 8 games = 96 pts

Not sure what you are trying here, but to put this into proper perspective you would have ot go Priest X 8 games (or however many he played) and RB25 X 16 games, or however many he played.

 

[BassNBrew]

Holmes averaged 25 ppg x 8 games = 200 pts

RB 25 averaged 12 ppg x 8 games = 96 pts

Not sure what you are trying here, but to put this into proper perspective you would have ot go Priest X 8 games (or however many he played) and RB25 X 16 games, or however many he played.

RB 25 would only be in your lineup for the 8 games that Priest sat. Plenty of these RB3 candidates in the 12 ppg range were on the wire when Priest got hurt...some even better then that. Speaking of which, who rode Priest to a title in SOS?

 

[BassNBrew]

B&B -

A lot of this gets covered in the 3-year values O listed, as it shows who was dominant and who wasn't Even missing half a season, Holmes was still the top player overall over the past 3 years. So minor injuries get filtered out as having mininmal impact (which is what you have been advocating all along).

I'm confused. I thought the premise being made was that RB value was trending down based solely on last years results.

 

[David Yudkin]

B&B -

A lot of this gets covered in the 3-year values O listed, as it shows who was dominant and who wasn't  Even missing half a season, Holmes was still the top player overall over the past 3 years.  So minor injuries get filtered out as having mininmal impact (which is what you have been advocating all along).

I'm confused. I thought the premise being made was that RB value was trending down based solely on last years results.

I guess you missed when I posted . . .

So here's the 3-year list of most valuable players (based on points scored over baseline added up over 3 years):

Priest Holmes 492

LaDainian Tomlinson 487

Shaun Alexander 395

Daunte Culpepper 323

Clinton Portis 314

Ahman Green 307

Tiki Barber 298

Marvin Harrison 276

Deuce McAllister 267

Peyton Manning 263

Ricky Williams 261

Randy Moss 257

Torry Holt 244

Tony Gonzalez 242

Terrell Owens 238

Jamal Lewis 236

Joe Horn 187

Hines Ward 183

Curtis Martin 183

Fred Taylor 180

Travis Henry 180

Edgerrin James 179

Chad Johnson 175

Domanick Davis 148

Corey Dillon 145

Trent Green 138

Derrick Mason 117

Muhsin Muhammad 111

David Boston 109

Antonio Gates 105

Aaron Brooks 105

Javon Walker 104

Note that there are only 32 players that had value scores of over 100 points.

4 QBs, 15 RB, 11 WR, 2 TE

 

[BassNBrew]

B&B -

A lot of this gets covered in the 3-year values O listed, as it shows who was dominant and who wasn't  Even missing half a season, Holmes was still the top player overall over the past 3 years.  So minor injuries get filtered out as having mininmal impact (which is what you have been advocating all along).

I'm confused. I thought the premise being made was that RB value was trending down based solely on last years results.

I guess you missed when I posted . . .

So here's the 3-year list of most valuable players (based on points scored over baseline added up over 3 years):

Priest Holmes 492

LaDainian Tomlinson 487

Shaun Alexander 395

Daunte Culpepper 323

Clinton Portis 314

Ahman Green 307

Tiki Barber 298

Marvin Harrison 276

Deuce McAllister 267

Peyton Manning 263

Ricky Williams 261

Randy Moss 257

Torry Holt 244

Tony Gonzalez 242

Terrell Owens 238

Jamal Lewis 236

Joe Horn 187

Hines Ward 183

Curtis Martin 183

Fred Taylor 180

Travis Henry 180

Edgerrin James 179

Chad Johnson 175

Domanick Davis 148

Corey Dillon 145

Trent Green 138

Derrick Mason 117

Muhsin Muhammad 111

David Boston 109

Antonio Gates 105

Aaron Brooks 105

Javon Walker 104

Note that there are only 32 players that had value scores of over 100 points.

4 QBs, 15 RB, 11 WR, 2 TE

Not to be a smart ###, but how is this useful to me other then confirming the age old adage of draft RBs early and often?Side note: you need to add in all the players that had 3 sub 100 years that summed to more then 100 points for this to be a complete list.

 

[David Yudkin]

Side note: you need to add in all the players that had 3 sub 100 years that summed to more then 100 points for this to be a complete list.

That's what that list is . . . ALL the players that had values TOTALLING 100 points over the past 3 seasons . . . whether it be 33, 33, 34 or 101, 0, 0 or any combination in between.If nothing else, it shows the consistency of the top WR and how dominant the top RB can be.

 

[Marc Levin]

Holmes averaged 25 ppg x 8 games = 200 pts

RB 25 averaged 12 ppg x 8 games = 96 pts

Not sure what you are trying here, but to put this into proper perspective you would have ot go Priest X 8 games (or however many he played) and RB25 X 16 games, or however many he played.

RB 25 would only be in your lineup for the 8 games that Priest sat. Plenty of these RB3 candidates in the 12 ppg range were on the wire when Priest got hurt...some even better then that. Speaking of which, who rode Priest to a title in SOS?

Not me. I rode pretty far, but his death was my death.

 

[Marc Levin]

Not to be a smart ###, but how is this useful to me other then confirming the age old adage of draft RBs early and often?

Top 24 playersriest Holmes 492LaDainian Tomlinson 487Shaun Alexander 395Daunte Culpepper 323Clinton Portis 314Ahman Green 307Tiki Barber 298Marvin Harrison 276Deuce McAllister 267Peyton Manning 263Ricky Williams 261Randy Moss 257Torry Holt 244Tony Gonzalez 242Terrell Owens 238Jamal Lewis 236Joe Horn 187Hines Ward 183Curtis Martin 183Fred Taylor 180Travis Henry 180Edgerrin James 179Chad Johnson 175Domanick Davis 14810 of the top-24 are NOT RBs, 14 of the top-24 are RBs, that does not indicate you should draft RBs early and often. It is a slight advantage to RBs over all other positions combined, but does not affirmatively say "go RB"

 

[bagger.]

...for my hypothesis that the "QB squeeze" would go down in flames.

:rotflmao: That "strategy" was brutal.

I am not sure if I should be offended for the staff thinking the non-staff portion of the league would be that dumb to fall for it.

I still have not heard a decent explanation of what they were trying to do. I understand grabbing the first two QBs quick, but a simple look at point differential should have shown that taking a third QB that early was severely eroding team value at other positions.

 

[bagger.]

Several people have made the point that RBs aren't as valuable in years past. I don't buy it and am arguing that a couple of anomolies in a small sample group have skew the results and are not a definable trend. I'm looking forward to Priest sliding to me in the second and third rounds.

People are inevitably going to overreact to the success at QB and WR from last year and give the age old argument of "the RB class is deeper" when it really is not.

This should give people who are paying attention some big value plays at the RB position in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rounds in 2005.

 

[David Yudkin]

Several people have made the point that RBs aren't as valuable in years past.  I don't buy it and am arguing that a couple of anomolies in a small sample group have skew the results and are not a definable trend.  I'm looking forward to Priest sliding to me in the second and third rounds.

People are inevitably going to overreact to the success at QB and WR from last year and give the age old argument of "the RB class is deeper" when it really is not.

This should give people who are paying attention some big value plays at the RB position in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rounds in 2005.

I don't buy for a second that top RB are going to fall much at all. Priest Holmes will be a first round pick in 98% of leagues. So instead of 25 RB gone in the first 36 picks, maybe there will be 25 RB gone in the first 40 picks.The bottom tier guys will still be the same guys with question marks or in less than optimal environments. There won't be Ahman Greens going in the fourth round. You'll probably see players like Duckett, Suggs, Bennet, OSmith, Barlow, Droughns, Staley, Bettis, Pittman, Faulk, one of the rookies, etc. still there in the bottom of round 3/top of round 4. IMO, those are far from can't miss options at RB.

Of the top of my head (in no order whatsoever) . . .

Shaun Alexander

Tiki Barber

LaDainian Tomlinson

Curtis Martin

Domanick Davis

Edgerrin James

Corey Dillon

Rudi Johnson

Willis McGahee

Brian Westbrook

Clinton Portis

Priest Holmes

Ahman Green

Warrick Dunn

Deuce McAllister

Thomas Jones

Fred Taylor

Kevin Jones

Chris Brown

Jamal Lewis

Julius Jones

Steven Jackson

Lamont Jordan

Tatum Bell

Travis Henry (if traded to Arizona)

(plus 3 rookies if they look like potential NFL starters)

That would make 28 RB and maybe add in the following to round out the Top 40 . . .

Manning, Culpepper, McNabb

Moss, Owens, Harrison, Holt, CJohnson, Walker, Horn

Gates, Gonzalez

Those may not be the exact RB or the exact ratio of RB to other players, but I think that's a reasonable facsimile to what might happen.