Let's talk draft strategy Re-drafts Pick#1 (1 Viewer)

[ds857]

It looks like there is a good chance that you could get 2 of the top 5 WR (Chad, Harrison, TO, Holt) at 2.12 and 3.01 in most drafts. Would you draft 2 WR and try to get 2 more RB at 4.12 and 5.01 or would you still only draft one WR and one RB at 2.12 and 3.01?What would you do if this were at 10 team redraft instead of 12 and each team has to play 3WR? Would it be more viable to draft 2 of the top 5 WR and then hope some decent RBs start falling to the 4th and 5th round because there are less teams and so there are more RBs to go around?But it also seems like you can get some value at WR in the 4th and 5th and later on as well with players like Jimmy Smith, Steve Smith, Porter, Lelie, Boldin, Roy Williams, Driver, etc. So would it be advisable to wait and try to pick up a few of these WR and just go RB and WR in the 2nd and 3rd rounds?

 

[radballs.]

My take on things is that there's not necessarily the huge advantage by having the one spot from the first pick like in prior years because of running backs like Faulk and Holmes. This wasn't the case in 2004 as well as most people were preferring the 5 or 6 spot. This year, I think a lot of people are warming up to the 1 spot again, because you not only get LT2 but there appears to be a ton of great FF depth within the first 25-30 picks. In other words, I think five years ago someone separated themselves from their leaguemates by getting Faulk with the first pick. Now, I think that someone with the first pick will separate themselves not with LT2 but with the quality of players that they'll get at 2.12, 3.01, 4.12, and 5.01 before others make their selection. Kind of ironic, but at the same time I feel that if you can't get in on the first or second selection, then I believe the back end is the place to be (10,11, or 12).

 

[ninerfan]

It looks like there is a good chance that you could get 2 of the top 5 WR (Chad, Harrison, TO, Holt) at 2.12 and 3.01 in most drafts. Would you draft 2 WR and try to get 2 more RB at 4.12 and 5.01 or would you still only draft one WR and one RB at 2.12 and 3.01?

What would you do if this were at 10 team redraft instead of 12 and each team has to play 3WR? Would it be more viable to draft 2 of the top 5 WR and then hope some decent RBs start falling to the 4th and 5th round because there are less teams and so there are more RBs to go around?

But it also seems like you can get some value at WR in the 4th and 5th and later on as well with players like Jimmy Smith, Steve Smith, Porter, Lelie, Boldin, Roy Williams, Driver, etc. So would it be advisable to wait and try to pick up a few of these WR and just go RB and WR in the 2nd and 3rd rounds?

You could draft two of the top WRs at 2.12/3.01 (Horn, Walker, and Andre Johnson were available) but you may be looking at Foster, Staley or Suggs for your #3 RB. Not bad I guess, but I would hope that in a real draft that a better RB than Bell would be available at 2.12. Ideally (for me, at least) Bell would be my #3 RB, not my #2. What I'm saying is I'd be more inclined to go RB-RB-RB with my first three picks rather than RB-WR-WR. I'd rather make sure that my RB situation is top flight. Experience has taught me that it's easier to find a #2 WR that may perform like a #1 than it is to find a #2 RB that may perform like a #1.Having said that, I think it's important to grab at least one of the top WRs early (remember, I'm only starting two WRs). As you said, there are some good value WRs to be found later on in the draft. By taking C. Johnson with either 2.12 or 3.01 I can ensure that I'll be able to compete with teams that have drafted Moss, Holt, Owens, Harrison, Walker, and Horn.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

At 1.01 you take LT2.At 2.02, you take 2 stud Wr's if available.....Walker is not one of them. Johnson and Harrison is what will probably be available. If there's only 1, then take one and go RB.The RB of choice should be Tatum Bell. If he's not there don't panic, C. Martin should be then (as all the players can't be taken) and he'll produce as usual.Now, out of any of the other draft slots, there are none that offers this kind of starting power. LT2 C. JohnsonM. HarrisonLt2m. harrisonT. Bell or C. MartinThis kind of start is very impressive. I've seen a number of posts having Whitten or Heap at 5.01. Unless you're getting PPR and other positions are not, pass on the TE that round.I'd take RB and WR........this is the round where you take one of the rookie's like Arrington or Williams (your choice). Then go best WR available.....maybe Anquan Bolden or Nate Burleson.At rounds 6 or 7, now it's all about finding where the value is in your draft. If a QB has fallen like a Michael Vick (for those that like Vick), Trent Green you can take one. Same thing at TE.......Whitten and Heap won't be there but guys like Crumpler and Jeremy Shockey might be.

 

[IanTucker]

My take on things is that there's not necessarily the huge advantage by having the one spot from the first pick like in prior years because of running backs like Faulk and Holmes. This wasn't the case in 2004 as well as most people were preferring the 5 or 6 spot. This year, I think a lot of people are warming up to the 1 spot again, because you not only get LT2 but there appears to be a ton of great FF depth within the first 25-30 picks. In other words, I think five years ago someone separated themselves from their leaguemates by getting Faulk with the first pick. Now, I think that someone with the first pick will separate themselves not with LT2 but with the quality of players that they'll get at 2.12, 3.01, 4.12, and 5.01 before others make their selection. Kind of ironic, but at the same time I feel that if you can't get in on the first or second selection, then I believe the back end is the place to be (10,11, or 12).

Great point that LT doesn't separate himself with the #1 pick. I am just amazed at the universality of him as the top pick. The fact that he has never finished as the top back in fantasy points doesn't seem to bother people. He has never even finished second. With the arrival of Gates his receptions fell by 50%. His 3.9 YPC isn't talked about. Sure he had some nagging injuries but its rare that a back does not.Hey he's a terrific back. Top 3 for sure. But he does not separate himself from Alexander and Holmes. If any back separates himself from the pack this year it will be Holmes, or Holmes/Johnson.

Given the universality of LT going #1, the best draft position for me this year would be #3 by far.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

My take on things is that there's not necessarily the huge advantage by having the one spot from the first pick like in prior years because of running backs like Faulk and Holmes.  This wasn't the case in 2004 as well as most people were preferring the 5 or 6 spot.  This year, I think a lot of people are warming up to the 1 spot again, because you not only get LT2 but there appears to be a ton of great FF depth within the first 25-30 picks.  In other words, I think five years ago someone separated themselves from their leaguemates by getting Faulk with the first pick.  Now, I think that someone with the first pick will separate themselves not with LT2 but with the quality of players that they'll get at 2.12, 3.01, 4.12, and 5.01 before others make their selection.  Kind of ironic, but at the same time I feel that if you can't get in on the first or second selection, then I believe the back end is the place to be (10,11, or 12).

Great point that LT doesn't separate himself with the #1 pick. I am just amazed at the universality of him as the top pick. The fact that he has never finished as the top back in fantasy points doesn't seem to bother people. He has never even finished second. With the arrival of Gates his receptions fell by 50%. His 3.9 YPC isn't talked about. Sure he had some nagging injuries but its rare that a back does not.Hey he's a terrific back. Top 3 for sure. But he does not separate himself from Alexander and Holmes. If any back separates himself from the pack this year it will be Holmes, or Holmes/Johnson.

Given the universality of LT going #1, the best draft position for me this year would be #3 by far.

You can't say Holmes/Johnson, it's not fair. To get Holmes/Johnson, you have to spend the NO.3 overall pick and then use an early 5th round pick to lock that up, most aren't doing that and Johnson is going late 5th early 6th.I like S. Alexander or Lt2. I think there seems to be more harmony with LT2 and his coaching staff compared to S. Alexander. That just might be perception, but when you've got the NO.1 overall pick, you don't want any concerns like Alexander not getting along with Holmgren or worrying about Priest HOlmes not making it thru the season again.

 

[joey]

Great point that LT doesn't separate himself with the #1 pick. I am just amazed at the universality of him as the top pick. The fact that he has never finished as the top back in fantasy points doesn't seem to bother people. He has never even finished second. With the arrival of Gates his receptions fell by 50%. His 3.9 YPC isn't talked about. Sure he had some nagging injuries but its rare that a back does not.

Hey he's a terrific back. Top 3 for sure. But he does not separate himself from Alexander and Holmes. If any back separates himself from the pack this year it will be Holmes, or Holmes/Johnson.

Given the universality of LT going #1, the best draft position for me this year would be #3 by far.

I totally agree. I'm hoping for the #3 slot in my main league. If the #1 & #2 picksgo LT and SAlex, then I'm loving the risk/return of Holmes at #3. If someone takes

Holmes before #3, I love the safety, consistency and "value" of LT or SAlex at #3.

(parenthetically, I'd like to commend the last dozen or so posters on this thread

for posting emoticon-free content. It's a welcome site to these sore eyes)

signed,

Loooong time listener, first time poster...

 

[IanTucker]

My take on things is that there's not necessarily the huge advantage by having the one spot from the first pick like in prior years because of running backs like Faulk and Holmes.  This wasn't the case in 2004 as well as most people were preferring the 5 or 6 spot.  This year, I think a lot of people are warming up to the 1 spot again, because you not only get LT2 but there appears to be a ton of great FF depth within the first 25-30 picks.  In other words, I think five years ago someone separated themselves from their leaguemates by getting Faulk with the first pick.  Now, I think that someone with the first pick will separate themselves not with LT2 but with the quality of players that they'll get at 2.12, 3.01, 4.12, and 5.01 before others make their selection.  Kind of ironic, but at the same time I feel that if you can't get in on the first or second selection, then I believe the back end is the place to be (10,11, or 12).

Great point that LT doesn't separate himself with the #1 pick. I am just amazed at the universality of him as the top pick. The fact that he has never finished as the top back in fantasy points doesn't seem to bother people. He has never even finished second. With the arrival of Gates his receptions fell by 50%. His 3.9 YPC isn't talked about. Sure he had some nagging injuries but its rare that a back does not.Hey he's a terrific back. Top 3 for sure. But he does not separate himself from Alexander and Holmes. If any back separates himself from the pack this year it will be Holmes, or Holmes/Johnson.

Given the universality of LT going #1, the best draft position for me this year would be #3 by far.

You can't say Holmes/Johnson, it's not fair. To get Holmes/Johnson, you have to spend the NO.3 overall pick and then use an early 5th round pick to lock that up, most aren't doing that and Johnson is going late 5th early 6th.I like S. Alexander or Lt2. I think there seems to be more harmony with LT2 and his coaching staff compared to S. Alexander. That just might be perception, but when you've got the NO.1 overall pick, you don't want any concerns like Alexander not getting along with Holmgren or worrying about Priest HOlmes not making it thru the season again.

Yes but to me he would be well worth spending a 5th or 6th round pick. Consider that people are doing that WITHOUT having taken Holmes. My point really was that there is not much to separate the top backs and if given my choice of picks I would certainly pick #3.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

My take on things is that there's not necessarily the huge advantage by having the one spot from the first pick like in prior years because of running backs like Faulk and Holmes.  This wasn't the case in 2004 as well as most people were preferring the 5 or 6 spot.  This year, I think a lot of people are warming up to the 1 spot again, because you not only get LT2 but there appears to be a ton of great FF depth within the first 25-30 picks.  In other words, I think five years ago someone separated themselves from their leaguemates by getting Faulk with the first pick.  Now, I think that someone with the first pick will separate themselves not with LT2 but with the quality of players that they'll get at 2.12, 3.01, 4.12, and 5.01 before others make their selection.  Kind of ironic, but at the same time I feel that if you can't get in on the first or second selection, then I believe the back end is the place to be (10,11, or 12).

Great point that LT doesn't separate himself with the #1 pick. I am just amazed at the universality of him as the top pick. The fact that he has never finished as the top back in fantasy points doesn't seem to bother people. He has never even finished second. With the arrival of Gates his receptions fell by 50%. His 3.9 YPC isn't talked about. Sure he had some nagging injuries but its rare that a back does not.Hey he's a terrific back. Top 3 for sure. But he does not separate himself from Alexander and Holmes. If any back separates himself from the pack this year it will be Holmes, or Holmes/Johnson.

Given the universality of LT going #1, the best draft position for me this year would be #3 by far.

You can't say Holmes/Johnson, it's not fair. To get Holmes/Johnson, you have to spend the NO.3 overall pick and then use an early 5th round pick to lock that up, most aren't doing that and Johnson is going late 5th early 6th.I like S. Alexander or Lt2. I think there seems to be more harmony with LT2 and his coaching staff compared to S. Alexander. That just might be perception, but when you've got the NO.1 overall pick, you don't want any concerns like Alexander not getting along with Holmgren or worrying about Priest HOlmes not making it thru the season again.

Yes but to me he would be well worth spending a 5th or 6th round pick. Consider that people are doing that WITHOUT having taken Holmes. My point really was that there is not much to separate the top backs and if given my choice of picks I would certainly pick #3.

Sure, someone like me is taking Johnson with a 6th round pick without Holmes in hopes of him getting to get the starting roll towards the end of the season.........playoff time for fantasy football. Also keep in mind those of us without Holmes and taking Johnson are still getting 1st round picks like Clinton Portis to Corey Dillon to Domanick Davis.To each his own. You like the NO.3 pick, i do only if Priest has been taken, which more than likely he will not have been taken yet.

 

[MelvinTScupper]

I have not read the whole thread, but in real drafts that I have participated in or observed, the trend this year has been LT-WR-WR.

Given the RB hungry atmosphere, I have seen some combination of Holt/Owens/Johnson/Harrison availble at 2.12 and 3.01.

Basically, only 2 QB and Moss and one of those WR were gone by 2.10 (at least from what I've seen), leaving the rest of those WR available.

In my No Mercy league, the #1 drafter ended up with LT-Harrison-CJ. I drafted from the #2 slot and went Alexander-Owens (2.11)-McNabb (3.02).

I have seen drafts that were so RB crazy that Bennett went in the 2nd and Dunn in the 3rd, so don't go by ADP or you won't be able to touch guys if you wait until their ADPs.

With so many RB going earlier than expected, I had to take Barlow at 4.11 (there were not many RB options left) as a couple of owers went RB-RB-RB and others had 3 RB through 4 rounds.

In both my Grub - No Mercy and my Inside The Stats - Survivor leagues, I had #1. In both cases, I went LT - WR - WR. IN the Survivor format, which is PPR, I took Owens and Chad Johnson at 2.12-3.01. In the No Mercy, I think Owens was gone, but took Marvin Harrison - Chad Johnson at that turn. In both cases, my best viable RB option avail at 4.12 was DeShaun Foster. In the Survivor format, I took Larry Johnson at 5.01 , but in the No Mercy League, I took Ronnie Brown (who was already taken in the ITS draft). Regardless, since I took RB-RB at 4-5, I still feel very confident in the team. In both leagues I was able to get major value at QB, since many were still reaching for RBs, getting Bulger in the 7th, and getting Drew Brees at 8.12 in one league and at 9.01 in the other.

 

[ds857]

Comparing Priest and LJ to LT is not fair, because instead of having to reach to take LJ in the 5th, you could end up with an a group of RBs like Arrington, Fred Taylor, or Chris Brown as perhaps your 2nd and 3rd RB. I say LJ is a reach because you're spending a 5th round pick on a BACKUP.I still think that the first 2 draft positions are best this year where as last year it wasnt such a good pick (I traded down to 4 to grab SA)I dont know how many solid RB #2s will be left at the end of the second round which is why it seems like the value goes to the top 5 WR instead of the RBs at 2.12 and 3.01 or even 2.10 and 3.01 (in a 10 team league)But it seems that if the league is RB hungry, then you MUST grab a second RB in the 2nd and 3rd round (otherwise you might get stuck with Barlow as your 2nd back). But it also seems that if a league must play 3WR, then it would also seem viable that you could/should draft 2 WR in the 2nd and 3rd because it seems like thats where value presents itself and you could be head and shoulders above anyone else in the league at WR

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

What would you do if this were at 10 team redraft instead of 12 and each team has to play 3WR?  Would it be more viable to draft 2 of the top 5 WR and then hope some decent RBs start falling to the 4th and 5th round because there are less teams and so there are more RBs to go around?

But it also seems like you can get some value at WR in the 4th and 5th and later on as well with players like Jimmy Smith, Steve Smith, Porter, Lelie, Boldin, Roy Williams, Driver, etc.  So would it be advisable to wait and try to pick up a few of these WR and just go RB and WR in the 2nd and 3rd rounds?

This is my situation, and I'd like to hear more about this. I'm in a 10 teamer, I've chosen the #1 slot, so LT is a given for me. What's it look like at the turn for a ten team league (2.10, 3.01)? I'd be inclined to go WR-WR if any of the top 5 RECs are there, or split the two if say a Westbrook is there and one of the other five RECs. Do another split at 4.10 and 5.01...any thoughts?Edited: We must play 3 RECs (RECs can be a WR or a TE in our league...and Gates will probably be a keeper for 1 team, so he's out of the mix.)

 

[MelvinTScupper]

I say LJ is a reach because you're spending a 5th round pick on a BACKUP.

No. I'm spending a 5th round pick on a guy who would be a top 5 pick if the starter went down. If this were preseason week 2, and Priest was still the dominant player he showed at the beginning of last year, I might move LJ down a round or two. The difference with Survivor leagues is getting guys who can rip a number. If we're not worried about injury at all, then my top 2 guys are fine. If injuries come to Priest, I just got an absolute beast for the second half of the year, and I only had to pass up guys like Cedric Benson, and Duce Staley, who likely won't score enough to matter.

 

[DeepOut]

FWIW, I wnet #2 in a NO mercy draft with:1.01 Tomlinson2.11 Owens3.02Bell4.11Benson5.02Bulger6.11L.Johnson7.02 Muhammad8.11Shelton9.02Shelton10.11 Stokley11.02 DelhommeLittle heavy on the RBs, little soft on the WRs Particularly at 6.11. Lelie, J. Smith and Driver were still there and Johnson was a flyer that I could have done without in favor of another starting WR.

 

[MelvinTScupper]

FWIW, I wnet #2 in a NO mercy draft with:

1.01 Tomlinson

2.11 Owens

3.02Bell

4.11Benson

5.02Bulger

6.11L.Johnson

7.02 Muhammad

8.11Shelton

9.02Shelton

10.11 Stokley

11.02 Delhomme

Little heavy on the RBs, little soft on the WRs Particularly at 6.11. Lelie, J. Smith and Driver were still there and Johnson was a flyer that I could have done without in favor of another starting WR.

Taking Shelton twice will come back to haunt you.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

bump

 

[gruecd]

What would you do if this were at 10 team redraft instead of 12 and each team has to play 3WR? Would it be more viable to draft 2 of the top 5 WR and then hope some decent RBs start falling to the 4th and 5th round because there are less teams and so there are more RBs to go around?

I think it really depends on who's there. I just started a 10-team mock draft at AntSports by taking LT2, and then I watched as the next 18 picks consisted of 2 QBs (Manning and C-Pep), 2 WRs (Moss and Holt), and 14 RBs. As such, it was a fairly easy decision for me to take TO and CJ (this year's #1 WR, IMHO) at the turn.With 6 teams already having 2 RBs through pick 3.05, I'm crossing my fingers that either Westbrook, CuMart, Tatum Bell, or Steven Jackson will fall to me at 4.10, or else I'll be left with the likes of Arrington, Barlow, Dunn, and Chris Brown. In any case, I really like how this is shaping up, and it really appears as if #1 holds some extra value this year.

 

[ds857]

What would you do if this were at 10 team redraft instead of 12 and each team has to play 3WR?  Would it be more viable to draft 2 of the top 5 WR and then hope some decent RBs start falling to the 4th and 5th round because there are less teams and so there are more RBs to go around?

I think it really depends on who's there. I just started a 10-team mock draft at AntSports by taking LT2, and then I watched as the next 18 picks consisted of 2 QBs (Manning and C-Pep), 2 WRs (Moss and Holt), and 14 RBs. As such, it was a fairly easy decision for me to take TO and CJ (this year's #1 WR, IMHO) at the turn.With 6 teams already having 2 RBs through pick 3.05, I'm crossing my fingers that either Westbrook, CuMart, Tatum Bell, or Steven Jackson will fall to me at 4.10, or else I'll be left with the likes of Arrington, Barlow, Dunn, and Chris Brown. In any case, I really like how this is shaping up, and it really appears as if #1 holds some extra value this year.

That is pretty much what I'm expecting - 14 RBs, 2 WRs, and 2 QBs to be gone by the time I pick at the end of the 2nd round. Was this league playing 3 WR? 7 teams will have 2 RB by the end of the 2nd round, which most likely means that only 2 other teams (not including the team with the 1st pick) will be drafting a 2nd RB in either the 3rd and 4th round. Then I have to figure that most of the teams would be looking for atleast 1WR in the 3rd or 4th round, and perhaps a couple of TE's would go, and maybe a couple more QBs. So between the 21st pick and the 40th pick, I think it would be safe to assume that 7 WR, 2 TE, 2 QBs and atleast 2 RBs are going to be taken, which leaves 6 more players unaccounted for. Of those 6, atleast 3-4 teams should be looking for a 2nd WR in a a league that plays 3WR, so that leaves 2-3 players that are probably going to be RBs. So to be on the safe side, we'll assume 4-6 RBs will be taken in the 3rd and 4th round before the 40th pick. With that in mind, what RBs should be left at the end of the 4th round that you should want to get?

I'm pretty sure that Westbrook, CMartin, TBell, and SJackson will all be gone by the 40th pick. I believe there will have been 19-20 RBs selected by the 40th pick. I also think the talent drops off considerably after the top 19 RBs (I am not high on Lamont Jordan). The second group of RBs I believe are left are as follows: Lamont Jordan, JJ Arrington, Kevan Barlow, Warrick Dunn, MBennett, Duce Staley, Fred Taylor, Chris Brown, Travis Henry (if Brown cant go). Of these backs, which 2 would you take? Also, having taken 2 WR, would you be comfortable with one of these backs as your RB2? And also, having taken 2 WR, you are pretty much confined to what you can take at your 4th and 5th pick (I believe you must take 2RB) and so what if there was a larger run of RBs than what I have diagramed above and you are left with the likes of Deshaun Foster, Thomas Jones, Cadillac Williams, et al, would you be comfortable with those as your RB2 and RB3?

Let me know if my reasoning of how the draft will proceed is wrong, or if any of my other assumptions are wrong.

 

[cstu]

Seven NM drafts... here's who was available at each pick for each draft from the 1 spot.

GW:

24/25: Owens, Chad, Jordan, Jackson, Horn, McNabb available.

48/49: Staley, Burleson, FTaylor, Foster, Bulger, Barlow, Coles, Driver

72/73: Suggs, Porter, Crumpler, Moulds, Muhammad, Heap, Duckett

HH:

24/25: Holt, Chad, Harrison, Jackson, Horn, McNabb

48/49: MBennett, Staley, DBennett, RoyWill, SSmith, Bulger, Barlow, Coles, Driver

72/73: Crumpler, Favre, RSmith, Branch, Muhammad, Heap

Barracuda:

24/25: Holt, Chad, Harrison, Jackson, Horn, McNabb

48/49: Benson, DBennett, RoyWill, SSmith, Boldin, Foster, Bulger, Barlow, Coles, Driver

72/73: Mason, Porter, Lelie, Favre, RSmith, Moulds, Muhammad, Duckett

Pirahna:

24/25: Holt, Chad, Bell, Harrison, Jackson, Horn

48/49: FTaylor, DBennett, SSmith, Boldin, Foster, Bulger, Barlow, Coles, Driver

72/73: Porter, Crumpler, Lelie, Favre, RSmith, Moulds, Branch, Heap, Duckett

Kestrel:

24/25: Chad, Bell, Harrison, Jordan, Jackson, Horn, McNabb

48/49: Benson, Burleson, Ftaylor, RoyWill, Boldin, Foster, Bulger, Coles, DRiver

72/73: TGreen, Collins, JSmith, RSmith, Moulds, Branch, Muhammad, Heap

Guppy:

24/25: Holt, Bell, Jackson, Horn, McNabb

48/49: Ward, RoyWill, SSmith, Boldin, Foster, Bulger, Barlow, Coles, Driver

72/73: JSmith, Porter, Lelie, Favre, Branch, Muhammad, Heap, Duckett

Grubs:

24/25: Chad, Bell, Harrison, Jackson, Horn, McNabb

48/49: Cadillac, RBrown, Burleson, SSmith, Boldin, Foster, Bulger, Barlow, Driver

72/73: Witten, Mason, Shockey, Crumpler, Branch, Heap, Duckett

If that's what is going to be available, take Manning #1 overall. With the 6 TD points and only needed one RB, it's a no-brainer IMO.Your team:

1. Manning

2. CJ or Holt

3. Bell or Jordan

4. Barlow

5. Roy Williams

6. TE

7. WR

 

[gruecd]

I'm pretty sure that Westbrook, CMartin, TBell, and SJackson will all be gone by the 40th pick.The second group of RBs I believe are left are as follows: Lamont Jordan, JJ Arrington, Kevan Barlow, Warrick Dunn, MBennett, Duce Staley, Fred Taylor, Chris Brown, Travis Henry (if Brown cant go). Of these backs, which 2 would you take? Also, having taken 2 WR, would you be comfortable with one of these backs as your RB2?Let me know if my reasoning of how the draft will proceed is wrong, or if any of my other assumptions are wrong.

You pretty much hit it right on the head. CuMart at 3.08, Steven Jackson at 4.05, and Westbrook and Bell at 4.08 and 4.09, respectively. So I'm stuck with J.J. Arrington and Warrick Dunn as my RB2 and RB3, and no, I'm not really comfortable with either of them.That being said, unless someone like Ahman Green falls to me at 2.10 (unlikely since my leaguemates are Packers homers), I'm likely to do the same thing next time.

 

[ds857]

I'm pretty sure that Westbrook, CMartin, TBell, and SJackson will all be gone by the 40th pick.

The second group of RBs I believe are left are as follows: Lamont Jordan, JJ Arrington, Kevan Barlow, Warrick Dunn, MBennett, Duce Staley, Fred Taylor, Chris Brown, Travis Henry (if Brown cant go).  Of these backs, which 2 would you take?  Also, having taken 2 WR, would you be comfortable with one of these backs as your RB2?

Let me know if my reasoning of how the draft will proceed is wrong, or if any of my other assumptions are wrong.

You pretty much hit it right on the head. CuMart at 3.08, Steven Jackson at 4.05, and Westbrook and Bell at 4.08 and 4.09, respectively. So I'm stuck with J.J. Arrington and Warrick Dunn as my RB2 and RB3, and no, I'm not really comfortable with either of them.That being said, unless someone like Ahman Green falls to me at 2.10 (unlikely since my leaguemates are Packers homers), I'm likely to do the same thing next time.

Would you not be comfortable with either CMartin or Westbrook at either the 2nd or 3rd pick? And then pick a top 5 WR with the other pick?Would you rather have a lineup of LT, Chad Johnson, MHarrison, and JJ Arrington, or a lineup of LT, Chad Johnson (or Harrison), Westbrook (or CMartin), and someone along the lines of Hines Ward or Roy Williams (in the 4th)?? I put the players in parenthesis because I rank both about the same as the player not in parenthesis, but thats another debate for another time.

If these are your 2 choices, niether seem all that appealing to me, so it seems like the first position might not be as good of a position to be in this year as many other people who've posted have said it was.

Any thoughts?

 

[ds857]

Here's another possibility, lets say Manning is the only QB to go in the first to rounds, do you draft Cpep with one of your picks and then a RB or WR? Or do you stay way from Cpep and go either RB and WR, or WR and WR?

 

[isiahcleaves]

I know this doesn't really belong in this thread, but I've found this to be a fairly interesting read besides the Horn/Walker debacle in the middle and I'd appreciate some input.

Anyway, I have a 12 team redraft that starts next week that's modelled virtually the same way as MOP says his league is with a couple of minor differences.

We start 1 qb, 1 rb, 3 wr's, 1 te, and 1 flex

All TD's (including passing) are worth 6 points

1 pt for 25 yds passing

1 pt for 10 yds rushing and receiving

a half point for each reception by a WR and TE

OK....

First off, with this system (assuming LT is gone)... is Manning the pick? I hate taking qbs early, but with all TD's worth 6 points, if he even approaches last season's statistics... he's the #1 player in the league in terms of points scored easily.

1.2 - Manning

2.11 - Chad Johnson

3.2 - Westbrook

4.11 - Benson or Dunn

5.2 - RWilliams or Boldin

If I decide against Manning, I'm leaning towards Priest over SA. With this system, only having to start one RB means I could go Priest in the 1st, with some combo of QB/WR/TE (likely 1 qb and 2 WR's) in the 2nd thru 4th rounds, and then handcuff Priest in the 5th with LJ. In theory, I'd only have to worry about a backup RB during the Chiefs bye week then.

1.2 - Priest

2.11 - Chad Johnson

3.2 - Joe Horn

4.11 - QB (Bulger, Green, or Collins)

5.2 - LJ (If I can trade down somewhere in the draft and pick up a mid to late 5th rounder, that would work best)

I'm also thinking that with the above scoring system, it's important to get a top 5-6 qb. I'm almost always one of the last guys to grab a starting qb... but with 6 pts for all TD's... it'd probably be wise to have a qb that'll net at least 25 TD's with 3700 yds passing.

What do you think?

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I know this doesn't really belong in this thread, but I've found this to be a fairly interesting read besides the Horn/Walker debacle in the middle and I'd appreciate some input.

Anyway, I have a 12 team redraft that starts next week that's modelled virtually the same way as MOP says his league is with a couple of minor differences.

We start 1 qb, 1 rb, 3 wr's, 1 te, and 1 flex

All TD's (including passing) are worth 6 points

1 pt for 25 yds passing

1 pt for 10 yds rushing and receiving

a half point for each reception by a WR and TE

OK....

First off, with this system (assuming LT is gone)... is Manning the pick? I hate taking qbs early, but with all TD's worth 6 points, if he even approaches last season's statistics... he's the #1 player in the league in terms of points scored easily.

1.2 - Manning

2.11 - Chad Johnson

3.2 - Westbrook

4.11 - Benson or Dunn

5.2 - RWilliams or Boldin

If I decide against Manning, I'm leaning towards Priest over SA. With this system, only having to start one RB means I could go Priest in the 1st, with some combo of QB/WR/TE (likely 1 qb and 2 WR's) in the 2nd thru 4th rounds, and then handcuff Priest in the 5th with LJ. In theory, I'd only have to worry about a backup RB during the Chiefs bye week then.

1.2 - Priest

2.11 - Chad Johnson

3.2 - Joe Horn

4.11 - QB (Bulger, Green, or Collins)

5.2 - LJ (If I can trade down somewhere in the draft and pick up a mid to late 5th rounder, that would work best)

I'm also thinking that with the above scoring system, it's important to get a top 5-6 qb. I'm almost always one of the last guys to grab a starting qb... but with 6 pts for all TD's... it'd probably be wise to have a qb that'll net at least 25 TD's with 3700 yds passing.

What do you think?

There are QBs you can get after the 5th round with a chance at 35 TD and 3,500+ yds. I would take another RB/WR at the 4th round.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I did draw the #1 pick in my main re-draft league 12 teams. We do use this starting roster. I thought we did 6 pts ALL TD but we actually do 4 pts per pass TD. Does change things a bit.

 

[bocksheesh]

buh-mp.

 

[a005511]

I have not read this whole thread but with Rb's flying off the board in drafts this year it would seem in leagues starting 3 WR, 2 WR and some even a flex with 1/2 or 1 pt per reception that VDB or a contrarian point of view may work this year and in dynasty especially if you are just starting a league. WR's in dynasty will have a longer life than RB, not as injury prone and can get more value. I would say this works in redraft just as well. I know that is what I have done in most of my leagues as players such as Bell, Taylor, Jordan, Foster eyc there are a lot of ifs. In some leagues I have gotten 3 top 15 WR's plus a top 8 back in the first four rounds because of this RB craze. WE will see if this works or if I pay the price.

 

[bocksheesh]

I have not read this whole thread but with Rb's flying off the board in drafts this year it would seem in leagues starting 3 WR, 2 WR and some even a flex with 1/2 or 1 pt per reception that VDB or a contrarian point of view may work this year and in dynasty especially if you are just starting a league. WR's in dynasty will have a longer life than RB, not as injury prone and can get more value. I would say this works in redraft just as well. I know that is what I have done in most of my leagues as players such as Bell, Taylor, Jordan, Foster eyc there are a lot of ifs. In some leagues I have gotten 3 top 15 WR's plus a top 8 back in the first four rounds because of this RB craze. WE will see if this works or if I pay the price.

The reality seems to be that at 2.12/3.01, a lot of these decisions will sort themselves out. If two of the top 5-6 WRs fall to you at 2.12 and 3.01, then that means in all likelihood the majority of the top RBs have already been taken. On the other hand, if none of those top 5-6 WRs are there for you, then you can assume that there will be a few very good RBs there for you.The one trick in this, it seems to me, is what happens if a Culpepper slides down to the 2.12/3.01 slot. Do you take him? Do you take a McNabb? I personally think there's tremendous depth at the QB position this year (13 legit starters) so I think it's a waste. But Culpepper could be the best of the remaining top tier players. That's the one possibility that concerns me.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I have not read this whole thread but with Rb's flying off the board in drafts this year it would seem in leagues starting 3 WR, 2 WR and some even a flex with 1/2 or 1 pt per reception that VDB or a contrarian point of view may work this year and in dynasty especially if you are just starting a league. WR's in dynasty will have a longer life than RB, not as injury prone and can get more value. I would say this works in redraft just as well. I know that is what I have done in most of my leagues as players such as Bell, Taylor, Jordan, Foster eyc there are a lot of ifs. In some leagues I have gotten 3 top 15 WR's plus a top 8 back in the first four rounds because of this RB craze. WE will see if this works or if I pay the price.

The reality seems to be that at 2.12/3.01, a lot of these decisions will sort themselves out. If two of the top 5-6 WRs fall to you at 2.12 and 3.01, then that means in all likelihood the majority of the top RBs have already been taken. On the other hand, if none of those top 5-6 WRs are there for you, then you can assume that there will be a few very good RBs there for you.The one trick in this, it seems to me, is what happens if a Culpepper slides down to the 2.12/3.01 slot. Do you take him? Do you take a McNabb? I personally think there's tremendous depth at the QB position this year (13 legit starters) so I think it's a waste. But Culpepper could be the best of the remaining top tier players. That's the one possibility that concerns me.

Being honest, I don't think Culpepper will have the same year he had last season...some big things have changed...I can see him having a TD total of under 30 with a renewal towards the running game.

 

[ds857]

here's a question for you MOP... do you take Priest with the first pick?

 

[Ministry of Pain]

here's a question for you MOP...

do you take Priest with the first pick?

Seriously thinking about it. It is a great place to take him because you have 4.12/5.1 to grab LJ. Most owners won't take him in the 4th round simply to spite you...should they do that...again something will fall to you that makes up for it.

 

[MelvinTScupper]

here's a question for you MOP...

do you take Priest with the first pick?

Seriously thinking about it. It is a great place to take him because you have 4.12/5.1 to grab LJ. Most owners won't take him in the 4th round simply to spite you...should they do that...again something will fall to you that makes up for it.

Genius.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

here's a question for you MOP...

do you take Priest with the first pick?

Seriously thinking about it. It is a great place to take him because you have 4.12/5.1 to grab LJ. Most owners won't take him in the 4th round simply to spite you...should they do that...again something will fall to you that makes up for it.

Genius.

Do I detect sarcasm?

 

[Muahahaha]

Here's some more food for thought, MOP:In the WCOFF last year, there were 56 12-team leagues. Regular season is first 11 weeks. League champions + 20 wild-cards qualify for the playoffs.Here's the crusher:29% of the teams that drafted Homes qualified for the playoffs. That means they won their league or were among the top scorers out of 672 teams. They were FOUR times more likely to qualify than a random team.The same number for SA was 16%. I don't have the stats for LT, but the report that gave me these figures said that "Holmes’ owners far-outperformed LT’s."[Course, if they didn't have LJ, they probably didn't go much farther....]

 

[bocksheesh]

Here's some more food for thought, MOP:

In the WCOFF last year, there were 56 12-team leagues. Regular season is first 11 weeks. League champions + 20 wild-cards qualify for the playoffs.

Here's the crusher:

29% of the teams that drafted Homes qualified for the playoffs. That means they won their league or were among the top scorers out of 672 teams. They were FOUR times more likely to qualify than a random team.

The same number for SA was 16%. I don't have the stats for LT, but the report that gave me these figures said that "Holmes’ owners far-outperformed LT’s."

[Course, if they didn't have LJ, they probably didn't go much farther....]

Seems like a useless statistic. IF they did have Larry Johnson, I could definitely see doing well. But I have a hard time imagining that data is accurate if you just had Priest alone.

 

[Muahahaha]

Here's some more food for thought, MOP:

In the WCOFF last year, there were 56 12-team leagues. Regular season is first 11 weeks. League champions + 20 wild-cards qualify for the playoffs.

Here's the crusher:

29% of the teams that drafted Homes qualified for the playoffs. That means they won their league or were among the top scorers out of 672 teams. They were FOUR times more likely to qualify than a random team.

The same number for SA was 16%. I don't have the stats for LT, but the report that gave me these figures said that "Holmes’ owners far-outperformed LT’s."

[Course, if they didn't have LJ, they probably didn't go much farther....]

Seems like a useless statistic. IF they did have Larry Johnson, I could definitely see doing well. But I have a hard time imagining that data is accurate if you just had Priest alone.

Useless? Suit yourself. I think it says something that people that drafted Priest stood a 1-4 chance of winning their league no matter how they drafted from then on. Shows you what 25 fp/gm from your RB1 does for you.Accurate? It is accurate. You can go thru the WCOFF drafts and see for yourself; they are all online. I went thru the drafts and the results & it seems very accurate. http://www.wcoff.com/draft2004.html

Keep in mind that the WCOFF regular season is weeks 1-11. Priest only played thru week 9. So, 80% of Priest is worth a 1-4 chance of a league championship with sharks that are putting down $1400 for a team....

Yeah, that right there is a useless statistic.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Here's some more food for thought, MOP:

In the WCOFF last year, there were 56 12-team leagues.  Regular season is first 11 weeks.  League champions + 20 wild-cards qualify for the playoffs.

Here's the crusher:

29% of the teams that drafted Homes qualified for the playoffs.  That means they won their league or were among the top scorers out of 672 teams.  They were FOUR times more likely to qualify than a random team.

The same number for SA was 16%.  I don't have the stats for LT, but the report that gave me these figures said that "Holmes’ owners far-outperformed LT’s."

[Course, if they didn't have LJ, they probably didn't go much farther....]

Seems like a useless statistic. IF they did have Larry Johnson, I could definitely see doing well. But I have a hard time imagining that data is accurate if you just had Priest alone.

Useless? Suit yourself. I think it says something that people that drafted Priest stood a 1-4 chance of winning their league no matter how they drafted from then on. Shows you what 25 fp/gm from your RB1 does for you.Accurate? It is accurate. You can go thru the WCOFF drafts and see for yourself; they are all online. I went thru the drafts and the results & it seems very accurate. http://www.wcoff.com/draft2004.html

Keep in mind that the WCOFF regular season is weeks 1-11. Priest only played thru week 9. So, 80% of Priest is worth a 1-4 chance of a league championship with sharks that are putting down $1400 for a team....

Yeah, that right there is a useless statistic.

I popped this into another thread.Excerpt:

Here we go. Here are Priests game by game points from '02-'04... I gave him 1 point per 10 rush/rec...3 point bonus for 100 yd games, 6 points for TD of course.

'02...40,11,40,20,38,24,35,27,11,21,54,31,29,21...DNP the last 2 weeks

'03...32,33,29,13,13,22,29,31,30,9,28,33,19,34,31,17...played the whole season

'04...36,13,16,27,20,44,43,...inj next game would not play rest of season.

In 26 of the 37 games he took the field he scored 21+ points in them which is the mark I set for an outstanding game. meaning he covered for him and another spot be it a Rb,WR,TE whatever, he mde up for it. That's 70% of the time...man that's crazy!

In 15 out of those 37 he had 30+ points which covers him and possibly 2 other spots like a wR plus a kicker...40% of the time he is simply slaughtering the other backfield you are competing against.

The guy is Gold. You only need to take LJ in the 4th/5th for insurance and your backfield is almost a sure thing.

Waste time and picks on S.Jackson/L.Jordan/B.Westbrook hoping to squeeze enough points out of them or simply take Priest early and grab 2 tremendous WR in the 2nd/3rd...look for Cadillac or someone in the 4th/LJ in the 5th...you have a great roster to punch people right in the chops come Sunday every week. No one will want to face you.

 

[bocksheesh]

My biggest concern about Priest is really not specifically his injuries risks. It's that the KC DEF seems to be significantly improved. Is it going to be a top defense? No way. But I think it will be significantly better than last year's debacle.IF that happens, two things could negatively impact Priest:1. The Chiefs won't be in quite as many high scoring affairs, and there won't be the pressure to constantly run up the score to stay in the game.2. The Chiefs may be playing ahead a bit more, and in grinding out the clock in the 4th quarter, they could look to LJ to grind out the end of the game yards and rest/protect Priest.That's what has me concerned about Priest. NOT that I think he's going to get hurt in Week 4 or something.

 

[Muahahaha]

My biggest concern about Priest is really not specifically his injuries risks. It's that the KC DEF seems to be significantly improved. Is it going to be a top defense? No way. But I think it will be significantly better than last year's debacle.

IF that happens, two things could negatively impact Priest:

1. The Chiefs won't be in quite as many high scoring affairs, and there won't be the pressure to constantly run up the score to stay in the game.

2. The Chiefs may be playing ahead a bit more, and in grinding out the clock in the 4th quarter, they could look to LJ to grind out the end of the game yards and rest/protect Priest.

That's what has me concerned about Priest. NOT that I think he's going to get hurt in Week 4 or something.

1. To my knowledge, the Chiefs have never backed off an opponent. Case in point, last year they were up on Atlanta 42-10 in the 3rd; they scored 14 more points in the 4th to beat them 56-10.2. Blaylock or Johnson relieved Holmes in almost every game last year. Regardless, the fact that they are grinding out the clock in itself implies that Holmes had a good game for you already.

 

[tandl71]

Would it be insane to pick Tony Gonzalez in the 3rd with the #25 pick? I've got the #1 draft slot, and planned on going RB-RB-top 5 WR (Moss, Harrison, Holt, Owens, C. Johnson), but don't want to stretch for another WR at #25 if those guys aren't available.It seems to me you can get plenty of good WRs in the 4th-7th rounds this year, and a decent #3 RB at the end of 4th/beginning of 5th, if you've got your TE sewed up in the 3rd.Anyone else with the #1 draft slot planning on going Tomlinson--RB--Gonzalez? Thanks.

 

[tandl71]

Anyone? I'd start a new thread, but I'm sure I'd get slammed with a dozen "Honda!"s.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Would it be insane to pick Tony Gonzalez in the 3rd with the #25 pick? I've got the #1 draft slot, and planned on going RB-RB-top 5 WR (Moss, Harrison, Holt, Owens, C. Johnson), but don't want to stretch for another WR at #25 if those guys aren't available.

It seems to me you can get plenty of good WRs in the 4th-7th rounds this year, and a decent #3 RB at the end of 4th/beginning of 5th, if you've got your TE sewed up in the 3rd.

Anyone else with the #1 draft slot planning on going Tomlinson--RB--Gonzalez? Thanks.

Ok, here goes.WR: After the top5 Holt. Moss. Owens, Harrison, CJ...there are about 4 more that are worth taking in the 3rd round IMO...Horn/Walker/Wayne/Clayton...I don't see tons of WR in the 4th-7th rounds...I see a lot of crappy WR in the 4th-7th round and I use crappy as a term for crapshoot.

I would rather secure my team with 2 of the top9-10 projected WR...I see them being farely stable this season and taking my chacnes at TE in the 4th/5th, or 6th/7th turn.

Witten is about 5.1

Clark who I love is sitting there at 7.1

Much better than grabbing Gonzo who did post 1,200 yds last season but only 7 TD...you ccould make up for Gonzo if you chose right in most leagues. I have had Gonzo a lot over the last 3 years...He ought to be a 12 TD TE every year but he isn't. He can explode and than go 40-40-40 the next few weeks. I don't burn a high pick on him this year.

 

[Jackal King]

Would it be insane to pick Tony Gonzalez in the 3rd with the #25 pick? I've got the #1 draft slot, and planned on going RB-RB-top 5 WR (Moss, Harrison, Holt, Owens, C. Johnson), but don't want to stretch for another WR at #25 if those guys aren't available.

It seems to me you can get plenty of good WRs in the 4th-7th rounds this year, and a decent #3 RB at the end of 4th/beginning of 5th, if you've got your TE sewed up in the 3rd.

Anyone else with the #1 draft slot planning on going Tomlinson--RB--Gonzalez? Thanks.

3rd round is one thing....but not with the 25th pick.In almost every mock I've been in...one of the top 5 WR's is there for 25.

If not...then a RB or QB has slipped that shouldn't have. Look there first.

Gonzo is going to probably go in the third....but I'd just have a hard time using 25 on him.

I'd look for Witten on the 4/5 turn....or Shockey on the 6/7.

 

[supa mann]

Here is how the first pick in our 12 team redraft league fared. We start 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, Flex, TE, K, D/ST. All TD's are 6pts, so Manning led our league last season. RB's bring rain, as we can start 3 and even a so-so #3 RB will almost always outproduce a good WR. QB used to go cheap and you could steal a great one at the turn, but our league has grown wiser.

McNabb, Donovan PHI QB - 6 3.01

Bettis, Jerome PIT RB - 4 5.09

Toefield, Labrandon JAC RB - 7 9.01

Tomlinson, Ladainian SDC RB - 10 1.01

Fitzgerald, Larry ARI WR - 6 8.12

Harrison, Marvin IND WR - 8 2.12

Johnson, Andre HOU WR - 3 4.04

McMichael, Randy MIA TE - 4 6.12

Bills, Buffalo BUF Def - 9 7.01

 

[fflnut]

Good thread - still not the best at drafting, so the answer to this question may be obvious. In my 12 team league TDs are worth 6 in the air or on the ground. We have to start 1QB, 2RB, 3WR, 1TE, 1PK, and 1DST.Does the RB, WR, WR in the first 3 rounds favor that type of league more than the 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1TE, 1PK, and 1DST league that MOP started this thread about?Strongly considering it since I think I may be able to snag 2 top 5 WRs. Positive (based on history) that there'll be a WR run in the 3rd (especially if I take 2 of the top 5) and then a WR/QB split in the 4th. Very worried about my options at RB though with a late 4th round pick.

 

[fflnut]

:: pushes it to the top ::

 

[MelvinTScupper]

Big deal and who cares. This should be a discussion over whether to take certain positions depending on the round. Not an "I like WR A more than WR B" thread. I really think the number one spot is the best place to draft from this year not just because of LT but because of the talent falling back to you at 2.12, 3.01 and again at 4.12, 5.01. The pissing contest needs to stop.

I have to say I did like the #1 spot. I'm not sold on what my #2 and #3 RBs can produce. I was "stuck" with DeShaun Foster at the back of round 4, and the pickings at RB were slim. I went with Chad Johnson and Terrell Owens in one draft where I had #1 and went with Chad Johnson and Marvin Harrison in the other. I had options of the Steven Jackson and Tatum Bell ilk, but felt better taking 2 of the top 3 WR's on the board instead.We'll see.

I liked the #5 spot a lot more in the Cakeboy draft, where I went Edge, CuMart and Steven Jackson at 1-2-3. That's a RB corp I hopefully can depend on.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Good thread - still not the best at drafting, so the answer to this question may be obvious. In my 12 team league TDs are worth 6 in the air or on the ground. We have to start 1QB, 2RB, 3WR, 1TE, 1PK, and 1DST.

Does the RB, WR, WR in the first 3 rounds favor that type of league more than the 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1TE, 1PK, and 1DST league that MOP started this thread about?

Strongly considering it since I think I may be able to snag 2 top 5 WRs. Positive (based on history) that there'll be a WR run in the 3rd (especially if I take 2 of the top 5) and then a WR/QB split in the 4th. Very worried about my options at RB though with a late 4th round pick.

YES, it favors those WR3 leaagues plenty cause you only need 1 more WR who you can fill with Driver/Fitz on the 4/5 turn and you are really punishing the teams that have not locked up their WR yet.

 

[bocksheesh]

Agree with this. In a league where you are required to start 3 WRs, locking up 2 of the Top 5-6 along with LT/SA will allow you essentially lock in 3 players that are VERY likely to end up in the Top 5-7 at their position.Then you come back with your 4.12 and 5.01 picks, and take your RB2 and either your QB or your WR3. At that point, you will likely have a choice at WR3 of the Drivers, Porters, and Lelies of the world OR a Green, Bulger, Collins at QB.Not a bad starting 5.The one HUGE risk is that you get screwed at RB2, and there's no one left to take. You probably will have a shot, at worst, at one of Barlow, Dunn, Bennett, or Foster, but there's no guarantee. And you could find yourself with an iffy RB2.But you'd still have a super stud RB, potentially three Top 15 WRs, and a Top 5-6 QB. And that's the worst case scenario, really.

 

[fflnut]

Agree with this. In a league where you are required to start 3 WRs, locking up 2 of the Top 5-6 along with LT/SA will allow you essentially lock in 3 players that are VERY likely to end up in the Top 5-7 at their position.

Then you come back with your 4.12 and 5.01 picks, and take your RB2 and either your QB or your WR3. At that point, you will likely have a choice at WR3 of the Drivers, Porters, and Lelies of the world OR a Green, Bulger, Collins at QB.

Not a bad starting 5.

The one HUGE risk is that you get screwed at RB2, and there's no one left to take. You probably will have a shot, at worst, at one of Barlow, Dunn, Bennett, or Foster, but there's no guarantee. And you could find yourself with an iffy RB2.

But you'd still have a super stud RB, potentially three Top 15 WRs, and a Top 5-6 QB. And that's the worst case scenario, really.

Thanks for the replies. If I went RB, WR, WR I was going to come back with RB, RB in 4 & 5. I'm afraid of the the same thing you mentioned, not finding a viable RB2 at this point. If a few people take 3 RBs in their first 4 picks, then I'm sunk. But, if I take 2 top flight WRs, I'm assuming a larger WR run during the rest of 3 and 4 will happen than if i don't. Another tough choice becomes whether to take SA or Priest & LJ in the later rounds. If I'm already going with a risky RB2 and potentially not a RB3 until later on, then getting LJ when I have to get him becomes even more difficult. I was going to shoot for LJ at the bottom of the 6th and nab my final WR in the top of the 7th.

From what I can see, the difference between the WRs available at the top of the 5th vs the top of the 7th aren't that great.

5th: Bennett, Driver, Coles, Porter

7th: Lelie, Mason, Moose, Chambers

And according to Antsports, Kennison, Rod Smith, Moulds and others are falling past the 7th round. I could live with 2 top WRs and a WR3 with any one of the guys I just mentioned.

Then my QB...I was going to hold off until my 8.11 pick to grab one and hope that Plummer or Brooks lasts until then. That may be wishful thinking though as 14 QBs went by the end of the 8th round in my draft last year. So...I may have to switch my 7.2 pick from WR3 to QB1. I'll have to see how things play out in rounds 5-6 to make that call.

Sorry long rant, but this is my favorite part of the draft...the prepartion. Love running through the different scenarios.