My general FF strategy for re-drafts (1 Viewer)

[LHUCKS]

Thought this might be interesting for some to read. This is basically my approach to "expert" re-draft leagues. The following is a dialogue between Gator and I regarding my approach.

LHUCKS:  Projections are a very one dimensional and oversimplified way of valuing a player's worth and for the life of me I don't understand why the industry is still drafting based on this mechanism. IMHO, the correct way is to project a low and high for each player...based on risk assesments. I know the ff industry does it because it's easy to package and sell, but it is way too simplistic. When analysts are evaluating stocks(buy/sell/hold etc)...they don't come up with one figure and base their rating on that one figure.

Gatorman wrote: LHUCKS: I will agree with you that the straight line methodology of VBD is a pretty stupid thing. However, your player valuation method will probably be the same as a "bucketing method" where you move like players around. I am waiting to hear your theory. My general draft strategy works with bucketing, and obviously the high upside players in the bucket are ahead of thelow upside and high downside guys. Gator

My high vs. low range "projections" are significantly different because of my risk factors(used to adjust projections downward) which makes bucketing players impossible. Basically I project a best case scenario for a player and then adjust that number to give me a most likely number based on a risk factor tha reduces the projected ff points. I also use the risk factor to give me a low projection for survivor leagues...not used as much for non-survivor. I do bucket(sort of) and look at VBD for the first three rounds or so, but after that I adjust my strategy on the fly to address my teams needs/risk profile...often it involves taking guys with high ceilings in the middle/late rounds. In leagues where you can pick up players...the Keyshawn Johnsons are greatly diminished because you can pickup WRs that will give you similar numbers or at least play matchups. Players like Key are consistently overvalued in this format because they provide relatively little scoring punch. You're better off taking a Glenn or Galloway(whom I drafted in almost every league last year) because they can give you the PPG you need in a re-draft league. PPG is the key if you can guarantee it from a week to week basis with one or multiple players...I suppose that's the key. I usually spot a handful of key players that I think are dramatically undervalued and adjust my total draft strategy around that. The reason why I did well in survivors last year(and most re--drafts) was because I hit on my early round RBs(Jordan and Barber) and also hit on some of my late WRs(Galloway, Glenn, Moss) I avoided all of the busts at WR and RB and benefitted as a result. The reason why I hit on the right players IMHO is because I properly evaluated the ranges of each player and took calculated risks when they were prudent.

 

[jurb26]

To be honest, I think most everyone does the same thing as you already, LHUCKS. I know that even though I set up projections as parameters for me to go from. While ranking the guys or looking over my draft board I still assess a risk to them and probability of what they have of reaching my projections. I think every one does this subconsciously.

 

[LHUCKS]

To be honest, I think most everyone does the same thing as you already, LHUCKS. I know that even though I set up projections as parameters for me to go from. While ranking the guys or looking over my draft board I still assess a risk to them and probability of what they have of reaching my projections. I think every one does this subconsciously.

I'd be surprised based on ff publications...but for boardmembers you may be right.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I do the "bucket" or tiers thing myself.

I had galloway and steve smith on a bunch of teams last year. As they were players #1 - I knew I could get later, as they were off alot of people's radar #2 - they would absolutely out-perform their draft postion. And that is what VBD is all about IMO, drafting the player that has no business being there.

 

[jurb26]

To be honest, I think most everyone does the same thing as you already, LHUCKS. I know that even though I set up projections as parameters for me to go from. While ranking the guys or looking over my draft board I still assess a risk to them and probability of what they have of reaching my projections. I think every one does this subconsciously.

I'd be surprised based on ff publications...but for boardmembers you may be right.

Actually, now that you say that. I agree.

 

[(HULK)]

Please PM me your undervalued WRs next August.

Thanks.

 

[LHUCKS]

Please PM me your undervalued WRs next August.

Thanks.

That was one of the keys this year for sure. FBG put out an "undervalued" players article(that I contributed to) last year that was really good. I'd recommend starting there. I don't release my rankings until after I've drafted in all of my money leagues...too many of my competitors lurking.

 

[wannabee]

Thanks for sharing. I enjoy reading how people succeed. I never can know too much.

 

[Bri]

can you elaborate some? curious

 

[LHUCKS]

can you elaborate some? curious

what part?

 

[diesel7982]

1st 3 picks:

McNair

Anyone but Chris Brown

Ty Calico

:winner:

 

[Bri]

whatever, some more examples besides WRs?

you're a clever fellow and taking Galloway late was a good move but alot of folks did that so it doesn't lend to that. I feel like there's a bunch more to it.

Ummm, I'll try some Qs

TEs Gates and/or Gonzo or just wait? Are you one of the K with last pick type guys? D early or late?

Thoughts on trends or streaks or runs(whatever word ya like) in a draft? try to start em? waste of time? jump on board with em'?

Did you have to draft with the first or last pick "on the corner" at all? How'd you handle that compared to if you picked say 6th or 7th? Different thoughts on runs with 2 picks in a row? Or the same?

Do you consider age and/or injury history of players during the draft? IE following your cheatsheet suppose you got Priest, Michael bennett, Freddy T, Moss etc. at some point do you purposely take someone with a more reliable injury history? OR suppose Jimmy Smith, Bruce, and some of the older WRs were "just falling into your lap" would their age matter to you?

With Ks: Length of K? Offense redzone proficiency? Whether they have a back that can pound out that difficult 3rd and 1? WHat's your thought process?

With TEs: Their history or their QBs or both? IE some QBs don't throw to the TE.

How about rooks? For 12 years I think I drafted a total of 2 rookies, last couple I've drafted some. While I doubt you avoid em' completely, do you avoid any rookie positions? Like not drafting any rookie TEs or WRs or QBs?

 

[LHUCKS]

whatever, some more examples besides WRs?

you're a clever fellow and taking Galloway late was a good move but alot of folks did that so it doesn't lend to that. I feel like there's a bunch more to it.

Ummm, I'll try some Qs

TEs Gates and/or Gonzo or just wait? Are you one of the K with last pick type guys? D early or late?

Thoughts on trends or streaks or runs(whatever word ya like) in a draft? try to start em? waste of time? jump on board with em'?

Did you have to draft with the first or last pick "on the corner" at all? How'd you handle that compared to if you picked say 6th or 7th? Different thoughts on runs with 2 picks in a row? Or the same?

Do you consider age and/or injury history of players during the draft? IE following your cheatsheet suppose you got Priest, Michael bennett, Freddy T, Moss etc. at some point do you purposely take someone with a more reliable injury history? OR suppose Jimmy Smith, Bruce, and some of the older WRs were "just falling into your lap" would their age matter to you?

With Ks: Length of K? Offense redzone proficiency? Whether they have a back that can pound out that difficult 3rd and 1? WHat's your thought process?

With TEs: Their history or their QBs or both? IE some QBs don't throw to the TE.

How about rooks? For 12 years I think I drafted a total of 2 rookies, last couple I've drafted some. While I doubt you avoid em' completely, do you avoid any rookie positions? Like not drafting any rookie TEs or WRs or QBs?

whoa there cowboy...I think I counted 57 questions in there. Please narrow down.

 

[wannabee]

here's ONE:

What put you on either Smith or Galloway?

Follow up:

Was it the ceiling or the lack of downside?

 

[LHUCKS]

here's ONE:

What put you on either Smith or Galloway? 

Follow up:

Was it the ceiling or the lack of downside?

Smith - I really liked last year because he was unstoppable the last two preseasons and I really felt like he was going to break out in 2004, we just had to wait one more year. With Muhammad gone, I saw no reason why Smith wouldn't fill his shoes. So to answer your question I saw Smith as both lacking downside and having a high ceiling.Galloway - 2nd half ppg...it should be put in the ff handbook. This is one of the patterns/trends I follow closely. To answer the ceiling/downside question here, I think Galloway definitely had a severe downside and I think he will next year as well. But in the middle rounds who cares about downside? I liked his ceiling because he looked very good at the end of '04 and Gruden has proven he can create offense.

Good questions.

 

[wannabee]

thanks LHUCKS.

Please permit to inquire further.

I understand the ceiling/downside ration somewhat. But, I gather you utilize a small sample ppg to extrapolate future year's ceiling. Is this correct? I think this sounds good and is plausible. But, for example, in 2007 Walker will be coming off of an injury. I suspect you will use ADP to evaluate the risk associated with drafting Walker.

Question:

Do you use a formula or gut to evauate whether Walker is worth the risk? Sure, you may know that he should go in the 3rd-4th round, but where is the tipping point? In addition, how do you factor in all of the changes in Walker's situation since the variables present when Walker put up huge number will have changed to some degree? How do you gauge this?

If permitted:

For Muhsin Muhammed last year, how did you attribute the risk of going from the Panthers to the Bears? Do you reduce by a percentage or do you go by the fact that the Bears WR1 has an inherent ceiling all things being equal?

Thanks for the insight.

 

[jeff_eaglz]

thanks LHUCKS.

Please permit to inquire further.

I understand the ceiling/downside ration somewhat. But, I gather you utilize a small sample ppg to extrapolate future year's ceiling. Is this correct? I think this sounds good and is plausible. But, for example, in 2007 Walker will be coming off of an injury. I suspect you will use ADP to evaluate the risk associated with drafting Walker.

Question:

Do you use a formula or gut to evauate whether Walker is worth the risk? Sure, you may know that he should go in the 3rd-4th round, but where is the tipping point? In addition, how do you factor in all of the changes in Walker's situation since the variables present when Walker put up huge number will have changed to some degree? How do you gauge this?

If permitted:

For Muhsin Muhammed last year, how did you attribute the risk of going from the Panthers to the Bears? Do you reduce by a percentage or do you go by the fact that the Bears WR1 has an inherent ceiling all things being equal?

Thanks for the insight.

Why are you talking like you just climbed a mountain with sherpas?

 

[Bri]

whoa there cowboy...I think I counted 57 questions in there. Please narrow down.

oh well

 

[LHUCKS]

thanks LHUCKS.

Please permit to inquire further.

I understand the ceiling/downside ration somewhat.  But, I gather you utilize a small sample ppg to extrapolate future year's ceiling.  Is this correct?  I think this sounds good and is plausible.  But, for example, in 2007 Walker will be coming off of an injury.  I suspect you will use ADP to evaluate the risk associated with drafting Walker. 

I extrapolate in some situations and factor in all other possible influences. Walker in 2004 is a great example. Basically for Walker's '06 value, I'll be watching camp/preseason reports when deciding Walker's value. I think he'll be slightly overvalued this year though...there's some added risk with a possible new QB and a new coach. Everybody will be expecting Walker '04, while I believe Walker '04 is close to the ceiling...not the expected value. It's all about risk and playing the percentages. Around where Walker is getting drafted there are other very good WRs that aren't coming off major injury.

Do you use a formula or gut to evauate whether Walker is worth the risk?  Sure, you may know that he should go in the 3rd-4th round, but where is the tipping point?  In addition, how do you factor in all of the changes in Walker's situation since the variables present when Walker put up huge number will have changed to some degree?  How do you gauge this?

I used a pre-determined set of factors, some of which are more influential than others. I combine those factors to create one risk factor tha I used to reduce the projected ceiling. For example, if my risk factor is a total of 9.4 out of 10, it may lower a player's downside value nearly 70% I've been tweaking the formula over the past several years. I don't give it out.

For Muhsin Muhammed last year, how did you attribute the risk of going from the Panthers to the Bears?  Do you reduce by a percentage or do you go by the fact that the Bears WR1 has an inherent ceiling all things being equal? 

I heavily penalized Muhammad as I believe offensive scheme/philosophy/QB risk are very significant factors when evaluating WRs. I basically gave Muhammad a relatively low ceiling and a relatively low downside. So to answer your question I did both, I believe he had an inherent ceiling and I reduced his ceiling with a relatively large risk factor which gave me a low downside as well.These are really good questions.

 

[wannabee]

OK. Last question of the night:

do you catch yourself sometimes forcing a situation versus letting the numbers speak for themselves? I ask because most here, if honest with themselves, overrate (and underrate) certain players outside of a numerical analysis.

For instance, you think Walker will not be a good value. Do you sometimes catch yourself letting this override and be a causation of the risk factor?

I do not know if this makes sense. When I run numbers and take different factors into consideration, sometimes it becomes a self-fulfilling analysis. The numbers magically end up replicating my feelings. How do you keep this from happening?

In addition, is it safe to assume that you you see yourself as more of a stat analysis guy versus a talent evaluator guy (insert pac 10 joke here)?

 

[LHUCKS]

OK. Last question of the night:

do you catch yourself sometimes forcing a situation versus letting the numbers speak for themselves? I ask because most here, if honest with themselves, overrate (and underrate) certain players outside of a numerical analysis.

For instance, you think Walker will not be a good value. Do you sometimes catch yourself letting this override and be a causation of the risk factor?

I do not know if this makes sense. When I run numbers and take different factors into consideration, sometimes it becomes a self-fulfilling analysis. The numbers magically end up replicating my feelings. How do you keep this from happening?

It totally makes sense and one of the reason why I came up with my methodology was so I could take a more objective perspective on players. I feel by using risk assesments you actually take a lot of the gut out of your evaluations. I constantly evaluate why I miss or hit on players...I find that at times it's almost impossible to be completely objective.

In addition, is it safe to assume that you you see yourself as more of a stat analysis guy versus a talent evaluator guy (insert pac 10 joke here)?

I think I'm actually a bit of both. I watch nearly every NFL game, many of them twice...what I see plays a large part in my evaluations.

 

[Bri]

For instance, you think Walker will not be a good value. Do you sometimes catch yourself letting this override and be a causation of the risk factor?

just go with his ADP thenIf you already decided you don't want to draft a guy further evaluation will wind up being a waste of time.

 

[Bri]

I watch nearly every NFL game, many of them twice...what I see plays a large part in my evaluations.

12-16 VCRs? Hulett?

 

[LHUCKS]

  I watch nearly every NFL game, many of them twice...what I see plays a large part in my evaluations.

12-16 VCRs? Hulett?

NFL Network Shortcuts/DVR.

 

[radballs.]

  I watch nearly every NFL game, many of them twice...what I see plays a large part in my evaluations.

12-16 VCRs? Hulett?

NFL Network Shortcuts/DVR.

Best improvement the Ticket made last year.

 

[radballs.]

OK.  Last question of the night:

do you catch yourself sometimes forcing a situation versus letting the numbers speak for themselves?  I ask because most here, if honest with themselves, overrate (and underrate) certain players outside of a numerical analysis. 

For instance, you think Walker will not be a good value.  Do you sometimes catch yourself letting this override and be a causation of the risk factor?

I do not know if this makes sense.  When I run numbers and take different factors into consideration, sometimes it becomes a self-fulfilling analysis.  The numbers magically end up replicating my feelings.  How do you keep this from happening? 

It totally makes sense and one of the reason why I came up with my methodology was so I could take a more objective perspective on players. I feel by using risk assesments you actually take a lot of the gut out of your evaluations. I constantly evaluate why I miss or hit on players...I find that at times it's almost impossible to be completely objective.

In addition, is it safe to assume that you you see yourself as more of a stat analysis guy versus a talent evaluator guy (insert pac 10 joke here)?

I think I'm actually a bit of both. I watch nearly every NFL game, many of them twice...what I see plays a large part in my evaluations.

But, you still use your gut in the risk assessments which automatically reduces objectivity.

 

[LHUCKS]

OK.  Last question of the night:

do you catch yourself sometimes forcing a situation versus letting the numbers speak for themselves?  I ask because most here, if honest with themselves, overrate (and underrate) certain players outside of a numerical analysis. 

For instance, you think Walker will not be a good value.  Do you sometimes catch yourself letting this override and be a causation of the risk factor?

I do not know if this makes sense.  When I run numbers and take different factors into consideration, sometimes it becomes a self-fulfilling analysis.  The numbers magically end up replicating my feelings.  How do you keep this from happening? 

It totally makes sense and one of the reason why I came up with my methodology was so I could take a more objective perspective on players. I feel by using risk assesments you actually take a lot of the gut out of your evaluations. I constantly evaluate why I miss or hit on players...I find that at times it's almost impossible to be completely objective.

In addition, is it safe to assume that you you see yourself as more of a stat analysis guy versus a talent evaluator guy (insert pac 10 joke here)?

I think I'm actually a bit of both. I watch nearly every NFL game, many of them twice...what I see plays a large part in my evaluations.

But, you still use your gut in the risk assessments which automatically reduces objectivity.

I have a detailed methodology for quantifying risk, but as an example, one of my factors is "physical talent." Obviously that is a very objective factor. Steve Smith has more physical talent than Wayne Chrebet, but does he have more physical talent than Terrel Owens or the same level of physical talent...depends who you talk to.

 

[radballs.]

Please be more specific about everything you consider to be encompassed in "physical talent". Seems very subjective to me.

 

[jeff_eaglz]

I watch nearly every NFL game, many of them twice...what I see plays a large part in my evaluations.

12-16 VCRs? Hulett?

NFL Network Shortcuts/DVR.

Best improvement the Ticket made last year.

It's up there, but on game day - 8 games on one screen is hard to top...

 

[radballs.]

  I watch nearly every NFL game, many of them twice...what I see plays a large part in my evaluations.

12-16 VCRs? Hulett?

NFL Network Shortcuts/DVR.

Best improvement the Ticket made last year.

It's up there, but on game day - 8 games on one screen is hard to top...

You're right. Check that. Shortcuts was number two. I never did really use the Red Zone channel. With two TVs side by side, I liked just switching over to whatever game was looking good.

 

[LHUCKS]

Please be more specific about everything you consider to be encompassed in "physical talent". Seems very subjective to me.

I'm saying that it's subjective so I think we're on the same page. But that is only one of several factors.

 

[jeff_eaglz]

What do you use to evaluate a player switching teams and/or coaching staff?

 

[radballs.]

Please be more specific about everything you consider to be encompassed in "physical talent". Seems very subjective to me.

I'm saying that it's subjective so I think we're on the same page. But that is only one of several factors.

Gotcha.

 

[LHUCKS]

What do you use to evaluate a player switching teams and/or coaching staff?

I have a "coaching environment" factor that takes into account shifts in the coaching environment. Very important factor.

 

[Bri]

What do you use to evaluate a player switching teams and/or coaching staff?

I have a "coaching environment" factor that takes into account shifts in the coaching environment. Very important factor.

your terms are sorta cool + good thinking but sorta

 

[LHUCKS]

What do you use to evaluate a player switching teams and/or coaching staff?

I have a "coaching environment" factor that takes into account shifts in the coaching environment. Very important factor.

your terms are sorta cool + good thinking but sorta

yeah it's definitely on the side of the spectrum.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

here's ONE:

What put you on either Smith or Galloway? 

Follow up:

Was it the ceiling or the lack of downside?

Smith - I really liked last year because he was unstoppable the last two preseasons and I really felt like he was going to break out in 2004, we just had to wait one more year. With Muhammad gone, I saw no reason why Smith wouldn't fill his shoes. So to answer your question I saw Smith as both lacking downside and having a high ceiling.Galloway - 2nd half ppg...it should be put in the ff handbook. This is one of the patterns/trends I follow closely. To answer the ceiling/downside question here, I think Galloway definitely had a severe downside and I think he will next year as well. But in the middle rounds who cares about downside? I liked his ceiling because he looked very good at the end of '04 and Gruden has proven he can create offense.

Good questions.

Good point about the PPG at the second half of the season. Joey was on fire 2nd half of '04. I got laughed at for keeping Galloway in a keeper league. And keep on drafting him in redrafts and survivors.

Got my eye on a few 2nd halfers this season coming up, of course this is subject to change due to what the team does but:

Sammie Parker of KC had a strong 2nd half and is a prime example of who Im targeting later in drafts this year. Of course if they get TO, then that will change things

 

[Pass_The_Peas]

here's ONE:

What put you on either Smith or Galloway? 

Follow up:

Was it the ceiling or the lack of downside?

Smith - I really liked last year because he was unstoppable the last two preseasons and I really felt like he was going to break out in 2004, we just had to wait one more year. With Muhammad gone, I saw no reason why Smith wouldn't fill his shoes. So to answer your question I saw Smith as both lacking downside and having a high ceiling.Galloway - 2nd half ppg...it should be put in the ff handbook. This is one of the patterns/trends I follow closely. To answer the ceiling/downside question here, I think Galloway definitely had a severe downside and I think he will next year as well. But in the middle rounds who cares about downside? I liked his ceiling because he looked very good at the end of '04 and Gruden has proven he can create offense.

Good questions.

You must have really loved Kevin Jones, then. He had a h*ll of a second half of 2004, didn't he?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

here's ONE:

What put you on either Smith or Galloway? 

Follow up:

Was it the ceiling or the lack of downside?

Smith - I really liked last year because he was unstoppable the last two preseasons and I really felt like he was going to break out in 2004, we just had to wait one more year. With Muhammad gone, I saw no reason why Smith wouldn't fill his shoes. So to answer your question I saw Smith as both lacking downside and having a high ceiling.Galloway - 2nd half ppg...it should be put in the ff handbook. This is one of the patterns/trends I follow closely. To answer the ceiling/downside question here, I think Galloway definitely had a severe downside and I think he will next year as well. But in the middle rounds who cares about downside? I liked his ceiling because he looked very good at the end of '04 and Gruden has proven he can create offense.

Good questions.

You must have really loved Kevin Jones, then. He had a h*ll of a second half of 2004, didn't he?

I liked him, I got burned by him in one league. But the rest of my draft was solid enough to make up for a pick that busts. I think he is an excellent value play this year.

It's not an exact science this hobby of ours. Including the hot 2nd half theory.

 

[wannabee]

here's ONE:

What put you on either Smith or Galloway? 

Follow up:

Was it the ceiling or the lack of downside?

Smith - I really liked last year because he was unstoppable the last two preseasons and I really felt like he was going to break out in 2004, we just had to wait one more year. With Muhammad gone, I saw no reason why Smith wouldn't fill his shoes. So to answer your question I saw Smith as both lacking downside and having a high ceiling.Galloway - 2nd half ppg...it should be put in the ff handbook. This is one of the patterns/trends I follow closely. To answer the ceiling/downside question here, I think Galloway definitely had a severe downside and I think he will next year as well. But in the middle rounds who cares about downside? I liked his ceiling because he looked very good at the end of '04 and Gruden has proven he can create offense.

Good questions.

Good point about the PPG at the second half of the season. Joey was on fire 2nd half of '04. I got laughed at for keeping Galloway in a keeper league. And keep on drafting him in redrafts and survivors.

Got my eye on a few 2nd halfers this season coming up, of course this is subject to change due to what the team does but:

Sammie Parker of KC had a strong 2nd half and is a prime example of who Im targeting later in drafts this year. Of course if they get TO, then that will change things

This is the point I was trying to draw out. What were the subjective differences between Galloway and Drew Bennett? Bennett had a great finish to '04. Objective data might even have Bennett higher. But, in hindsight, why would you put Galloway higher? He had competition. He had QB uncertainty. He had a rookie RB that the coaches were dedicated to getting touches. In Tenn, it was just Bennett and the rookies, along with the oft-injured cat. I think these reflective questions are what we have to ask to be successful.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

here's ONE:

What put you on either Smith or Galloway? 

Follow up:

Was it the ceiling or the lack of downside?

Smith - I really liked last year because he was unstoppable the last two preseasons and I really felt like he was going to break out in 2004, we just had to wait one more year. With Muhammad gone, I saw no reason why Smith wouldn't fill his shoes. So to answer your question I saw Smith as both lacking downside and having a high ceiling.Galloway - 2nd half ppg...it should be put in the ff handbook. This is one of the patterns/trends I follow closely. To answer the ceiling/downside question here, I think Galloway definitely had a severe downside and I think he will next year as well. But in the middle rounds who cares about downside? I liked his ceiling because he looked very good at the end of '04 and Gruden has proven he can create offense.

Good questions.

Good point about the PPG at the second half of the season. Joey was on fire 2nd half of '04. I got laughed at for keeping Galloway in a keeper league. And keep on drafting him in redrafts and survivors.

Got my eye on a few 2nd halfers this season coming up, of course this is subject to change due to what the team does but:

Sammie Parker of KC had a strong 2nd half and is a prime example of who Im targeting later in drafts this year. Of course if they get TO, then that will change things

This is the point I was trying to draw out. What were the subjective differences between Galloway and Drew Bennett? Bennett had a great finish to '04. Objective data might even have Bennett higher. But, in hindsight, why would you put Galloway higher? He had competition. He had QB uncertainty. He had a rookie RB that the coaches were dedicated to getting touches. In Tenn, it was just Bennett and the rookies, along with the oft-injured cat. I think these reflective questions are what we have to ask to be successful.

most people and myself included had drew bennett higher on their draft boards.

 

[wannabee]

here's ONE:

What put you on either Smith or Galloway? 

Follow up:

Was it the ceiling or the lack of downside?

Smith - I really liked last year because he was unstoppable the last two preseasons and I really felt like he was going to break out in 2004, we just had to wait one more year. With Muhammad gone, I saw no reason why Smith wouldn't fill his shoes. So to answer your question I saw Smith as both lacking downside and having a high ceiling.Galloway - 2nd half ppg...it should be put in the ff handbook. This is one of the patterns/trends I follow closely. To answer the ceiling/downside question here, I think Galloway definitely had a severe downside and I think he will next year as well. But in the middle rounds who cares about downside? I liked his ceiling because he looked very good at the end of '04 and Gruden has proven he can create offense.

Good questions.

Good point about the PPG at the second half of the season. Joey was on fire 2nd half of '04. I got laughed at for keeping Galloway in a keeper league. And keep on drafting him in redrafts and survivors.

Got my eye on a few 2nd halfers this season coming up, of course this is subject to change due to what the team does but:

Sammie Parker of KC had a strong 2nd half and is a prime example of who Im targeting later in drafts this year. Of course if they get TO, then that will change things

This is the point I was trying to draw out. What were the subjective differences between Galloway and Drew Bennett? Bennett had a great finish to '04. Objective data might even have Bennett higher. But, in hindsight, why would you put Galloway higher? He had competition. He had QB uncertainty. He had a rookie RB that the coaches were dedicated to getting touches. In Tenn, it was just Bennett and the rookies, along with the oft-injured cat. I think these reflective questions are what we have to ask to be successful.

most people and myself included had drew bennett higher on their draft boards.

even in relation to ADP? I think LHUCKS is trying to say that he targets guys with a certain value ration in terms of their ADP. Assuming they had the same ratio (let's say a certain score divided by ADP), what makes one more of a good pick than the other?I understand and agree with you on Bennett. But, we will continually go back to the well of ppg for the last few games as a predictor of future success. What other variables can we add to separate out the wheat from the chaff? I guess I am pointing in the direction of identifying variables and validating their success.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Can't you make millions by publishing your strategies?

:Z:

 

[psychobillies]

These boards are so much better during the off season.

 

[Kleck.]

To be honest, I think most everyone does the same thing as you already, LHUCKS. I know that even though I set up projections as parameters for me to go from. While ranking the guys or looking over my draft board I still assess a risk to them and probability of what they have of reaching my projections. I think every one does this subconsciously.

Agreed. I've been using a very similar strategy to what LHUCKS described for the past five years and I will say it has been much more benficial to me.

 

[LHUCKS]

Can't you make millions by publishing your strategies?

:Z:

 

[LHUCKS]

This is the point I was trying to draw out.  What were the subjective differences between Galloway and Drew Bennett?  Bennett had a great finish to '04.  Objective data might even have Bennett higher.  But, in hindsight, why would you put Galloway higher?  He had competition.  He had QB uncertainty.  He had a rookie RB that the coaches were dedicated to getting touches.  In Tenn, it was just Bennett and the rookies, along with the oft-injured cat. 

I think these reflective questions are what we have to ask to be successful.

Subjective Differences:Reliability of Offensive Scheme

Team Pass attempts/Competition for balls

Proven Consistency at QB

Ability to stay healthy

Talent

Schedule Strength

But the biggest difference was that Galloway's ADP was significantly lower...making him the value play. Bennett had tons of risk and was on ZERO of my teams last year. Galloway had risk, but tha risk was offset by his ADP.

 

[LHUCKS]

You must have really loved Kevin Jones, then. He had a h*ll of a second half of 2004, didn't he?

I liked him about as much as everybody else. PPG is more useful for finding sleepers than it is for deciding who to pick in the first couple of rounds....the first couple of rounds are all about risk management IMHO.

 

[wannabee]

gotcha. i was not trying to answer for you, rather answering to Bennett being higher on draft boards than Galloway.

I appreciate the reflective discussion as we all try to learn from our mistakes.

In another direction, how do you feel about rookies and redraft LHUCKS? Only if they are pac 10 guys?

 

[thejag]

You must have really loved Kevin Jones, then.  He had a h*ll of a second half of 2004, didn't he?

I liked him about as much as everybody else. PPG is more useful for finding sleepers than it is for deciding who to pick in the first couple of rounds....the first couple of rounds are all about risk management IMHO.

Nice to have a solid FF thread going here. I'm curious LHUCKS: who were some of your 'high ceiling' guys who didn't pan out last season?