Pigeonholed by your draft... a discussion topic (1 Viewer)

[Evilgrin 72]

OK, I just did a mock draft picking from the #8 hole in a 12-teamer (where I will be drafting from in my big $$ league this year) and an interesting thing happened. Two questions ensue...

The first seven picks were LJ, Alexander, LT, Portis, Barber, Steven Jackson, and Edgerrin James. That left me staring at Rudi and Lamont Jordan as my top 2 RB possibilities at #8. As my league is not PPR and only rewards receiving yards for RBs at 1 pt/25 yards, as opposed to 1 pt/ 20 yards for rushing, it's relatively TD-heavy. For that reason I chose Rudi at #8, as his consistent TD production year to year was highly appealing. Now, this isn't to argue the merits of that pick, it's what ensued that was interesting.

The round finished with Jordan, Manning, Dom Davis, and Ronnie Brown. The next round began with Cadillac, Steve Smith, McGahee, and Westbrook. So, here I am at 2.5 looking at Julius Jones, Kevin Jones, FWP, and Jamal Lewis as my RB possibilities. Unexciting. No QB is worth taking here, IMO, so I shift my focus to the wideouts. Chad Johnson seems to be a pretty good choice here, but he and Rudi share the Bengals, obviously. I don't know that I am comfortable taking Owens here with his track record.

Question 1 : Would you take T.O. here, or Fitzgerald or Holt, as opposed to Chad, simply because of the first round pick of Rudi?

Since it was just a mock, I didn't delve into it too much, I just took Johnson.

Now, the next 14 players off before my next pick are : Julius Jones, Fitzgerald, Owens, Kevin Jones, Holt, Moss, Harrison, FWP, Boldin, Jamal Lewis, Droughns, Reggie Bush, Wayne, and Chester Taylor. Now, I am looking at a Chambers or Ward at WR, and Warrick Dunn or Tatum Bell as my next highest rated RB. It's not a TE-required league, so Gates doesn't present outstanding value here. And Carson Palmer sits there, tantalizing me with his possible 4,000 yard, 30+ TD season. Our league is a 6 pt/TD league for QBs, which doesn't make QBs more valuable in relation to one another, but I believe it makes them more valuable vs. other positions (though some argue this.) Another Bengal. ADP says he's an easy choice, common sense says otherwise. This is a chance to potentially have the #1 QB, #1 WR, and a top 5-6 RB (in our format) in the first three rounds. However, they all play for the same freaking team !

Question 2 : Would you take a THIRD player from the same NFL team in the first three rounds?

On one hand, you figure that either Palmer/Johnson or Rudi will have a decent week each week, but all three are unlikely to blow up simultaneously. Do you like or hate this? Essentially, you're sacrificing potential upside for more consistent weekly scoring. Plus, the bye week comes into it. Do you prefer loading up your top talent on a single bye week, thus all but tanking that game, in order to have all your weapons in other weeks? I did this last year with my top 2 RBs and top 2 WRs on the bye all in the same week and somehow won that game, but that was obviously a fluke. Or would you rather spread your byes around?

If you thought the draft would play out this way, would you bypass Rudi in round 1 in favor of Jordan so as to free yourself up to select CJ/Palmer in the later rounds?

This will seem like a no-brainer to some, but in the event that some of you are faced with this exact scenario, I'd like to get some thoughts.

 

[diesel7982]

I noticed this after a draft i did a few weeks ago. I think that I can draft the same team from rounds 2 and on from any draft slot, to get the value players that I want.

Therefore, how well I can build my team depends solely on the 1st round draft slot I get this year.

Therefore, picking at #9 did not suit me well.

 

[einstein2u]

i would have taken TO....and IMO dillion is your man here.

and No i would not take 3 guys from the same team....

 

[Evilgrin 72]

i would have taken TO....and IMO dillion is your man here.

and No i would not take 3 guys from the same team....

T.O. scares me at 2.5 because of his potential to talk his way right off the field. He was my next choice though, it just frightens me to spend a top-20 pick on him. Dillon, I am afraid, has succumbed to the ravages of age and heavy workload, and a fresh Lawrence Maroney may relieve him of some carries.

 

[einstein2u]

i would have taken TO....and IMO dillion is your man here.

and No i would not take 3 guys from the same team....

T.O. scares me at 2.5 because of his potential to talk his way right off the field. He was my next choice though, it just frightens me to spend a top-20 pick on him. Dillon, I am afraid, has succumbed to the ravages of age and heavy workload, and a fresh Lawrence Maroney may relieve him of some carries.

i agree. dillion scares me too, but i still think he has some trend on those tires....but a surgically repair palmer scares me more.

 

[Warpig]

IF you want the value, then you take the best players available to you at your pick...which in your case were all Bengals...but studs none the less. You would have one nasty bye week then laugh the rest of the way through. If it's any consolation for ya, back in 1997 or 1998 I had John Elway, Rod Smith, and Ed McCaffrey. Worked out pretty well with me. It was the year both those WR's had over 1000 yards and decent TD's.

 

[KCC]

1) Assuming it's a TE-required league, I would seriously consider taking Gates . Gates is the consensus #1 at his position (unlike any other player), even with rivers, he should be a great pick based on the projected point difference between him and the other TEs, and you still have an outside chance of snagging one of the WRs you mentioned in the next round.

2) I wouldn't hesitate to draft players from the same high powered offense.

 

[Chaka]

OK, I just did a mock draft picking from the #8 hole in a 12-teamer (where I will be drafting from in my big $$ league this year) and an interesting thing happened. Two questions ensue...

The first seven picks were LJ, Alexander, LT, Portis, Barber, Steven Jackson, and Edgerrin James. That left me staring at Rudi and Lamont Jordan as my top 2 RB possibilities at #8. As my league is not PPR and only rewards receiving yards for RBs at 1 pt/25 yards, as opposed to 1 pt/ 20 yards for rushing, it's relatively TD-heavy. For that reason I chose Rudi at #8, as his consistent TD production year to year was highly appealing. Now, this isn't to argue the merits of that pick, it's what ensued that was interesting.

The round finished with Jordan, Manning, Dom Davis, and Ronnie Brown. The next round began with Cadillac, Steve Smith, McGahee, and Westbrook. So, here I am at 2.5 looking at Julius Jones, Kevin Jones, FWP, and Jamal Lewis as my RB possibilities. Unexciting. No QB is worth taking here, IMO, so I shift my focus to the wideouts. Chad Johnson seems to be a pretty good choice here, but he and Rudi share the Bengals, obviously. I don't know that I am comfortable taking Owens here with his track record.

Question 1 : Would you take T.O. here, or Fitzgerald or Holt, as opposed to Chad, simply because of the first round pick of Rudi?

Since it was just a mock, I didn't delve into it too much, I just took Johnson.

Now, the next 14 players off before my next pick are : Julius Jones, Fitzgerald, Owens, Kevin Jones, Holt, Moss, Harrison, FWP, Boldin, Jamal Lewis, Droughns, Reggie Bush, Wayne, and Chester Taylor. Now, I am looking at a Chambers or Ward at WR, and Warrick Dunn or Tatum Bell as my next highest rated RB. And Carson Palmer sits there, tantalizing me with his possible 4,000 yard, 30+ TD season. Our league is a 6 pt/TD league for QBs, which doesn't make QBs more valuable in relation to one another, but I believe it makes them more valuable vs. other positions (though some argue this.) Another Bengal. ADP says he's an easy choice, common sense says otherwise. This is a chance to potentially have the #1 QB, #1 WR, and a top 5-6 RB (in our format) in the first three rounds. However, they all play for the same freaking team !

Question 2 : Would you take a THIRD player from the same NFL team in the first three rounds?

On one hand, you figure that either Palmer/Johnson or Rudi will have a decent week each week, but all three are unlikely to blow up simultaneously. Do you like or hate this? Essentially, you're sacrificing potential upside for more consistent weekly scoring. Plus, the bye week comes into it. Do you prefer loading up your top talent on a single bye week, thus all but tanking that game, in order to have all your weapons in other weeks? I did this last year with my top 2 RBs and top 2 WRs on the bye all in the same week and somehow won that game, but that was obviously a fluke. Or would you rather spread your byes around?

If you thought the draft would play out this way, would you bypass Rudi in round 1 in favor of Jordan so as to free yourself up to select CJ/Palmer in the later rounds?

This will seem like a no-brainer to some, but in the event that some of you are faced with this exact scenario, I'd like to get some thoughts.

No arguments as this is an undeniable fact.Essentially the question is are you willing to draft three (or more) players from any given team? I have never been in this situation, perhaps by design, but I have to think that I would have some reservations about this. However I cannot provide one shred of evidence as to why.

Wasn't there an article last year cross referencing multiple players on a single team vs. their weekly scoring?

 

[rzrback77]

I don't know that I would be afraid of having three picks in the first round from one team, but in your case, could a Steeler fan live with himself after drafting three consecutive Bengals?

 

[jcuadrado]

I wouldn't have even considered Carson Palmer....a QB coming back from major injury scares me...I'd wait it out for a QB in rounds 5-8 depending on who's there...instead of Palmer I would have gone for the best available RB or WR...and if Gates was there I'd consider it...even though I don't like Gates as much this season with Rivers tossing the ball..

 

[Gold Plated Nails]

I'd be nervous with Palmer (ATM). Good thing there is all preseason before most of my money league drafts to see how/if he plays. That said, even if he looks pretty good, I would be a tad nervous taking 3 players from the same team in my top 4 picks. That'a alot of eggs in 1 basket. Right now the QB by committee looks to be the direction I would go with that team you have. Kitna/Warner/Rivers in rds 8/9/10.

 

[CalBear]

I wouldn't take Palmer so early, coming off a December ACL/MCL injury, but let me address the philosophical question.

QB/WR tandems tend to correlate positively, QB/RB tandems tend to correlate negatively, and RB/WR tandems don't have much correlation. That is, when you have a QB and a WR from the same team, they tend to score well at the same time (makes sense), but when you have a QB and a RB, they tend to score well at different times. So a QB/WR will tend to bunch up your scoring, and a QB/RB will tend to even it out. If you think you have one of the better teams in the league, you're probably better off with the QB/RB for consistency.

I don't think anyone's done a study on trios, but if I recall correctly, the QB/WR effect is slightly stronger than the QB/RB effect, so a QB/WR/RB trio will probably tend to bunch your scoring a little bit, but not that much. There may be a week where the Bengals get shut down, but it's about as likely that there will be a week where Carson Palmer, Lamont Jordan, and TO (or whatever trio you have) get shut down separately.

Obviously, you're almost writing off the Bengals' bye week, but that means you'll be in pretty good shape for the rest of the bye weeks.

So, I wouldn't avoid a player just because I already have players from that team. (For that matter, I don't avoid a player just because I already have a player with the same bye week). If I rate someone as an obvious choice at that point in the draft, I make the selection.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

1) Assuming it's a TE-required league, I would seriously consider taking Gates . Gates is the consensus #1 at his position (unlike any other player), even with rivers, he should be a great pick based on the projected point difference between him and the other TEs, and you still have an outside chance of snagging one of the WRs you mentioned in the next round.

2) I wouldn't hesitate to draft players from the same high powered offense.

Not a TE-required league, I meant to mention that, but failed to. My bad.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Holt seems like a good pick there. So does FWP.

If your goal is to win your league, taking three studs from one team might help you do that slightly more than three studs from different teams. You're going to increase your risk and your variance, but the odds that you hit for a lot of points is probably higher than if you took three studs on different teams. The odds are also higher that you finish in last.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

OK, I just did a mock draft picking from the #8 hole in a 12-teamer (where I will be drafting from in my big $$ league this year) and an interesting thing happened.  Two questions ensue...

The first seven picks were LJ, Alexander, LT, Portis, Barber, Steven Jackson, and Edgerrin James.  That left me staring at Rudi and Lamont Jordan as my top 2 RB possibilities at #8.  As my league is not PPR and only rewards receiving yards for RBs at 1 pt/25 yards, as opposed to 1 pt/ 20 yards for rushing, it's relatively TD-heavy.  For that reason I chose Rudi at #8, as his consistent TD production year to year was highly appealing.  Now, this isn't to argue the merits of that pick, it's what ensued that was interesting.

The round finished with Jordan, Manning, Dom Davis, and Ronnie Brown.  The next round began with Cadillac, Steve Smith, McGahee, and Westbrook.  So, here I am at 2.5 looking at Julius Jones, Kevin Jones, FWP, and Jamal Lewis as my RB possibilities.  Unexciting.  No QB is worth taking here, IMO, so I shift my focus to the wideouts.  Chad Johnson seems to be a pretty good choice here, but he and Rudi share the Bengals, obviously.  I don't know that I am comfortable taking Owens here with his track record. 

Question 1 : Would you take T.O. here, or Fitzgerald or Holt, as opposed to Chad, simply because of the first round pick of Rudi?

Since it was just a mock, I didn't delve into it too much, I just took Johnson.

Now, the next 14 players off before my next pick are : Julius Jones, Fitzgerald, Owens, Kevin Jones, Holt, Moss, Harrison, FWP, Boldin, Jamal Lewis, Droughns, Reggie Bush, Wayne, and Chester Taylor.  Now, I am looking at a Chambers or Ward at WR, and Warrick Dunn or Tatum Bell as my next highest rated RB.  And Carson Palmer sits there, tantalizing me with his possible 4,000 yard, 30+ TD season.  Our league is a 6 pt/TD league for QBs, which doesn't make QBs more valuable in relation to one another, but I believe it makes them more valuable vs. other positions (though some argue this.)  Another Bengal.  ADP says he's an easy choice, common sense says otherwise.  This is a chance to potentially have the #1 QB, #1 WR, and a top 5-6 RB (in our format) in the first three rounds.  However, they all play for the same freaking team !

Question 2 : Would you take a THIRD player from the same NFL team in the first three rounds? 

On one hand, you figure that either Palmer/Johnson or Rudi will have a decent week each week, but all three are unlikely to blow up simultaneously.  Do you like or hate this?  Essentially, you're sacrificing potential upside for more consistent weekly scoring.  Plus, the bye week comes into it.  Do you prefer loading up your top talent on a single bye week, thus all but tanking that game, in order to have all your weapons in other weeks?  I did this last year with my top 2 RBs and top 2 WRs on the bye all in the same week and somehow won that game, but that was obviously a fluke.  Or would you rather spread your byes around?

If you thought the draft would play out this way, would you bypass Rudi in round 1 in favor of Jordan so as to free yourself up to select CJ/Palmer in the later rounds?

This will seem like a no-brainer to some, but in the event that some of you are faced with this exact scenario, I'd like to get some thoughts.

No arguments as this is an undeniable fact.Essentially the question is are you willing to draft three (or more) players from any given team? I have never been in this situation, perhaps by design, but I have to think that I would have some reservations about this. However I cannot provide one shred of evidence as to why.

Wasn't there an article last year cross referencing multiple players on a single team vs. their weekly scoring?

Reagrding the QBs, I have seen some who claim that the difference in terms of VBD is virtually negligible. I disagree. Yes, your grasp of the overall question is accurate - I have never been in this position either, hence this thread. I have a feeling that I, and a number of others drafting in the bottom half of the 1st round, will be encountering this very scenario. If there is such an article, does anyone have a link? I'd love to read it.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I don't know that I would be afraid of having three picks in the first round from one team, but in your case, could a Steeler fan live with himself after drafting three consecutive Bengals?

Don't think it didn't cross my mind. Having to root for the Bengals offense each and every week, even when doing so will very likely be diametrically opposed to my rooting interests as an NFL fan. :X

 

[Marc Levin]

depends on how comfortable you are replacing your first three picks in one week - and how comfortable you are that the other players will be just as good if the QB is knocked out in week 2.

There are a lot of benefits to having top-3 from the same team - and a lot of negatives. The clearest one being that (usually) you don't have both the RB and WR going off in the same week.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I'd be nervous with Palmer (ATM). Good thing there is all preseason before most of my money league drafts to see how/if he plays. That said, even if he looks pretty good, I would be a tad nervous taking 3 players from the same team in my top 4 picks. That'a alot of eggs in 1 basket. Right now the QB by committee looks to be the direction I would go with that team you have. Kitna/Warner/Rivers in rds 8/9/10.

(At the moment).

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I wouldn't take Palmer so early, coming off a December ACL/MCL injury, but let me address the philosophical question.

QB/WR tandems tend to correlate positively, QB/RB tandems tend to correlate negatively, and RB/WR tandems don't have much correlation. That is, when you have a QB and a WR from the same team, they tend to score well at the same time (makes sense), but when you have a QB and a RB, they tend to score well at different times. So a QB/WR will tend to bunch up your scoring, and a QB/RB will tend to even it out. If you think you have one of the better teams in the league, you're probably better off with the QB/RB for consistency.

I don't think anyone's done a study on trios, but if I recall correctly, the QB/WR effect is slightly stronger than the QB/RB effect, so a QB/WR/RB trio will probably tend to bunch your scoring a little bit, but not that much. There may be a week where the Bengals get shut down, but it's about as likely that there will be a week where Carson Palmer, Lamont Jordan, and TO (or whatever trio you have) get shut down separately.

Obviously, you're almost writing off the Bengals' bye week, but that means you'll be in pretty good shape for the rest of the bye weeks.

So, I wouldn't avoid a player just because I already have players from that team. (For that matter, I don't avoid a player just because I already have a player with the same bye week). If I rate someone as an obvious choice at that point in the draft, I make the selection.

Thanks for the insight - this is exactly what I was hoping for here, on either side of the debate.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I'd be nervous with Palmer (ATM). Good thing there is all preseason before most of my money league drafts to see how/if he plays. That said, even if he looks pretty good, I would be a tad nervous taking 3 players from the same team in my top 4 picks. That'a alot of eggs in 1 basket. Right now the QB by committee looks to be the direction I would go with that team you have. Kitna/Warner/Rivers in rds 8/9/10.

(At the moment).

Thanks, Chase.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Holt seems like a good pick there. So does FWP.

If your goal is to win your league, taking three studs from one team might help you do that slightly more than three studs from different teams. You're going to increase your risk and your variance, but the odds that you hit for a lot of points is probably higher than if you took three studs on different teams. The odds are also higher that you finish in last.

Will Holt be as valuable without Bulger? Parker's likely lack of TDs makes him a risky pick at #18 overall, no?My goal is definitely to win the league. I'm one of 2 or 3 people that could be considered "sharks" in this league (that is, people that discuss the hobby year-round and participate in multiple leagues, etc..) out of 12 and I have cashed exactly one 3rd place check in 9 years. The last 4 years, I have been either #1 or #2 in overall points at the end of the regular season and some freak injury or stroke of bad luck has denied me a title. I need to win the frigging thing this year.

 

[houndirish]

If you had, circa 1999, Warner, Faulk and Holt/Bruce, you likely destroy your competition, so to answer your question, yes, you can be successful. However those types of offenses are pretty rare and personally I don't think this year's Bengals options are in the same neighborhood.

Out of curiousity, why not take Peyton at the 8 spot?

 

[Evilgrin 72]

depends on how comfortable you are replacing your first three picks in one week - and how comfortable you are that the other players will be just as good if the QB is knocked out in week 2.

There are a lot of benefits to having top-3 from the same team - and a lot of negatives. The clearest one being that (usually) you don't have both the RB and WR going off in the same week.

This is definitely something I considered as well. If one of those players going down cripples the entire Bengals offense, my team is likewise at tremendous risk of being crippled by an injury to one of those guys. I am just not sure if this is the case.

 

[Marc Levin]

I wouldn't take Palmer so early, coming off a December ACL/MCL injury, but let me address the philosophical question.

QB/WR tandems tend to correlate positively, QB/RB tandems tend to correlate negatively, and RB/WR tandems don't have much correlation.  That is, when you have a QB and a WR from the same team, they tend to score well at the same time (makes sense), but when you have a QB and a RB, they tend to score well at different times.  So a QB/WR will tend to bunch up your scoring, and a QB/RB will tend to even it out.  If you think you have one of the better teams in the league, you're probably better off with the QB/RB for consistency. 

I don't think anyone's done a study on trios, but if I recall correctly, the QB/WR effect is slightly stronger than the QB/RB effect, so a QB/WR/RB trio will probably tend to bunch your scoring a little bit, but not that much.  There may be a week where the Bengals get shut down, but it's about as likely that there will be a week where Carson Palmer, Lamont Jordan, and TO (or whatever trio you have) get shut down separately.

Obviously, you're almost writing off the Bengals' bye week, but that means you'll be in pretty good shape for the rest of the bye weeks.

So, I wouldn't avoid a player just because I already have players from that team.  (For that matter, I don't avoid a player just because I already have a player with the same bye week).  If I rate someone as an obvious choice at that point in the draft, I make the selection.

- no::greatposting:

I also agree with those who say that "all the value" wasn't necessarily in those players that were selected.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

If you had, circa 1999, Warner, Faulk and Holt/Bruce, you likely destroy your competition, so to answer your question, yes, you can be successful. However those types of offenses are pretty rare and personally I don't think this year's Bengals options are in the same neighborhood.

Out of curiousity, why not take Peyton at the 8 spot?

This is something I am considering as well. Frankly, I was (am) between Rudi and Manning at that pick. I like having that 1,300 yard / 12 TD bedrock in the backfield - therre aren't too many of those. My thinking was that a healthy Palmer can put up equivalent stats to Manning with a draft position of 3.8, while any running back I could grab at 3.8 has very little chance of producing like Rudi. I am still toying with this, though... doing something like :Manning

C. Johnson

T. Bell

S. Moss

and then drafting 3 backs in the next 4 picks.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I wouldn't take Palmer so early, coming off a December ACL/MCL injury, but let me address the philosophical question.

QB/WR tandems tend to correlate positively, QB/RB tandems tend to correlate negatively, and RB/WR tandems don't have much correlation.  That is, when you have a QB and a WR from the same team, they tend to score well at the same time (makes sense), but when you have a QB and a RB, they tend to score well at different times.  So a QB/WR will tend to bunch up your scoring, and a QB/RB will tend to even it out.  If you think you have one of the better teams in the league, you're probably better off with the QB/RB for consistency. 

I don't think anyone's done a study on trios, but if I recall correctly, the QB/WR effect is slightly stronger than the QB/RB effect, so a QB/WR/RB trio will probably tend to bunch your scoring a little bit, but not that much.  There may be a week where the Bengals get shut down, but it's about as likely that there will be a week where Carson Palmer, Lamont Jordan, and TO (or whatever trio you have) get shut down separately.

Obviously, you're almost writing off the Bengals' bye week, but that means you'll be in pretty good shape for the rest of the bye weeks.

So, I wouldn't avoid a player just because I already have players from that team.  (For that matter, I don't avoid a player just because I already have a player with the same bye week).  If I rate someone as an obvious choice at that point in the draft, I make the selection.

- no::greatposting:

I also agree with those who say that "all the value" wasn't necessarily in those players that were selected.

This is obviously subject to opinion, I was merely stating that these were the players ranked highest in terms of VBD according to my projections/scoring system (often by a longshot) - and while I know VBD isn't necessarily gospel in terms of who to choose at any point, the variety of positions and the players available from round 4 on made this a prudent draft strategy.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Holt seems like a good pick there. So does FWP.

If your goal is to win your league, taking three studs from one team might help you do that slightly more than three studs from different teams. You're going to increase your risk and your variance, but the odds that you hit for a lot of points is probably higher than if you took three studs on different teams. The odds are also higher that you finish in last.

Will Holt be as valuable without Martz? Parker's likely lack of TDs makes him a risky pick at #18 overall, no?My goal is definitely to win the league. I'm one of 2 or 3 people that could be considered "sharks" in this league (that is, people that discuss the hobby year-round and participate in multiple leagues, etc..) out of 12 and I have cashed exactly one 3rd place check in 9 years. The last 4 years, I have been either #1 or #2 in overall points at the end of the regular season and some freak injury or stroke of bad luck has denied me a title. I need to win the frigging thing this year.

I think so.http://footballguys.com/06spotlight-HoltTo00.php

 

[Tyranny]

I agree with the one bad week idea(along with playing the Steelers twice). But you also have to look at the Bengals division and think that with the Steelers and possibly Ravens(though I don't buy all the hype of McNair) being playoff teams the Bengals shouldn't be resting any players late in the season. So I'd take the three players and hope that my schedule helps during the bye week.

 

[ookook]

Assuming I agreed with your player evaluations, I would take 3 from same team without hesitation and pile up more with same bye week if I could.

With that said, I would wait on QB and take Dunn or D-Jax at 3.09

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Holt seems like a good pick there. So does FWP.

If your goal is to win your league, taking three studs from one team might help you do that slightly more than three studs from different teams. You're going to increase your risk and your variance, but the odds that you hit for a lot of points is probably higher than if you took three studs on different teams. The odds are also higher that you finish in last.

Will Holt be as valuable without Martz? Parker's likely lack of TDs makes him a risky pick at #18 overall, no?My goal is definitely to win the league. I'm one of 2 or 3 people that could be considered "sharks" in this league (that is, people that discuss the hobby year-round and participate in multiple leagues, etc..) out of 12 and I have cashed exactly one 3rd place check in 9 years. The last 4 years, I have been either #1 or #2 in overall points at the end of the regular season and some freak injury or stroke of bad luck has denied me a title. I need to win the frigging thing this year.

I think so.http://footballguys.com/06spotlight-HoltTo00.php

Wow. Those are some huge numbers.

 

[facook]

I agree with Chase Stuart. You're either going to walk away with the thing or flame out early.

A few years back one of the WORST owners in our league began the draft by taking Rich Gannon, and followed with Tim Brown, Jerry Rice, Charlie Garner, and the Raiders D in some order. The rest of his team was filled in with nobodys. After EVERY pick the rest of us laughed at him, and laughed increasingly loud as he picked more and more Raiders. Of course, that's the year they dominated the league on offense and that owner easily won total points and the Super Bowl.

The same could have happened a while ago with the Vikings, a couple years back with getting all Colts or Chargers, or last year taking the Bengals. It CAN work, but you have to pick the perfect team in the perfect year.

This year, that team would be the Rams. Maybe.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I guess the crux of it is to only draft the players on value, regardless of team, if you're relatively confident that the team you're drafting all the players from is going to have a terrific year offensively.

 

[kbleck]

I am also drafting at the #8 spot coming up in a draft in August.

At 1.08 I Definately have to look at a RB. My order goes as follows

Ronnie Brown

Rudi Johnson

Caddy

2.05 Going with a top receiver like Holt or #85. I definately dont like having players from the same team. I have been burnt before by bad weeks.

So I take #85 if I take Ronnie Brown, and Holt if i get Rudi Johnson

3.08 - I think you have to take the 2nd back here. Based on Antsports you are looking at: Droughns, C.Taylor, J.Lewis, W.Dunn

4.05 - Here is where you have to look at value. Assuming that Manning, Palmer are off the table I would say that you can probably wait until round 5 for the QB. Depends on how the draft goes. Sometimes people will make a run on QB's here in which case you could jump on board as well or pick up:

J. Walker, D. Mason, Crumpler, maybe take a risk at McAllister.

5.08 - QB whoever is available. Eli, Warner, McNabb, Bulger. Still very good value here.

The next round after this are based on value. I usually like to carry an extra RB that has starter potential. (Rhodes, Bush, D. Williams, Moroney, etc) But if a #1 WR is on the board you should look there as well.

my $.02

 

[PennState-JD]

Philosophically, I don't have an issue with it. You have to go with the rankings and I tend to prefer guys from high powered offenses. It just seems more rare that the entire team will get shut down (although the early returns on the 2005 Colts did exactly that). It does, though, open you up to the possibility that the entire team could tank in one of the three playoff weeks. So, you do open yourself to some risk, but at the same time you play it to win and hedging won't always do it when you are facing the better teams in your league during playoffs.

Last year, I had Rudi and Chad in a league I won, and Holt, Bulger, and Sjax in a league I placed 3rd. Holt held up even with Bulger's injury so I didn't completely flame out. I would be more than pleased to have any of these combos:

Edge, Fitz, Warner

Holt, SJax, Bulger

Manning, Harrison / Wayne, whoever ends up at RB (#2-#3 RB)

With the Bengals schedule, I think it is pretty safe to say they won't be resting starters down the stretch like the Colts always do, and they close with the Raiders, Colts and Broncos. Each of those could be high scoring games. Plus, you could more than likely go back to routing the Steelers on in week 17 if playoffs are over.