Remember the risk factor, people. (1 Viewer)

[rolliehouliranson]

I've made quite a bit of money over the years drafting lockstep with ADP and using the waiver wire. Boring, unsexy, whatever you want to call it. Seems to be working.

 

[Concept Coop]

risk is what it is. You have to swing in some places and play it safe in othersIf I have Calvin Johnson as my WR1, I'm probably going for a safer/possession WR2 and you can bet I might end up with a "slow n' steady" guy like Hines Ward as my WR3If I have Reggie Wayne as my WR1, I'll probably go for a "home run" type guy at WR2. Same for RBs, I like a steady guy in there somewhere to balance out the risks I take. How much risk I take on sleepers and how many sleepers I take is going to be dependent upon how steady I think my #1 and #2 guys areit's the same process that leads people to hold off on drafting a QB. When Peyton comes your way in round 2, you KNOW you're getting AT LEAST 4000 yards and 28 TDs. You know this. But if you have a confident hunch on a QB that will produce similarly but will get drafted rounds later, you hold off. I've been good at this and basically can lay several of my championships to this specific strategy.What happens, however, is that people DECIDE that their "instincts/hunches" are facts and they end up acting wrecklessly. These are the same people who deciding that a guy like Thomas Jones WILL be the goal line back or that Arian Foster WILL get 300 carries this season.Where I really saw a ton of it was last season, when, after the ridiculous bumper crop of rookie RBs in 2007, an entire draft strategy was developed with the assumption that the rookie RBs from 2008 would do just as well. I don't know how many people I know blew off the top RBs, overdrafted guys like Randy Moss and Greg Jennings, and then were picking first off the waiver wire each week because their starting RBs were Chris Wells, Knowshon Moreno, and Shonn Greene.If you take a risk, then make sure you mitigate the risk elsewhere.

This doesn't make any sense to me at all. Draft the players you expect to put up the best numbers.You do your projections, and draft accordingly. Isn't it as simple as that? Those that expected Wells, Moreno, and Green to put up RB1 numbers, were simply wrong. If they put too much stock in rookie's, they did so in their projections. If you expect Ryan Matthews to put up 1,000/8, then draft him accordingly. There is no added risk because he is a rookie, if you are confident in your projections. Don't pass on him for Felix Jones, if you expect Felix to put up 900/5. Simple.If you get Reggie Wayne as your WR#1, draft the player you expect to put up the best numbers as your #2. That simple. It makes no sense to pass up up a risky player you expect to get better numbers, for a safer player you expect to produce less.It sounds like everyone is having issues with their ranking and projections. It shouldn't be this hard.

 

[CalBear]

There is 0% chance that Grant finished top 5. I would bet mass amounts of money that I don't have, that Grant won't be top 5. Charles is cleary the "safer" bet, if you are asking who is more likely to be top 5.

You really think so? You know that Grant finished as RB8 in 2009, right? The difference between RB8 and RB5 was 20 points.Would you have predicted Thomas Jones would finish in the top 5 in 2008? Or Clinton Portis and Joseph Addai in 2007?I think a major problem with people's analysis around players is that we really have little idea who is a safe pick and who is high risk, high reward. Most of what we have is a set of assumptions, and those assumptions often seem incorrect in retrospect. Every year there's a set of players who look like they lack upside, who perform way above what anyone expected them to. I don't think many people were looking at Chris Johnson as a high risk, high reward type player in 2009; I think most expected him to be a decent RBBC performer. That's why he lasted to the late first, early second.

 

[Concept Coop]

There is 0% chance that Grant finished top 5. I would bet mass amounts of money that I don't have, that Grant won't be top 5. Charles is cleary the "safer" bet, if you are asking who is more likely to be top 5.

You really think so? You know that Grant finished as RB8 in 2009, right? The difference between RB8 and RB5 was 20 points.Would you have predicted Thomas Jones would finish in the top 5 in 2008? Or Clinton Portis and Joseph Addai in 2007?I think a major problem with people's analysis around players is that we really have little idea who is a safe pick and who is high risk, high reward. Most of what we have is a set of assumptions, and those assumptions often seem incorrect in retrospect. Every year there's a set of players who look like they lack upside, who perform way above what anyone expected them to. I don't think many people were looking at Chris Johnson as a high risk, high reward type player in 2009; I think most expected him to be a decent RBBC performer. That's why he lasted to the late first, early second.

I do think so. I think Charles is far more likely to finish top 5 than Grant. If we started a poll, I think most would agree.I will have to look at my Fleaflicker to see where Grant finished in my league that season and can't do so at work. I would still bet a lot of money that he won't finish top 5. I am not sure if the rest of your post was directed at me or not, but you are saying the same thing that I am. That is why I think you should do your projections, or use a pros, and draft accordingly.

 

[fightingillini]

There is 0% chance that Grant finished top 5. I would bet mass amounts of money that I don't have, that Grant won't be top 5. Charles is cleary the "safer" bet, if you are asking who is more likely to be top 5.

You really think so? You know that Grant finished as RB8 in 2009, right? The difference between RB8 and RB5 was 20 points.Would you have predicted Thomas Jones would finish in the top 5 in 2008? Or Clinton Portis and Joseph Addai in 2007?I think a major problem with people's analysis around players is that we really have little idea who is a safe pick and who is high risk, high reward. Most of what we have is a set of assumptions, and those assumptions often seem incorrect in retrospect. Every year there's a set of players who look like they lack upside, who perform way above what anyone expected them to. I don't think many people were looking at Chris Johnson as a high risk, high reward type player in 2009; I think most expected him to be a decent RBBC performer. That's why he lasted to the late first, early second.

I do think so. I think Charles is far more likely to finish top 5 than Grant. If we started a poll, I think most would agree.I will have to look at my Fleaflicker to see where Grant finished in my league that season and can't do so at work. I would still bet a lot of money that he won't finish top 5. I am not sure if the rest of your post was directed at me or not, but you are saying the same thing that I am. That is why I think you should do your projections, or use a pros, and draft accordingly.

Considering that Grant doesn't catch many passes, for Grant to finish top 5, he needs to score 15+ TDs. Not going to happen IMO, considering Rodgers will vulture 3-5 TDs himself, in addition to any TDs vultured by Brandon Jackson and fullbacks.You generally need to be a good receiver to be one of the top 5 RBs......or a scoring machine. Grant is neither of those.

 

[sgtrobo]

This doesn't make any sense to me at all. Draft the players you expect to put up the best numbers.You do your projections, and draft accordingly. Isn't it as simple as that? Those that expected Wells, Moreno, and Green to put up RB1 numbers, were simply wrong. If they put too much stock in rookie's, they did so in their projections. If you expect Ryan Matthews to put up 1,000/8, then draft him accordingly. There is no added risk because he is a rookie, if you are confident in your projections. Don't pass on him for Felix Jones, if you expect Felix to put up 900/5. Simple.If you get Reggie Wayne as your WR#1, draft the player you expect to put up the best numbers as your #2. That simple. It makes no sense to pass up up a risky player you expect to get better numbers, for a safer player you expect to produce less.It sounds like everyone is having issues with their ranking and projections. It shouldn't be this hard.

Projections simply lack for me. It doesn't take into account upside and floor.Here's an example - give me your projections for DeAngelo Williams assuming Jonathan Stewart is completely healthy. Now give me the projections if Stewie gets injured.There is inherent risk involved in various picks. Look at Calvin Johnson. He put up INSANE #s in 2008 and really did squat in 2009. He didn't all of a sudden get untalented or something.You're simply ignoring ceiling/floor. I don't. I tier.

 

[Concept Coop]

This doesn't make any sense to me at all. Draft the players you expect to put up the best numbers.You do your projections, and draft accordingly. Isn't it as simple as that? Those that expected Wells, Moreno, and Green to put up RB1 numbers, were simply wrong. If they put too much stock in rookie's, they did so in their projections. If you expect Ryan Matthews to put up 1,000/8, then draft him accordingly. There is no added risk because he is a rookie, if you are confident in your projections. Don't pass on him for Felix Jones, if you expect Felix to put up 900/5. Simple.If you get Reggie Wayne as your WR#1, draft the player you expect to put up the best numbers as your #2. That simple. It makes no sense to pass up up a risky player you expect to get better numbers, for a safer player you expect to produce less.It sounds like everyone is having issues with their ranking and projections. It shouldn't be this hard.

Projections simply lack for me. It doesn't take into account upside and floor.Here's an example - give me your projections for DeAngelo Williams assuming Jonathan Stewart is completely healthy. Now give me the projections if Stewie gets injured.There is inherent risk involved in various picks. Look at Calvin Johnson. He put up INSANE #s in 2008 and really did squat in 2009. He didn't all of a sudden get untalented or something.You're simply ignoring ceiling/floor. I don't. I tier.

Projections don't ignore anything. It does everything tiering does and then more. Tiering does nothing to establish whether Stewart is healhty or injured. It does nothing to predict that Calvin Johnson will have a down year. It does nothing to quantify the inherent risk you speak of. The pros do projections and there is a big reason for that. Tiering does nothing more to address ceiling/floor than projections do. It actually does less.

 

[CalBear]

Considering that Grant doesn't catch many passes, for Grant to finish top 5, he needs to score 15+ TDs. Not going to happen IMO, considering Rodgers will vulture 3-5 TDs himself, in addition to any TDs vultured by Brandon Jackson and fullbacks.You generally need to be a good receiver to be one of the top 5 RBs......or a scoring machine. Grant is neither of those.

I'm not saying Grant will be in the top 5, but in 2009 he was only 20 points away from it, even though he only had 282 carries and 25 receptions. In 2008 he had 30 more carries; if he'd gotten 312 in 2009 he probably would have been top-5.Thomas Jones had 1 TD on 310 carries in 2007. He had 13 TDs on 290 carries in 2008 to finish in the top 5. Did he suddenly become a TD machine? No, his situation changed; the Jets went from a 4-12 team with a bottom-10 offense to a 9-7 team with a top-10 offense, so he got more scoring opportunities.KC was a 4-12 team with a bottom-10 offense in 2010. If you believe that will still be true, there's no way Charles will make the top 5; he just won't get the chance.Anyway, I don't really want to argue the merits of these two players; I just want to point out that players who seem boring often have just as much upside as players who seem exciting.

 

[sgtrobo]

Projections don't ignore anything. It does everything tiering does and then more. Tiering does nothing to establish whether Stewart is healhty or injured. It does nothing to predict that Calvin Johnson will have a down year. It does nothing to quantify the inherent risk you speak of. The pros do projections and there is a big reason for that. Tiering does nothing more to address ceiling/floor than projections do. It actually does less.

ok.

 

[Rovers]

I'm watching this SOFA IDP draft, FBG repped by Norton, and saw one site take Harvin in the 6th round. I post at that other site as well, and told them I didn't like the risk that early. What happens? The next day, Harvin collapses on the field. They passed on Nicks for Harvin.

Every player carries risk, even P Manning, but the risk is obviously different for every single player. High risk players like Harvin won't be on any of my rosters (excepting dynasty). Sometimes going lower risk is a better option, but at some point, swinging for the fences on a hunch works. S Smith and Rice were the home runs last year. I took Rice in the late 4th last year. That was a risk pick. I drafted Portis in his rokie year in the second round. Risk pick, but it paid off big time. I took Peterson in his rookie year in the first. I didn't see it as a risky pick, but many others did.

I like Greene as an early risk pick this year. I like Fitz over Marshall... Marshall carries more risk IMO. Risk is perceived and is often based on conjecture. I know Fitz will produce. Will Marshall? Some people think Fitz carries more risk.

S Rice has some risk this year with his hip. How much risk? My take will be different than other's.

Generally, I try to minimize risk, especially early, but when I have a gut feel for a given player, I pull the trigger. Sometimes a pick that looks safe, like Slaton appeared to be, but he was a bust anyway. I won't draft any RB from HOU or DEN. Too much risk. AZ isn't far behind. Take a NE RB, but do it late. Way too much risk. Same for Dallas and Seattle. It's all about risk assessment on a given player, and everyone calculates risk differently.

I beleive in order to win, some risk has to taken, but I will rarely swing for the fences in the first 3 rounds.