Serpentine Draft (1 Viewer)

[Marc Levin]

However, making the playoffs does not mean your year was successful IMHO.

But it DOES mean you consistently won - which was the basis of your discussion.For my main league's historical data trend, the winner last year was me - I went RB-RVB, but I don't think Willie Green in the second was why I won my league.The year before I went non-RB-RB and won the league.The team that won the previoous year went WR-RB with HarrisonThe year before that, the team that won went RB then Manning late in the first.Winning it all is not accomplished in your first two picks - it is done by significantly more factors than that, which is why I used "getting into the playoffs" as the best indicator of consistently WINNING in either H2H or overall scoring leagues.

 

[Marc Levin]

Not going RB-RB may seem to be more risky, but as David Yudkin alluded to, this risk can be lessened by drafting a stable of RBs with RB2 potential (ie., drafting 4 RBs in the first 5-6 rounds).

Actually, David presented some supporting data, but the suggestion was mine. I actually mentioned that at least twice in this thread as the way to compensate the RB2 spot for an elite WR as your round 2 selection.My example was my snake-bit squad last year that was 2nd in overall points after starting my draft with Henry and Moss, and adding a stable of RB2 guys like Hearst, George, Duckett and DDavis (who was added through the WW).

 

[suspected]

However, making the playoffs does not mean your year was successful IMHO.

My point was that its not difficult to provide data rather than giving opinions. If you don't like making the playoffs as a measure of success lets look at other possible definitions. 1) Championships won - In the league I mentioned above 5 out of 8 went to RB-RB drafters. This is 5 out of 60 drafts or 8.3%. 3 went to non RB-RB drafters. 3 out 36 drafts or 8.3%. No difference between RB-RB and non RB-RB.

2) Winning percentage (head-to-head) - This is looking at all games played in eight years. In this league RB-RB drafters won 52% of their games. Non RB-RB drafters won 47% of the time. Again, not much of a difference.

Your league may very well show much different numbers. I be interested if anyone else has data available that they could share.

 

[JAA]

So, my conclusion is that while RB-RB tends to open your draft up and makes drafting easier, it is certainly NOT the better way to accumulate a better team nor is it a way to insure consistent scoring or more wins during the FF year.

We can agree to disagree. There is no way to ensure victory ever in fantasy football. There is only putting yourself in the position to win. You have already admitted you need to find the right RBs in rounds 3-4, and if you dont you are worse off.JAA

 

[JAA]

However, making the playoffs does not mean your year was successful IMHO.

My point was that its not difficult to provide data rather than giving opinions. If you don't like making the playoffs as a measure of success lets look at other possible definitions. 1) Championships won - In the league I mentioned above 5 out of 8 went to RB-RB drafters. This is 5 out of 60 drafts or 8.3%. 3 went to non RB-RB drafters. 3 out 36 drafts or 8.3%. No difference between RB-RB and non RB-RB.

2) Winning percentage (head-to-head) - This is looking at all games played in eight years. In this league RB-RB drafters won 52% of their games. Non RB-RB drafters won 47% of the time. Again, not much of a difference.

Your league may very well show much different numbers. I be interested if anyone else has data available that they could share.

I wish I had the data to give out. WHat I do uis each year before the draft review last years draft, end of year scoring and consider areas to improve on. What were the factors that lead certain players to breaking out and other players slumping.

 

[Marc Levin]

You have already admitted you need to find the right RBs in rounds 3-4, and if you dont you are worse off.

We obviously have to - my query is "worse off" than what? Which way were you worse off in 2003: Option one: go RB-RB just to go RB-RB and suffer with Charlie Garner, Tiki Barber, Eddie George, Curtis Martin, or Willie Green at RB2 - or SDavis who was the #26 RB over the last 8 weeks of the season - and NOT have Moss, Harrison or TO or Option two: Take Moss early in the second and hope that a platoon of backs that included guys like Dunn, A-Train, or Barlow had worked out as a third round RB2?I'll take option two as the better situation. Especially since both teams have an equal chance of adding a WW or late round RB to compensate for their RB2 bust.The only second round RB that would have helped you along to a championship was JLew. CuMar satisfied the RB2 mark and was worth a second round pick. Every other back in the 13-20 preseason rankings woud have been a wasted pick when compared to selecting Moss.Finally, don't attribute to me that I admit you must get the right RB2 in the third or fourth or you are worse off than the guy who went RB-RB. I disagree with that. If you whiff on EVERY OTHER drafted back as your RB2 after passing on RB in the second and taking an elite WR instead, you are STILL better off WITH that elite WR than with a RB2 in the second who is a bust. I argue I am better off with Ron Dayne as my RB2 in the third/fourth as long as Moss is on my team rather than if my 2nd round selection was Willie Green - or even CuMar - just to have a second RB - especially when you consider the third round WRs such as Plaxico Burress, Eric Moulds, Daviod Boston, or even the moderately successful Joe Horn.We will defintely have to agree to disagree on this issue - I see the clear value of an elite WR in the second round over a RB in many different situations, you do not. The only thing I will agree with is that if you selected an elite WR in the second, somewhere down the line - whether it is a 3rd round RB, a 6th round RB, or a WW acquisition, you need to get some RB2 production from somewhere to win your league. That RB needs to finish as a top-20 RB regardless of where he comes from or the value your elite WR possesses will be eroded by your lack of a decent RB2 during the season. But, that is no different than needing to make up for your round two RB bust (read: Willie Green or Charlie Garner). The thing that is more sure, though, is that my second round elite WR of Moss or Harrison will NOT bust barring injury. And there is a real difference of opinion. A RB2 in the second has a bust potential fairly close to the RB in the 3rd/4th - at least compared to the bust potential of an elite WR, which is equivelant to the bust potential of a top-5 RB. That is WHY they are elite.

 

[suspected]

Not going RB-RB may seem to be more risky, but as David Yudkin alluded to, this risk can be lessened by drafting a stable of RBs with RB2 potential (ie., drafting 4 RBs in the first 5-6 rounds).

Actually, David presented some supporting data, but the suggestion was mine. I actually mentioned that at least twice in this thread as the way to compensate the RB2 spot for an elite WR as your round 2 selection.

By the way your latest post was excellent.I'll give you the credit for being the first one in the this post to mention drafting RB quantity to get a good RB2 and still have an elite WR. However, this same discussion came up last year. I'd bet someone else has had the same idea prior to that

Here's one of my quotes from a thread dated May 28, 2003:

Why not "lock in" a top WR like Moss early and build RB depth in rounds 3, 4, and 5 while others are trying to predict next years Hines Ward with their WR selections in rounds 3,4 and 5? I think if you go with a big 3 WR but also build RB depth (I like to draft 4 RB starters (no RBBC) in the first 6 rounds) you have a reasonable chance of finding a good RB2. The whole point of this thread is that with the big 3 WR you lock in a player that consistently outperforms others at his position. Drafting a RB in this spot is more likely to give you a player that underperforms his draft position. Yes, you still need to find 2 decent RB starters, but perhaps by drafting RB quantity (4 RBs, no RBBC in the first 6 six rounds) you give yourself a chance of landing 2 decent RBs while locking in a top WR.

Last year (2002) I drafted TO but also got Deuce,Tiki, Staley and L. Smith and was lucky enough to wind up with 2 decent RB starters.

Conceiveable this year (2003) you could draft a solid RB1 late round 1 (Green,Tiki, or other), Moss round 2, and then try to get 3 of the following in rounds 3-6 (Staley/Buckhalter, Zereoue/Bettis, Hambrick, Pittman, Dunn, Candidate, Mack, Stewart). If only 1 of these 3 turns out decent and your RB1 was a good pick you will have 2 good RB starters and a top WR. You also put yourself in a great trading position by having 4 non-RBBC starters, as teams always seem to need to pick up a RB as the season progresses.

Everyone has a bias I suppose depending on what has worked or not worked in the past. I've had too many frustrating years assuming I can get quality WRs late but winding up with a hoard of mediocre talent at WR and never knowing who to start week to week. Others who have had more luck drafting good WRs late may feel differently.

 

[Marc Levin]

suspected - that is the way it is done. I was certainly not taking credit for the concept - I have very few original ideas, just a good storehouse of those idea at ready access.If you are faced with the 14th best RB or the 2nd best WR, why wouldn't you take the WR? Some stats to peruse and for your thoughts:RB13 in my league last year was Tiki at 189 points.RB 14 in my league last year was DDavis with 185 points.RB 18 was Barlow at 169RB 24 was Pittman at 139.Only Tiki was a selection in the first two rounds.Moss was the #1 WR and an elite WR selection - he scored 286.Harrison was the #1 receiver off the board and he scored 198.TO was the third WR of the elite three - he scored 170.The #2 and #3 scoring WRs in my league last year were:Holt - 266CJohnson - 202Holt was selected, on avearge, in the mid-to upper 3rd round in 12 team drafts, CJohn usually was gone by the early 4th at the latest.Anyone see where I am going with this? Even the third elite WR, who was arguably a bust from the elite spot, was still worth more to your team than the average RB2 - the #18 RB. Both the other elite WRs were clearly worth more. And the WRs 1-6 (Harrison at 4 with 198, Boldin at 5 with 195, and SMoss with 190) were worth more than every RB2. I used the names I did because they were a good percentage of the big names heading into the 2003 draft. I grant that #4 WR Moulds, and #5 WR Burress were busts, but that is irrelevant when we are really discussing a world of two receivers right now - Moss and Harrison - and whether they should be selected instead of the RB14.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Great thread.I find that I often draft from the 9th spot or lower in my league - either I get a bad draw out of the hat or I trade down. Most of the time, I go RB-WR or WR-RB (the WR is always Moss or Harrison). An added bonus that no one has mentioned yet: Harrison/Moss are NEVER injured. Never. Which RBs that are available at late 1st, early 2nd, are injury proof? None.Last year, I took A. Green 1.11, the swing picks were Harrison and Tiki, and the choice I had at 2.2 was J. Lew or Moss. I went with Moss, but just barely. I loved J. Lew last year, and didn't think he would fall. When he did, I almost changed my strategy and went RB-RB.Another reason I like taking Harrison or Moss in the 2nd round is that I usually hate the crop of RBs available between RB12-RB20. We all know the usual suspects: CMart, CDillon, MBennett, EGeorge, CGarner, etc. While you get the occasional SDavis, or J Lew last year, my gut tells me that round 2 produces almost a 50/50 shot at busting. Harrison or Moss are almost bust proof. I'd love to see a historical study on production vs. draft position of RB's in round 2. Taking a WR with one of your first two picks allows you to draft for value at either RB or WR in rounds 3, 4, and 5. Granted, if you take a WR again in the 3rd, you are virtually forced to go RB-RB in rounds 4 and 5. In sum, if you're risk adverse with your top picks like I am, and you're drafting late in the 1st, taking Harrison or Moss is excellant strategy, IMO.

 

[Marc Levin]

In sum, if you're risk adverse with your top picks like I am, and you're drafting late in the 1st, taking Harrison or Moss is excellant strategy, IMO.

Risk averssion has not been discussed as much as it should in this thread. And you statements contradict the Lemming RB concept that going RB-RB is:

less risky or consistant

I have always agreed that , in relation to the draft alone, going RB-RB is an "easier" and "safer" way to draft.However, I agree with tommygunz that it is not "less risky," nor does it create any greater "consistency" for wins during the season in H2H, for accumulating overall points, or for winning you a championship.

 

[JAA]

You have already admitted you need to find the right RBs in rounds 3-4, and if you dont you are worse off.

We obviously have to - my query is "worse off" than what? Which way were you worse off in 2003: Option one: go RB-RB just to go RB-RB and suffer with Charlie Garner, Tiki Barber, Eddie George, Curtis Martin, or Willie Green at RB2 - or SDavis who was the #26 RB over the last 8 weeks of the season - and NOT have Moss, Harrison or TO or Option two: Take Moss early in the second and hope that a platoon of backs that included guys like Dunn, A-Train, or Barlow had worked out as a third round RB2?I'll take option two as the better situation. Especially since both teams have an equal chance of adding a WW or late round RB to compensate for their RB2 bust.

I would take option 2 also if I knew the final standings ahead of time.

 

[JAA]

Finally, don't attribute to me that I admit you must get the right RB2 in the third or fourth or you are worse off than the guy who went RB-RB. I disagree with that. If you whiff on EVERY OTHER drafted back as your RB2 after passing on RB in the second and taking an elite WR instead, you are STILL better off WITH that elite WR than with a RB2 in the second who is a bust.

It is easier to draft a bust RB in the 3rd and 4th round than 2nd round.

 

[JAA]

but that is irrelevant when we are really discussing a world of two receivers right now - Moss and Harrison - and whether they should be selected instead of the RB14.

Chances are you will do very well in your league if you draft, trade, WW, a solid RB2 at some point.Chances are you will NOT do very well in your league if you fail to draft, trade, WW, a solid RB2 at some point.

I dont know about you, but the leagues I play in a RB2 is going to cost you big time if you dont get one in the draft or on the WW.

 

[JAA]

However, I agree with tommygunz that it is not "less risky," nor does it create any greater "consistency" for wins during the season in H2H, for accumulating overall points, or for winning you a championship.

lol @ lemming strategy. Call it what you will, I have a new living room set thanks to the 'lemming strategy'.What % of RBs from RB11-20 score total fantasy points below RB20 in the final standings?What % of RBs from RB21-30 score total fantasy points above their relative draft position?

 

[David Yudkin]

I dont know about you, but the leagues I play in a RB2 is going to cost you big time if you dont get one in the draft or on the WW.

You can still dominate a league and have mediocre production from your RB2. Last year I romped in a 12-team league with Holmes, Moss, Coles, McCardell, and struggled along with Dunn and A-Train at my RB2 slot. Certainly, with Dunn/Thomas injured a lot and sometimes unproductive, it could have been fatal but it wasn't. (I went QBBC and had no one noteworthy at TE.)If you are solid at your other slots, you may not have to rely on a ton of RB2 production.(On a side note, I learned that QB scoring is so generic that playing Bledsoe, Collins, Brees, and Wright did not hurt me at all. If you added up my weekly QB totals, I probably equaled that of a true QB1.)Stud RB is a great way to go but it is also the safe way to go. There is probably more room for error in that strategy--you may not have to hit on the rest of your draft picks to have a chance to win.However, if you can spot value and let productive players fall to you in the mid to late rounds, you can be just as competitive going WR/RB or WR/WR.

 

[Marc Levin]

However, I agree with tommygunz that it is not "less risky," nor does it create any greater "consistency" for wins during the season in H2H, for accumulating overall points, or for winning you a championship.

lol @ lemming strategy. Call it what you will, I have a new living room set thanks to the 'lemming strategy'.What % of RBs from RB11-20 score total fantasy points below RB20 in the final standings?What % of RBs from RB21-30 score total fantasy points above their relative draft position?

??? Last year, of the RBs ranked 14-24 (which is the pool of RBs I am talking about - RB11, 12, and 13 need to be gone before I consider a WR) well less than half of them matched or exceeded their preseason rank (based on the average mag positions from last year). Stephen Davis, Curtis Martin, Kevan Barlow - those were the only three RBs from 14-24 who were worth a selection as top-24 RBs. None of those RBs were close to being worth either Moss or Harrison last year.Of the preseason #25-36 RBs, several of them exceeded their positions into the top-24 (Pre-final):Anthony Thomas (27-20)Pittman (33-24)Duckett (34-21) And, other backs who were likely selected in the 4th-6th rounds included Moe Williams, who finished #16, Dunn, who finished #26 overall but was #16 in pts/game until he was injured, and Brian Westbrook- who finished #21.I'd say these backs drafted outside the 1st/2nd round had equal or better potential to move into RB 12-24 territory than last year's RBs 12-24 had of staying in the RB2 realm. Especially considering only 5 of those preseason RBs 12 - 24 stayed in RB24 or higher range at year's end.My very clear position is that elite WRs hold much better, much safer, and much more consistent value than any RB14 down. My numbers above took your questions a BIG step further - had I done it by simply "exceeded" or "failed to meet" their draft position, the numbers would have been significantly greater in favor of proving that the VAST MAJORITY of RBs 14-24 were not worth their draft spots while a large number of RBs 24-36 exceeded their value.If you take a RB ranked #14 or lower over an elite WR in the second round ONLY because you are committed to going RB-RB, you are following a lemming RB strategy that, IMO, can not be justified by anything other than:"I don't like to think about RBs when I draft, so I'll take two in my first two picks regardles of the fact that those elite WRs give me a better and safer chance of accumulating more points."Your individual success of a "living room set" is wholly unimpressive to me. It means little when related to FF as a whole - it is a logical fallacy to extract a general proposition from a limited truth. In YOUR experience YOU have had success going RB-RB, so that is YOUR strategy. Is that strategy generally applicable to all of the FF world - nope. I don;t know why you keep referring to FF championships as meaning anything to your first two rounds - it is NOT your first two rounds that win your league - it is everything you do after those first two rounds that determine that. 3 of the last 4 champions in my main money league (1200 dollar prize) went RB/non-RB to start - and beat RB-RB teams in the Bowl. So what?This is the short and curlies of it - you do NOT need a strong RB2 to win - either during the seaosn or in the playoffs - if you have an elite WR and a productive RB1. You also are taking a much bigger risk by blindly selecting a 2nd round RB instead of an elite RB once you have passed a certain point of RBs - generally, the RB 13 or RB 14.

 

[Marc Levin]

I will leave you and the board with one last thought:

If it was eqaully easy to win with non-RB-RB drafting, why dont people do it more often? Why dont we see Moss going 1.5, 1.6? Why dont we see all 3 stud WRs going in the 1st round if it was that easy to consistently win going non-RB-RB?

JAA

Answering your last question will answer why we are in such disagreement.It is a simple answer, but it requires explanatory steps.

1) Moss does not go 1.5 or 1.6 because while he may score more points than RB7, if he goes that early the RB1 selected on the comeback is not as strong, in combination, as the RB the RB 7-10 guys will be able to select. Thus, until about RB10 or so, it makes more sense to take the RB. In short, Moss value rating, like a QBs, is not straight up equivelant to his points scored when held against RBs. But, you already know that.

2) Once you pass position 10 in any draft - a 10 team or a 14 team - you start getting into a situation where your first round selection of Moss, plus your second round RB, might equal the earlier drafted RBs plus the players they have a shot at in round 2.

3) Here's the kicker - while I recognize the value of Moss equals out after the 10th RB is gone, I will NOT select him - or any non-RB - in the first round regardless of situation. It is because of what you mentioned regarding equivelance - the WR needs to become greater value then ZERO in order to make selecting a WR better than selecting a RB. This is because the candidates to put up RB1 quality numbers are now becoming depleted. I would not select a WR at the flop either. But, I would seriously start to consider an elite receiver who is on the board after the 13th RB is taken because an elite WR, who is equivelant to an RB1 in pts. scored, is a better selection after all the likely RB1s are gone. It is like adding a RB1 to your RB1, though obviously not the exact same thing. I might STILL go RB2 in the second depending on who is still available, but here is exactly where taking the elite WR over the RB becomes the MORE skillful move. In short, RB14 is not more valuable than an elite WR simply because he makes the rest of your draft easier. You are LOSING something for th erest of the year if you pass on the elite WR and take a RB instead just to open your draft up. BTW, this year, IMO, there are exactly two elite WRs - Moss or Harrison. Holt doesn't become the most valuable player on the board until after RB16 is gone.

4) I agree that RB-RB opens up the rest of your draft and makes drafting the rest of your team much easier - I acknowledged that in several places in this thread. It is a statement I believe was either missed or some of you believe that I just don't "get." I get that concept big time, but that does NOT mean it is still the "better" move. The late round RB1, plus the elite WR, plus the RB in the 3rd, plus another WR/RB in the fourth has as great a chance OR BETTER of exceeding your late round RB, your RB14, and 2 non-elite WRs.

I want to highlight this post as I believe this is the key point you have a problem with JAA - your question to the board above opened up my response, and clarifies my position on this issue of when to take an elite WR versus a second RB.Also, your basic question was contrary to EVERYthing I've said in this thread - it was never contended (by me anyway) that you should open non-RB/RB - I have ALWAYS advocated a RB in the frist. PERIOD. Especially if you are already open to grabbing an elite WR - get the elite WR in the SECOND instead of a second round RB2. Any responses that don't maintain that fundamental understanding of my position are inherently flawed.

 

[JAA]

Last year, of the RBs ranked 14-24 (which is the pool of RBs I am talking about - RB11, 12, and 13 need to be gone before I consider a WR) well less than half of them matched or exceeded their preseason rank (based on the average mag positions from last year). Stephen Davis, Curtis Martin, Kevan Barlow - those were the only three RBs from 14-24 who were worth a selection as top-24 RBs. None of those RBs were close to being worth either Moss or Harrison last year.Of the preseason #25-36 RBs, several of them exceeded their positions into the top-24 (Pre-final):Anthony Thomas (27-20)Pittman (33-24)Duckett (34-21)

I request full disclosure on each RB. For reference, I use blocks of ten because you always have someone not going RB twice in each of the 1st two rounds of 12 team serp drafts.

 

[JAA]

Your individual success of a "living room set" is wholly unimpressive to me. It means little when related to FF as a whole - it is a logical fallacy to extract a general proposition from a limited truth. In YOUR experience YOU have had success going RB-RB, so that is YOUR strategy. Is that strategy generally applicable to all of the FF world - nope.

How else am I supposed to retort you "lemmings points"? You keep saying "lemmings draft RB-RB", what am I supposed to say back? No Marc, Im not a lemming!". Instead I say, "I have no problem being a lemming if it puts money in my pocket". It was not a pissing match, those arent won unless we are in the same league. I was illustrating a point that "lemming" ways work well for me and I have receipts to prove it. You do know when you say "lemming strategy" is puts that strategy in a bad light right?What should I have said?

 

[JAA]

I don't know why you keep referring to FF championships as meaning anything to your first two rounds - it is NOT your first two rounds that win your league - it is everything you do after those first two rounds that determine that.

Marc, I believe the saying is "You cant win your Fantasy league in the 1st two rounds, but you can lose it there".I dont know what else I can say. I have been using VBD since I read Joe's article back when it came out. I consider myself a VBD zealot (not true VBD, partially DVBD). Being a VBD zealot means I will draft Moss, CulPep, Vick, etc where there value lays. That does not mean I like it, or it is better. It is the right thing to do because value dictates my pick. However, as we all know, VBD doesnt take into account your next pick or if your next pick will bust or not. And we all know our VBD sheets are only as good as the projections that seed them.

I will not preach to people you have to go RB-RB. I will say I have had much more success (much more) going RB-RB that non-RB-RB. I will also say in the leagues I play in, that holds true also. I will preach that if you dont draft RB-RB then you need to pick correctly your RB2 or you have a great chance of losing your season right then and there. No, nothing is garunteed, it is just harder.

 

[JAA]

Good luck this season Marc, maybe we can compare some drafts later on and discuss this further.

 

[SeverG]

Hey Marc-I've agreed with most of what you've been saying in this and the "How do you win more" thread, but I have a question regarding your rankings:If you say don't take a WR until the first 13 RB are taken, why do you have Moss and Harrison ranked 10 and 11. Also, you said only Moss and Harrison are worth second round picks, but you have Holt at 19, C. Johnson at 23, and Coles at 24.Do you mean by these rankings that if you take RB in the first round, and Moss and F. Taylor are both available for you in the second round, you would then take Moss, but in the late first round, in the same situation, you would go Taylor with your first pick?Similarly for the others, if after going RB-RB you would take Holt over Shipp, but if it was your late second round pick (maybe 23rd) and Shipp and Holt were the best left at their positions, you would then take Shipp?

 

[Marc Levin]

Good luck this season Marc, maybe we can compare some drafts later on and discuss this further.

We'll mock out a few drafts together to show whassup, but I fear this will not be resolved until after the season when the final numbers come in.

 

[Marc Levin]

Hey Marc-I've agreed with most of what you've been saying in this and the "How do you win more" thread, but I have a question regarding your rankings:If you say don't take a WR until the first 13 RB are taken, why do you have Moss and Harrison ranked 10 and 11.

Because that is their "value" to me. Where I would personally select them is a different issue - I would personally not select a WR in the first round regardless of position because I don't like closing the option of going RB-RB, and I would rather have the elite WR that falls in the second, or a 2nd RB, rather than committing to the elite WR in the first. Overall rankings do not necessarily = where I would select them. Having Harrison as the #11 player on the board, and being able to select him at, say, #15 overall makes him a better value than the #15 player on the board - who, for now, is Tiki Barber on my chart. Yeah - I take Harrison with my first round RB over Tiki.

Also, you said only Moss and Harrison are worth second round picks, but you have Holt at 19, C. Johnson at 23, and Coles at 24.

See above. And I said that Holt starts "accumulating value" after the #16 RB is off the board. Again, the rankings are not, for me, where I expect them to be drafted.

Do you mean by these rankings that if you take RB in the first round, and Moss and F. Taylor are both available for you in the second round, you would then take Moss, but in the late first round, in the same situation, you would go Taylor with your first pick?

The rankings are rankings - they do not equal how I would draft in a VBD, or DVBD system. If Fred T is available to me in the second versus Moss in the second, I probably take Taylor - these are also prelimimary rankings - Fred T will probably leapfrog Moss/Harrison in my final rankings. Taylor is a top-13 RB to pair with my first round RB. I jump on Taylor in the second no questions, and I wonder what the heck my fellow drafters are thinking by allowing me a RB in the first and a choice of Taylor or Moss in the second - I can't go wrong with getting either two of my top-10 RBs or a top-10 RB plus my #1 receiver.

Similarly for the others, if after going RB-RB you would take Holt over Shipp, but if it was your late second round pick (maybe 23rd) and Shipp and Holt were the best left at their positions, you would then take Shipp?

Maybe Shipp, probably Holt - but only b/c the WRs 1-3 in combination with a RB2 pool is probably better than a RB20, plus whatever non WR1-3 you get later. They are both at value, but I see the steep drop happening after Holt in the WR world, while I see a more shallow drop after Shipp in the RB world - and I am drafting again within 6-8 picks. This is DVBD. Simply put, the drop in RBs to my 3rd round pick is shallow, the drop in WRs to my third round pick is severe. A QB is considered here, too, but I reject QBs out of hand in the first few rounds unless the league is heavily QB-friendly.One of my posts above describes why I would prefer the top-13 RB over the elite WR where the WR's value = 0. It is not a "bad" pick to take the WR, but the RB holds more "value" b/c the position's numbers are depleting (this is part of the basis of VBD and DVBD). The WR becomes a better pick as his value rises from 0 value. At 0 value for WR, you shoudl select the position that is depleting and won't be available next time you pick - that is RBs with the potential to crack the top-12. Once you have passed RB13, and into RB14, your likelihood of finding a top-12 RB declines, so having the elite WR may make more sense - especially when you consider the elite WR generally scores higher than the EOY RB14.Very interesting questions - I am glad to answer ANY you might have reagrding where i value a RB versus a WR. Just keep in mind that my ranings are preliminary. They will change 230 miore time before most of my drafts in early August.

 

[David Yudkin]

Marc -Here's a hypothetical draft scenario . . .You are picking at the turn (12th and 13th picks). Which players are you going to pick . . .Off the board:LTPriestDeuceGreenPortisAlexanderEdgeLewisRWTaylorHenryMarc Levin is on the clock for the next two selections . . .

 

[JAA]

Marc -Here's a hypothetical draft scenario . . .You are picking at the turn (12th and 13th picks). Which players are you going to pick . . .Off the board:LTPriestDeuceGreenPortisAlexanderEdgeLewisRWTaylorHenryMarc Levin is on the clock for the next two selections . . .

didnt I try this two pages ago

 

[Marc Levin]

Marc -Here's a hypothetical draft scenario . . .You are picking at the turn (12th and 13th picks).  Which players are you going to pick . . .Off the board:LTPriestDeuceGreenPortisAlexanderEdgeLewisRWTaylorHenryMarc Levin is on the clock for the next two selections . . .

didnt I try this two pages ago

I think you wanted to do a five round mock, which I didn't have time for.David - I HATE stud WR, so Moss-Harrison is out despite that being the better "value" move. I WILL get at least one RB here. My next RB on the board is Faulk - so he is one pick. My next RB (not for much longer) is Tiki - then SDavis, then DDavis, then Barlow. Given the shallow drop in this pool, and the value he offers, my inclination is to take Moss - and that could be the "value" based move.However, as mentioned, I go RB until I see 14 RBs gone. Moreover, I have a *very* hard rule of drafting when drafting AT the flop - take two from the same postion if the value is equivelant - equivelant value of those RBs ranked 11-16, I take two of them, and look for two WRs at the 3/4 flop. No elite WR, since I won't take both studs.Now, if you don't have that rule, I can see the logic of arguments for RB-elite WR or stud WR - they are just not arguments I choose to follow. One argument I will make is that the 3.12/4.01 WR selection is a superior place to be than having to take two WRs with the 3.11 and 4.02 picks - I learned that after being near the top flop in the Survivor II draft last year and watching Res Ipsa Loquitor snake players from me and Aaron.I think we have achieved circularity b/c this was where this thread started several pages ago regarding drafting from the bottom flop.The short answer, David, is that I go RB-RB. Which RB, I don't know for sure. But Faulk definitely and then one of Tiki, Barlow, DDavis or SDavis - given SDavis' injury history, and the words I'm reading re: Tiki, it'd be between one of the young feature guys of Barlow or DD. And it is not the same answer I have if I draft 1.11, and 2.02 - my 2.02 selection is highly dependent on what the 1.12/2.01 guy does.I know what JAA does - two RBs. Since you've jumped in this thread on occasion David, what do you do given the same scenario? How about other Sharks peeking in? Why?Edited for spelling

 

[tommyGunZ]

I know what JAA does - two RBs. Since you've jumped in this thread on occasion David, what do you do given the same scenario? How about other Sharks peeking in? Why?Edited for spelling

Right now, in that situation, I take Faulk and Moss. Two best players on the board.I'd much rather have Moss than the WR I'll get at 3.12 (Horn, Mason, etc).But I won't mind rolling the dice on Kevin Jones, Julius Jones, Lee Suggs, or Mike Bennett at 3.12 instead of Dom Davis, SDavis, or Barber.I'm always scared of the overvaluation of 2nd tier RBs. As noted earlier, I think they fail more often than they justify their draft position.

 

[Marc Levin]

I know what JAA does - two RBs.  Since you've jumped in this thread on occasion David, what do you do given the same scenario? How about other Sharks peeking in?  Why?Edited for spelling

Right now, in that situation, I take Faulk and Moss. Two best players on the board.I'd much rather have Moss than the WR I'll get at 3.12 (Horn, Mason, etc).But I won't mind rolling the dice on Kevin Jones, Julius Jones, Lee Suggs, or Mike Bennett at 3.12 instead of Dom Davis, SDavis, or Barber.I'm always scared of the overvaluation of 2nd tier RBs. As noted earlier, I think they fail more often than they justify their draft position.

Logically thought out, and nothing to disagree with here - Faulk, Moss, and Harrison are the best players on the board, followed closely by the remaining RBs ranked 11-16.I, personally, would feel the need to take two RBs from the 11-16 pool to compete versus the guys who selected RBs 1-6 and won't get an elite WR either.I will then be happy with my two WRs at the 3/4 turn (Ward/Coles, for example) to compete with whatever two players those guys grab at their 2/3 turn. IMO, the 3/4 turn with two WRs that pan out, along with my RBs at 1/2 put me in as good a position as the guys drafting at the top of the 1st. And, in fact, I feel strong versus the elite WR guys.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I, personally, would feel the need to take two RBs from the 11-16 pool to compete versus the guys who selected RBs 1-6 and won't get an elite WR either.

smelvin, I understand your rationale, but isn't reaching for a RB at 2.1 when there are better players on the board a flawed theory on its face? Reaching this early in the draft (unless you really like that 2nd RB to outperform his draft status) seems to be against all VBD principles.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I know what JAA does - two RBs.  Since you've jumped in this thread on occasion David, what do you do given the same scenario? How about other Sharks peeking in?  Why?Edited for spelling

Right now, in that situation, I take Faulk and Moss. Two best players on the board.I'd much rather have Moss than the WR I'll get at 3.12 (Horn, Mason, etc).But I won't mind rolling the dice on Kevin Jones, Julius Jones, Lee Suggs, or Mike Bennett at 3.12 instead of Dom Davis, SDavis, or Barber.I'm always scared of the overvaluation of 2nd tier RBs. As noted earlier, I think they fail more often than they justify their draft position.

I tend to agree with tommy here, Marc. The RBs he listed at 3.12, in my mind, are a lot closer to the RBs you'd be choosing from at 2.01 than the WR #10 or 11 you'll be getting at 3.12 is to Moss (or Harrison).Faulk-Moss-K Jones/Suggs-J Jones/Bennett looks like a pretty good start to me.

 

[JAA]

I know what JAA does - two RBs.

Actually, I think I would definately take Moss. The dropoff in RB IMHO at this point is horrific. Faulk, Davis both injury concerns. Barlow, DD, Rudi, Corey all possibilities. Now at the 2.1 it makes it very difficult. I would project approx 16-20 more RBs gone. The dropoff at approx RB26 dont look so hot.I have 4 people I would consider Faulk, Dillon, Harrison, CulPep. Faulk and Dillon are question marks and Harrison or Daunte could leave me in RB hell where I get to choose from Cle, Chi, Atl, Den, Dal(??) RBs.

For me, right now, I would take:

1.12 - Moss

2.1 Faulk

At 3.12 and 4.1 I would grab a RB, and either another value RB or quality WR. At pick 36 there will be plenty of WR talent left on the board. If there was an option to start 1RB-4WR I would consider it depending on the WR left. At this point I still need to land a RB2/3 and Stephen Jackson to backup Faulk.

In conclusion, I would draft this way because of how the value on the board reflects. It would not be my preference, but I dont have a choice. It would have been much easier, simpler, less risky, and IMHO not a consistently winning strategy compared to being able to draft RB-RB.

 

[JAA]

I know what JAA does - two RBs.  Since you've jumped in this thread on occasion David, what do you do given the same scenario? How about other Sharks peeking in?  Why?Edited for spelling

Right now, in that situation, I take Faulk and Moss. Two best players on the board.I'd much rather have Moss than the WR I'll get at 3.12 (Horn, Mason, etc).But I won't mind rolling the dice on Kevin Jones, Julius Jones, Lee Suggs, or Mike Bennett at 3.12 instead of Dom Davis, SDavis, or Barber.

Smart minds think alike

 

[Marc Levin]

Reaching this early in the draft (unless you really like that 2nd RB to outperform his draft status) seems to be against all VBD principles.

It absolutely is against VBD - however, I am going to quote a fellow Shark Pool member - sometimes, you need to discard VBD, DVBD, ZVBD, ADPVBD and all other acronyms in favor of the DGP strategy.That is, Draft Good Players. I believe in this strategy from the ends in the early round, and then I revert to VBD (actually a modified DVBD) for the mid to later rounds. Even Joe and David will tell you that VBD in the early rounds is a tricky concept to blindly follow due to the quick depletion of starting quality skill players at WR and RB.Also, under a DVBD analysis, depending on your projections, you are not reaching "down" - you are comparing potential drop from the RB you would select at #13 to the RB you think will be available at your next pick versus the WR you would select at #13 in comparison to the WR that you think wil be available at your next pick. You are describing a situation that is an anethma under static VBD, but may not fly in the face of DVBD.Static VBD forces you to take THE most valuable player regardless of externals - DVBD is "Dynamic" VBD and allows you to "reach down" (as you see it) for a RB even though a more "valuable" WR is on the board. The RB and the WR don't have equivelant value sets - they are compared to other players at their position rather than across the board.Either way - I have a HARD rule of two RBs at the bottom flop - it is not the "best" or VBD way of drafting, but from that spot, I forget all the VBD principles for the first few rounds and I DGP - with back to back picks, and a LOOOONG drop to my next pick, I can't risk wrong guesses - I will often reach down because I am dead set sure certain players I really like won't be there 24 picks later.

 

[Marc Levin]

Just real quickly - JAA, Uruk-Hai, and Tommy,I understand completely the "value" move - and if I am drafting a "one better" RB of Travis Henry or Fred Taylor at 1.11, the elite WR at 2.02 is almost a foregone conclusion.But, we are now down to RB12, who is Faulk. Faulk IS a huge injury concern for 2004, so I want another RB of the same level to plug in there for the several games Faulk misses - I will also have drafted Jackson (or Gordon) as Faulk's handcuff at some point later in the draft, but counting on a combo of those RBs you mention who may or may not pan out, versus DD or Barlow who I am fairly certain will be decent RB2 options, I like the certainty given that I am confident Faulk will miss some time.I LOVE Moss here, as I mebntioned. But, FROM THE BOTTOM FLOP ONLY, I hard and fast go RB-RB. Period. It is unjustifiable under any theory except maybe JAA's "easier simpler consistent" one, but, that is what *I* do from the bottom flop - always.Your Faulk-Moss-whatever RBs at 3/4 is not a significantly better lineup than my Faulk-DDavis-Ward-Coles scenario. I will admit it IS a moderately better lineup, but I go with option two simply because of what I have to do at the flop for the rest of the draft.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Marc, I understand your logic, but I'm not so sure you'll be looking at people like Ward & Coles (who you have ranked at 5 & 6) at the turn of rounds 3 & 4. Are you thinking that only 4 WRs will be gone by the end of the 3rd round? I know your rankings don't equal how you think the draft will go, but I think you're dreaming if you think that 2 WRs who, IMO, are much better than those you have ranked behind them will still be there.

 

[Marc Levin]

Marc, I understand your logic, but I'm not so sure you'll be looking at people like Ward & Coles (who you have ranked at 5 & 6) at the turn of rounds 3 & 4. Are you thinking that only 4 WRs will be gone by the end of the 3rd round? I know your rankings don't equal how you think the draft will go, but I think you're dreaming if you think that 2 WRs who, IMO, are much better than those you have ranked behind them will still be there.

NO idea - I just plucked them out of the air. At the end of round three of a 12-team draft, I believe several things will have occurred: RBs 1-20 are gone. QBs 1-3 are gone. WRs 1-5 are gone. That is 28 players. There are now 7 selections besides that to account for. Several will be RBs, several will be WRs, probably one will be Gonzo, one might be Shockey, one might be another QB.I simply don't know who will be gone from the WR world at the bottom of the third, but I am fairly sure the top-5 WRs off the board (justified or not) will be Moss, Harrison, Holt, ChadJohn, and then Terrel Owens. I like Moulds, Coles, Boldin and Ward as much as TO. And I truly believe that two of them - and at least one - will be available at the 3/4 turn. Add in WRs like Mason, Darrel Jackson, and SMoss as likely to be available, too. In every 12 team draft I was involved in last year, there were two top-10 WRs available at the bottom of the third round flop. That may not duplicate this year, but I think it will given the increase of decent RB talent - heck, I have seen Shipp and Barber drop to the bottom of the third when they are probably top-20 RBs.If you consider that some RBs from the 20-24 range may go in the third, maybe one of the rookies Julius Jones or Kevin Jones, and there is likely to be two of the top-8/9 WRs available at the 3/4 turn.My drops are RB10>RB16>shallow drop to RB 25 or so>big dropWR2>WR3>shallow drop to WR9>big drop with almost all the WRs from 10-25 as a big crapshoot.So, if I'm at the bottom flop and I can get two RBs in the RB 11-16 range, and then I can get two WRs from the WR 4-9 range at the next flop, that is the move I "prefer." For no good reason, either b/c a RB11-16, plus an elite WR 1 or 2, plus another WR4-9, plus a RB24 or so is a great start to a draft also.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Sounds good to me smelvin. We all have our own strategies even if we all subscribe to general VBD theory.Not sure I agree with a "hard" rule at any time during the draft - I think you always have to be flexible enough to adjust at any time - but you've done your homework and it's obvious that this strategy has worked for you in the past.I'd love to revisit this thread after we've drafted to compare notes.

 

[JAA]

Your Faulk-Moss-whatever RBs at 3/4 is not a significantly better lineup than my Faulk-DDavis-Ward-Coles scenario. I will admit it IS a moderately better lineup, but I go with option two simply because of what I have to do at the flop for the rest of the draft.

On this note, possibilities include:Faulk/DillonFaulk/MossDillon/MossI dont consider Rudi, DD, Barlow only because they are very unproven. This is a reason why I apply a tiered approach to my VBD/DVBD. Tiering allows me (logically) to know when to see where a drop off is, or when I can get into a higher tier (WR in this case). For me, 1st tiers are easy, you have the studs. Moss is a stud, Faulk and Dillon could be since they have in the past. The next group are people who could be stars, but I consider it a gamble.The only reason I chose Moss over Dillon/Faulk was because I feel Moss is a stud and can be traded as a stud. Moss has perceived value even if he is underperforming. Meaning if into week 3 both Dillon and Moss are not performing, Dillons value will drop a lot more than Moss's, because Moss has perceived value.JAA

 

[JAA]

I like Moulds, Coles, Boldin and Ward as much as TO. And I truly believe that two of them - and at least one - will be available at the 3/4 turn. Add in WRs like Mason, Darrel Jackson, and SMoss as likely to be available, too.

If you are taking them because you think they will do well, you are overpaying for them. This is where NFL teams go wrong (Jimmy Johnson/Dolphins) with reaching for draft picks (NFL How they were Built) because they think they will do well. You draft players based on their value.If it comes down to two or three spots, that is a different story, but Moulds, Mason and Jackson for example should not be overpaid for.

JAA

 

[SeverG]

Marc -Here's a hypothetical draft scenario . . .You are picking at the turn (12th and 13th picks). Which players are you going to pick . . .Off the board:LTPriestDeuceGreenPortisAlexanderEdgeLewisRWTaylorHenryMarc Levin is on the clock for the next two selections . . .

I know its against everything sacred about RB, but I will say go Moss-Harrison here.I would call it high risk-very high reward. Just the thing for giving yourself a better chance at winning the Championship rather than just making the playoffs.This idea rests on the posts a little bit ago about the number of RB drafted after 24 that end up in the 12-24 range. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it was along those lines.So, go with those two, and then heck, if Pep or Manning are still around for your third, go with one of them. Go 4 RB or so after that, and watch RB news like a hawk from the beginning of camps and take your chances on them.Here's what you can get, even if you don't get two RB that finish in the RB12-15 range, you may be able to get different ones throughout the season that play like RB8-15 in those given weeks. If you can pull that off and have those two WR in combo with one of their QB, you will be hitting some real high numbers.Just a thought.Oh, and you won't be able to just sit on your ### with the team you drafted, which is what I think a lot of people get by saying they will only draft RB-RB wherever they are the draft. I think these people may have the best chance at finishing over .500, but a lesser chance at fielding a team that can score huge points in any given week.Brian

 

[JAA]

I know its against everything sacred about RB, but I will say go Moss-Harrison here.I would call it high risk-very high reward. Just the thing for giving yourself a better chance at winning the Championship rather than just making the playoffs.This idea rests on the posts a little bit ago about the number of RB drafted after 24 that end up in the 12-24 range. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it was along those lines.So, go with those two, and then heck, if Pep or Manning are still around for your third, go with one of them. Go 4 RB or so after that, and watch RB news like a hawk from the beginning of camps and take your chances on them.Here's what you can get, even if you don't get two RB that finish in the RB12-15 range, you may be able to get different ones throughout the season that play like RB8-15 in those given weeks. If you can pull that off and have those two WR in combo with one of their QB, you will be hitting some real high numbers.Just a thought.Oh, and you won't be able to just sit on your ### with the team you drafted, which is what I think a lot of people get by saying they will only draft RB-RB wherever they are the draft. I think these people may have the best chance at finishing over .500, but a lesser chance at fielding a team that can score huge points in any given week.Brian

Good information. I seriously considered this option in my post above. The RB prospects at RB35 or so are not -that- bad, but they are bad. Even if you take two of them, you still need a RB3/4 at some point. Culpep/Manning will not be around at 3.12, so nothing there.More food for thought. IIRC WRs will typically start off slower than RBs in the beginning of the season. I thought I saw data on this, but I could be wrong.Having Moss/Harrison is hard work. In 2002 I had Harrison/Owens in my main $$$ redraft league. If was a tough start to the season since I had Pittman and AntSmith as my RBs. Fortunately Bulger came on, as Harrison and Owens both had slow starts. I ended up trading Harrison/AntSmith for Hearst/Staley. A very ugly trade by all means, but Staley and Hearst were both putting up RB15 or so numbers. THat coupled with Bulger and Owens lighting it up late in the season, I made it to my superbowl, though lost. I ended up being big money winner by finishing as a top seed, 3rd in points and runner up in SB.Case point, it would have been a lot easier to draft RB-RB in that situation. I need to see of I can find my draft sheets from that league and see who I passed up.

 

[JAA]

Anyone know where I can find 2002 final FF numbers?

 

[Peens]

I would go Moss and Barlow at the turn (12th and 13th pick) given who is available.

 

[David Yudkin]

Anyone know where I can find 2002 final FF numbers?

LINKY

 

[David Yudkin]

Marc -Here's a hypothetical draft scenario . . .

You are picking at the turn (12th and 13th picks).  Which players are you going to pick . . .

Off the board:

LT

Priest

Deuce

Green

Portis

Alexander

Edge

Lewis

RW

Taylor

Henry

Marc Levin is on the clock for the next two selections . . .

Since you've jumped in this thread on occasion David, what do you do given the same scenario? How about other Sharks peeking in? Why?

I have only had time to pop in every now and again because I have been busy working on my other FORTY player assignments they have given me here . . .

Given who would be left at that spot, here's my thought process:

Some the remaining RB inlcude:

Faulk: I am Faulk adverse. Between a full 16 game stretch between 2002 and 2003, he compiled about 320 yards rushing and was either playing at 50% or out altogther. Yes, he is often a monster whenhe plays, but I see his time played reduced and him starting to lose carries even when healthy. My inclination is to pass.

SDavis: I can't see him going this high up, but reality dictates that he might have to be a consideration. Has the same issues as Faulk and has Foster chomping at the bit for carries.

(Had Henry been available, I would have been squeemish on him with Willis lurking, too.)

DDavis: Had a great second half, but I am not 100% convinced the Texans are sold on him. From what I read, they were seriously considering taking one of the name RB in the first round this year, which would make no sense with Davis and Hollings already there. Pick 12 or 13 seems too early.

The guys I think will end up worth it at this spot (come EOY) are Barlow and Dillon , yet taking Dillon here will likely be premature.

If I were to take a RB here, the one I would probably take would be Barlow. He is the only one that I see that will have the huge majority of the workload, and SF as of now has no other weapons with ANY experience. (From my other research into some of the higher level performers, limited other options has been a good thing.) This would be a tough pick for me, as I historically have not been a fan of Barlow.

HOWEVER, since Moss and Harrison both produce like stud RB anyway, taking them would be a "safer" pick in what they would typically produce. (When I say "safer," I mean the total number of fantasy points scored from that slot. I realize finding not one but two RB later is VERY unsafe . . .)

If this were a league that can play 3 RB, you HAVE to take a RB here. If not, for me it would either be Barlow and a WR or Moss and Harrison.

That's my feeling as of today given the info we currently have. If Moss does turn out to have an injury, then that would change my opinion.

 

[Marc Levin]

I think this page of the thread shows that we all know the "value" move is to take the two WRs - I think it also shows that we see the extreme risk of going that route.That extreme risk is only one reason why I hate Stud WR. The other was mentioned above regarding how active you must be to maintain pace with the RB guys when you are banking on both those WRs. The third was mentioned by JAA - inevitably, these WRs start slow and a trade for RB quality is often made somewhere down the line.I would only do stud WR from the bottom flop in a start-3 WR league or where pts/receptions were available.Like I have said several times, I understand the intelligence/logic/value of going elite WR at the bottom flop - especially in combo with a RB - I simply won't do it. David points out a lot of good RB flaws of the Rbs from that spot, but each RB's flaws are compensated by the balance of selecting that Faulk/Barlow combo at the flop - rather than either of the RBs in isolation with anelite WR where each RBs flaws are magnified if they occur. There is a reason those RBs are not on par with the top-10 RBs - they all have warts - but, IMO, they are all "on par" with each other and the same jockeying among these RBs' rankings occurs as occurs with the top-5 or 6 RBs.Also, I think it is a bit of an error to say at the bottom flop that it is "too high" to take any of those backs - in reality, if you are drafting from the bottom flop and the RBs equally, you MUST reach down if you want one of them b/c they will NOT be there at the 3/4 flop. And, in value based theory, since I have all the RBs from 11-16 in one tier, and all of them will be gone by the 3/4 flop, DVBD says you take any combination of either the elite WRs or any of the RBs ranked 11-16 w/o "reaching." In essence, taking the top two RBs at the bottom flop is still in line with DVBD - or, at least, doesn't wholly violate the principles of value based drafting.

 

[David Yudkin]

Marc-I agree in theory to most of what you've had to say on this, and I likely would go RB/WR or WR/RB.But I can't say I toally agree with grabbing what you would say is your best guess of the remaining RB based solely that they won't be there for your next pick.In a perfect world, you should draft a player in each slot that will earn more than the pick he costs. If you take a RB that would rank as one of the Top 35 players (since that's how many players will be gone until your 3.12 pick), there's a very good chance you would be "reaching" for someone that won't earn his status as a #12 or #13 player.If I am going to effectively "guess" anyway, I'd rather guess at #36 than at #12 or #13.Based on current ADP data, players that might still be around at the 3rd/4th round turn could be Shipp, Suggs, Martin, TJones, Duckett, and SJones. Those 6 RB are riskier picks, but if they all get the amount of work that I think they will get, I'd say they have almost as good a chance to be Top 15 as guys like Henry, Barber, DDavis, Rudi, Bennett, etc. that could be sharing a lot of carries this year. And even if they end up as RB16-20 instead of 13-15, the scoring difference will not be huge (last year that entire spectrum was about 20 points apart).But by drafting them at #36 and #37, they DON'T HAVE to be as productive as an early second round pick to still have a lot of value. In my mind, I'd rather have the #36 pick rank as the #18 RB than the #13 pick rank as the #15 RB.Yes, I know that the guys still around that late to draft can easily flop, but I think this year there are a lot of guys in the RB 11-16 range with almost as many warts as the guys in the RB 17-25 range.I agree that you would be screwed going WR/WR if teams that went RB/RB all start taking another RB (which is what I do most often), so ADP numbers cannot fully be relied upon.Maybe I am just more open to playing guys like Shipp and SJones as my RB1 and RB2 than you . . .

 

[Frank Black]

One of the best threads on the board so far.

 

[cscmtp]

wow. what a thread. all i know is, last year, i drafted RB-RB in every antsports $ league I played. I was in 6 leagues, and I won 3 titles and over $1K. I made the playoffs in all 6 of those leagues. I lost in the first round with 3 of my teams, and then won it all in the other 3. This is all the proof I need to know that drafting 2 RB's early is a MUST for FF success. Can you win going WR-WR? Sure. Its been done. But if i could get the data, i'd be willing to be that over 70% of people who win titles likely picked RB-RB. Finally, for the first time ever, one of my super bowl teams went undefeated last year. I drafted Holmes, Lewis, and S. Davis in the first 3 rounds. Started Chad Johnson and either Mason or Steve Smith down the stretch.