What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Some thoughts on winning FF (1 Viewer)

While I think we could debate endlessly the merits of Joe T's particular rules of choice...I think that he hits on a very important issue which I think took me several years to appreciate.Which is...you really MUST have a defined strategy. I reject the notion that 'gut instinct' will prevail over 'analysis'. I insist that a methodical approach based on proven success will prevail over those who fail to understand why things worked and why things didn't work.So...knowing what works for you, in this example, how to find undervalued ADP's, is an important element of your strategy. Don't randomly look for names in the list. Look for criteria which you think will result in strong potential for surpassing ADP. THEN...match names in the list to your criteria. And...hone that tactic each year by emphasising what worked, and look for alternatives where things didn't work that well. Not all scenarios are going to be perfect fits. And you may have some conflicting criteria. But, if you lead with 'conditions' and THEN look for matching names, I think you'll be better off than leading with names. But just as important...ADP value is not the 'end all' of strategy. It's just one important piece. Drafting with SOS, whether to use QBBC, stud RB, and other components should also factor into an overall strategy and all of these elements should be reviewed, leveraged, discarded based on how successful they were.
What? You're saying it's not all luck?I agree, and one of the most important strategic elements one can employ is to be flexible among different strategies as each draft unfolds. In other words, don't force the same strategy in every league and every draft. If you understand the pros and cons of emphasizing RBs early vs. drafting at least one WR early, then you are better prepared to take advantage of the unique opportunities that are presented in each draft. Being flexible is not identical to flying by the seat of your pants. If you have prepared beforehand, you already know the ramifications of choosing one approach over another, which allows you to simply execute your plan without the distraction of redesigning your plan as the draft is occurring.
 
While I think we could debate endlessly the merits of Joe T's particular rules of choice...I think that he hits on a very important issue which I think took me several years to appreciate.Which is...you really MUST have a defined strategy. I reject the notion that 'gut instinct' will prevail over 'analysis'. I insist that a methodical approach based on proven success will prevail over those who fail to understand why things worked and why things didn't work.So...knowing what works for you, in this example, how to find undervalued ADP's, is an important element of your strategy. Don't randomly look for names in the list. Look for criteria which you think will result in strong potential for surpassing ADP. THEN...match names in the list to your criteria. And...hone that tactic each year by emphasising what worked, and look for alternatives where things didn't work that well. Not all scenarios are going to be perfect fits. And you may have some conflicting criteria. But, if you lead with 'conditions' and THEN look for matching names, I think you'll be better off than leading with names. But just as important...ADP value is not the 'end all' of strategy. It's just one important piece. Drafting with SOS, whether to use QBBC, stud RB, and other components should also factor into an overall strategy and all of these elements should be reviewed, leveraged, discarded based on how successful they were.
What? You're saying it's not all luck?I agree, and one of the most important strategic elements one can employ is to be flexible among different strategies as each draft unfolds. In other words, don't force the same strategy in every league and every draft. If you understand the pros and cons of emphasizing RBs early vs. drafting at least one WR early, then you are better prepared to take advantage of the unique opportunities that are presented in each draft. Being flexible is not identical to flying by the seat of your pants. If you have prepared beforehand, you already know the ramifications of choosing one approach over another, which allows you to simply execute your plan without the distraction of redesigning your plan as the draft is occurring.
Agreed. If you can define the parameters which will guide your decision making process...it's still a strategy. If you really have no notion of 'how' your going to implement flexability into your strategy...then it's not a strategy....it's an excuse to not create a strategy.
 
There's no denying that luck is a part of FF.However, the perceived amount of luck in FF is inversely proportional to the success of a given owner.
This may be the best quote ever posted on this board. I don't know how many times I hear guys say FF is mostly luck, yet there are certain guys making the playoffs and winning titles year in and year out, then there are those who never make the playoffs and are consistently bad saying those other teams are lucky. There certianly is luck involved but it takes skill to evaluate talent and pick guys in the right situations. Roster depth ultimatelty wins out and the guys that can't pick after eight rounds are not unlucky, they just aren't that knowledgable.
 
While I think we could debate endlessly the merits of Joe T's particular rules of choice...I think that he hits on a very important issue which I think took me several years to appreciate.

Which is...you really MUST have a defined strategy. I reject the notion that 'gut instinct' will prevail over 'analysis'. I insist that a methodical approach based on proven success will prevail over those who fail to understand why things worked and why things didn't work.

So...knowing what works for you, in this example, how to find undervalued ADP's, is an important element of your strategy. Don't randomly look for names in the list. Look for criteria which you think will result in strong potential for surpassing ADP. THEN...match names in the list to your criteria. And...hone that tactic each year by emphasising what worked, and look for alternatives where things didn't work that well.

Not all scenarios are going to be perfect fits. And you may have some conflicting criteria. But, if you lead with 'conditions' and THEN look for matching names, I think you'll be better off than leading with names.

But just as important...ADP value is not the 'end all' of strategy. It's just one important piece. Drafting with SOS, whether to use QBBC, stud RB, and other components should also factor into an overall strategy and all of these elements should be reviewed, leveraged, discarded based on how successful they were.
What? You're saying it's not all luck?I agree, and one of the most important strategic elements one can employ is to be flexible among different strategies as each draft unfolds. In other words, don't force the same strategy in every league and every draft. If you understand the pros and cons of emphasizing RBs early vs. drafting at least one WR early, then you are better prepared to take advantage of the unique opportunities that are presented in each draft. Being flexible is not identical to flying by the seat of your pants. If you have prepared beforehand, you already know the ramifications of choosing one approach over another, which allows you to simply execute your plan without the distraction of redesigning your plan as the draft is occurring.
Agreed. If you can define the parameters which will guide your decision making process...it's still a strategy. If you really have no notion of 'how' your going to implement flexability into your strategy...then it's not a strategy....it's an excuse to not create a strategy.
Exactly! I prepare BEFORE my draft so that I can have flexibility DURING the draft. Here's an example from a thread on "Picking 12th in a 12 team league"
There are at least six reasonable ways to play drafting at the 12-13 turn, assuming a start 2 RB, 3 WR league. I have listed them in the order of most conservative to least conservative below:

1. RB-RB, WR-RB Offers the best opportunity to have a strong running game

2. RB-WR, RB-RB Should get a top 10-12 RB, top 3 WR and a good shot at a decent RB2

3. RB-RB, WR-WR Potentially two top 12 RB and two top 12 WR

4. RB-WR, RB-WR The most balanced approach, should have four quality starters

5. RB-WR, WR-WR Rolling the dice on finding a serviceable RB2 later

6. WR-WR, RB-WR WR overload, going against the grain, but tough uphill battle on RBs

I would try to use approach #3 or #4 in most leagues, but a lot depends on the talent available, the league in which I am competing, and the flow of the draft.

In one of my leagues, only half of the teams have shark owners while another half are unpredictable and/or less competitive on average. In this league, I will consider becoming more conservative as I expect to be among the leaders as long as I don't make multiple mistakes. So maybe I choose approach #2 or even #1.

In another league, competition is extremely close every year, so I just may be more aggressive, going against the grain, trying to give myself an edge. So perhaps #5 would enter consideration although probably not #6. If I use this approach, then come rounds 5-6 I'll be looking to snag a pair of players like Addai/Rhodes or TENN or JAX or SF. I know I'll be likely taking a hit at RB2, but if my RB committee works out, I'll be hard to beat considering my strength at WR. Even if RB2 flops, perhaps my WR strength will cancel out my RB weakness.

Looking at #5 a little bit deeper, 35 picks will have occurred before team 12 gets their 3rd rounder. If each other teams has drafted 2 RBs, and at least Manning and Gates are gone, then at most 10 WRs will have been drafted. So theoretically, team 12 could have a top 10-12 RB (drafted at the first turn) along with a top 3 WR plus two more top 12 WR.

If you choose #4, then you end up with a top 10-12 RB and a top 3 WR from the first turn, then likely RB 24 or so along with a top 12 WR. Your next WR probably fits anywhere between WR 20 and WR 25. So would you rather have:

#4: RB 10, RB 24, WR 3, WR 11, WR 24

or

#5: RB 10, RB 30, WR3, WR11, WR12

Considering that the “RB30” could be a team or relay RB with the potential to hit the top 20 as the situation resolves, I am tempted to go with approach #5. Risky, yes. But there's a chance to be dominant if the RB2 works out sometime during the year.
 
There's no denying that luck is a part of FF.However, the perceived amount of luck in FF is inversely proportional to the success of a given owner.
This may be the best quote ever posted on this board. I don't know how many times I hear guys say FF is mostly luck, yet there are certain guys making the playoffs and winning titles year in and year out, then there are those who never make the playoffs and are consistently bad saying those other teams are lucky. There certianly is luck involved but it takes skill to evaluate talent and pick guys in the right situations. Roster depth ultimatelty wins out and the guys that can't pick after eight rounds are not unlucky, they just aren't that knowledgable.
In a shark league, I think luck could help an inexperienced owner win a FF Super Bowl. But over a 10 year span, I believe that hard work and preparation will net the more experienced owner more playoff appearances, and more wins over that span.
 
There's no denying that luck is a part of FF.However, the perceived amount of luck in FF is inversely proportional to the success of a given owner.
This may be the best quote ever posted on this board. I don't know how many times I hear guys say FF is mostly luck, yet there are certain guys making the playoffs and winning titles year in and year out, then there are those who never make the playoffs and are consistently bad saying those other teams are lucky. There certianly is luck involved but it takes skill to evaluate talent and pick guys in the right situations. Roster depth ultimatelty wins out and the guys that can't pick after eight rounds are not unlucky, they just aren't that knowledgable.
:P Ssshh! I'm considered the luckiest guy in the league by my competitors. ;)
 
Joe T said:
I think Glenn's PPG upside far outweighs his injury risk downside. I don't think he's a player that 'can't stay on the field.' He's proven he can stay on the field. Same story with Deuce.
He's played a full season only three times in his career, including four seasons with 10 games or less. And since becoming the Saints starting RB, Deuce has played a full season only once and obviously he's coming off a major knee injury this year. I think your rules are spot on in a number of regards but these two examples I think are dicey. I do think McAllister has a chance to outperform his ADP if he falls but he clearly is a major risk. I think Glenn stands a very good chance of being drafted earlier then he should (though I haven't checked out his latest ADP so that opinion is subject to change :) ).
 
The idea of trying to pick players that will outperform their ADP and avoid those that will underperform it (in fact, you won't have to avoid them since others will, by definition, have reached for them) is a golden rule to winning FF - but I think that one point does not get the glory it deserves - and it's consistency... and I don't mean consistency as scoring 2 points per week and not moving much from week to week (standard deviation)... but rather in a percentage of times a player will perform like a starter and like the top25% (elite) of the starters...

This is obviouly important for H2H leagues as VDB is to points league... because we all know that beating an opponent 183-43 yields only a win - as does beating him 88-73... You can avoid lots of loses by having guys that perform like starters week-in week-out... This is supporting an elite team with only minimal depth... rather then having to choose between 6RWs that are marginal...

You want guys like Edgerrin James on your team... guys that produce every week at a certain standard... it doesn't matter who they are playing - he'll get involded in the game...

Obviously, you can't have elite players at every position... but you need for your WR3 to be able to be of "starter" quality 60% of the times points every week... and not 30% of the times... the first guy will constantly add points to your team (ala Housh or Mason in PPR) and helps your studs carry you to victory... the second guy might add 17 points to the rest of your team when LT already produced 24 and has beaten the other team "by himself" - the second guy doesn't help you when LT as an off-game and he only contributes 2 points... even though he might score the same amount of FF points (or even more!) for the complete year (i.e. having the same stats as Mason for example) - he's not as efficient in helping you beat your opponent... even more frustrating, the second guy will "force you" to put him into the lineup because he had 7/143/1 last week and is becoming the next Torry Holt - but, you obvisouly know that he'll post up 3/31/0 and 2/17/0 the next two weeks only because you started him...

 
First of all, in what year did Evans outperform Smith? Aside from Smith being a better fantasy WR than Evans, this cashes with your value rule. Smith outperforms Evans and is taken later - Smith is better value.

Secondly, only taken proven players isn't always a good thing, ie Lamont Jordan, LJ, Caddy last year, and in any given year there is a rookie who performs equal to a 4th round pick or better.
You are arguing his point, he said, "This will keep you drafting guys like Rod Smith over players like Lee Evans" not "This will keep you from drafting guys like Rod Smith over players like Lee Evans."
 
Thoughts on Key’s to Winning FFI’ve been reading and posting on this board for a good while. There is a ton of great information here. What I’ve discovered over the years is to stay out of opinion threads or hype threads and stick to reading news related information only. Why waste time debating the merits of Willis McGahee with some Bills homer when you have no chance of swaying his opinion? It’s really not worth it.I really don’t use other people’s rankings anymore other than to review mine against to make sure my logic is sound. I don’t change my rankings based on other people’s rankings. I used to do this and it always ended up poorly.The key to maximizing your opportunity to win is pretty simple: Draft players who have the opportunity to outperform their ADP and avoid players who are likely to under perform their ADP.Here are some thoughts I go through to target players who will have the opportunity to outperform their ADP and well… avoid the ones that won’t:1. I like to call this the Trung Candidate rule: focus on players with a proven track record. This is especially true in the first 3-4 rounds of a draft. Why would I waste an early pick on a player who has not proven he can cut it in the NFL? Give me a guy who has shown he can produce over a player being taken in the same range who hasn’t proved he can perform.2. Draft for consistency instead of trying to hit home runs. Yes, this is similar to rule #1, but the point can’t be stressed enough. You want to avoid land mines? Go down a path that is known. This will keep you drafting guys like Rod Smith over players like Lee Evans.3. The Roy Williams rule (formerly known as the Fred Taylor rule): Avoid players that can’t seem to play a full season.4. Do not give away a players stats because a star on the team has gone elsewhere. My example here would be Ronnie Brown. Just because Ricky is gone doesn’t mean Brown is going to get all of Ricky’s numbers. It just doesn’t work that way. This also happens with WR’s when people say, “Somebody’s got to catch now that player X is gone.” It just doesn’t work that way.5. Read the Shark Pool and see who is being overly hyped. I like to refer to this as the Kevan Barlow rule, but it could also be called the Tatum Bell rule. If I consistently see people posting that player X is going to explode this year, I avoid that player. He will be taken higher than where he deserves to go and thus runs the risk of under performance.6. Lastly, look for good offenses where the RB1 or WR1 is muddled. Then I take the guy that is value. If most people are saying one guy will end up as the RB1 and pushing his value up, I try to grab the other guy later.There are more rules than this, but I don’t want to bore anyone with the TGunz rule or the 1,000 yard WR rule among others. This is really a simple concept. I don’t think it is that difficult to target 4-5 guys in your draft who have the opportunity to outperform their ADP. I think a lot of good drafters here already know this.Last year, I focused on 4 players: Larry Johnson who could be had outside of the first 4 rounds but had tremendous upside, Warrick Dunn, Thomas Jones, and Keenan McCardell. Did I get lucky with Larry Johnson? Maybe. Did I get lucky with all 4? Who knows. I do know that it seems fairly easy every year to find a few guys that are a slam dunk to outperform their ADP.
would you try adding to this? Seemed to me like a real good start but....
 
While I think we could debate endlessly the merits of Joe T's particular rules of choice...I think that he hits on a very important issue which I think took me several years to appreciate.

Which is...you really MUST have a defined strategy. I reject the notion that 'gut instinct' will prevail over 'analysis'. I insist that a methodical approach based on proven success will prevail over those who fail to understand why things worked and why things didn't work.

So...knowing what works for you, in this example, how to find undervalued ADP's, is an important element of your strategy. Don't randomly look for names in the list. Look for criteria which you think will result in strong potential for surpassing ADP. THEN...match names in the list to your criteria. And...hone that tactic each year by emphasising what worked, and look for alternatives where things didn't work that well.

Not all scenarios are going to be perfect fits. And you may have some conflicting criteria. But, if you lead with 'conditions' and THEN look for matching names, I think you'll be better off than leading with names.

But just as important...ADP value is not the 'end all' of strategy. It's just one important piece. Drafting with SOS, whether to use QBBC, stud RB, and other components should also factor into an overall strategy and all of these elements should be reviewed, leveraged, discarded based on how successful they were.
I've got a new dynasty league that has put this concept in stark relief. The owners in it are all experienced in FF, and generally are regulars in the playoffs of their other leagues.The league I created strays pretty far from the standard league setup. Though some positions have flex, in general teams would go with 2 QB, 2 RB, 5 WR, 2 TE... and reception points are staggered, favoring TE, then WR, then RB last. Then add in a full 11-man 4-3 IDP unit and 4 special teamers (kicker, punter, coach, kick return unit).

What I found was that this league setup really exposed those owners who had been doing well in their leagues because they had learned rules of thumb like Stud RB, or if not cognizant of it by that name, learned from observation over a few years what works. Now that they were in a league where the top QB, WR and TE can be as valuable as RBs, those rules of thumb didn't work anymore.

For me it really was an affirmation of the value of tools like VBD that can be used to see where value lies. And it showcased the different levels of skill in truly knowing how to measure value and build a team.

 
One other thing.......

Patience! I'm always amazed at the amount of panic that sets in by owners way too early!

 
I probably wasn't clear above, but in the first 4 rounds I don't draft anyone with tremendous upside. I draft players who have proven they can produce to a level worthy of that pick. I'm not trying to hit home runs in the first four rounds.
Yet you say Larry Johnson was one of your 4 main picks last year, and he met NONE of your own guidelines.
David,Thanks for the response.I think he fits nicely in guidelines 3-6. He's a guy that didn't get a lot of hype in the shark pool last year. He's a guy that was in a somewhat muddled backfield. He was the lower of the two backs... not sure how that's not using what I posted. :confused:
Not to make this an LJ thread but given your guidelines I assume you would take SA or LT2 over LJ if you had the first pick in the draft...
 
You need a solid roster of course, but the most important piece of any winning season, LUCK.

Here endth the lesson ...
:goodposting:
:thumbdown: Sure luck plays a part in the outcomes, but the guys who draft well, trade well and manage their teams well come out towards the top every year. the Lucky guys flash at the top and then go back to the bottom.
Well I agree on the notion of a knowledgeable FF participant, I have been on BOTH sides of the luck factor on multiple occasions. I always draft well, make the playoffs, even win a championship here and there, BUT you cannot deny the luck factor, be it large or small, it is just enough at that crucial time to push you up or down. Do I believe that FF is all luck ? Of course not, but it does play a larger role than some folks seem to be willing to admit ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top