STRATEGY: Risk vs. Reward in dynasty drafts (1 Viewer)

[-OZ-]

QUESTIONS:

1. As a general rule: Do you favor high risk / reward picks in rookie dynasty picks?

2. If you're a contender, do you play it safe, or take additional risk?

2b: would the situation make you more likely to trade the pick?

3. If you're building, do you play it safe, or take additional risk?

3b: would the situation make you more likely to trade the pick?

4. If you have a high pick, do you play it safe, or take additional risk?

4b: Are you likely to trade the pick?

5. If you have a low 1st, do you play it safe, or take additional risk?

5b: Are you likely to trade the pick?

6. If you have a specific need to address, does that change your mind? (IOW, if you have a strong starting lineup except one position, do you want a risky pick at that position, or a more safe one?)

6b: would the situation make you more likely to trade the pick?

7. If you already have a strong lineup without any true needs, do you play it safe, or take additional risk?

7b: would the situation make you more likely to trade the pick?

 

[beto]

Aren't all rookie picks high risk?

 

[wannabee]

In general, I look for the higher reward players. I agree with Beto's comment about all rookie picks being high risk. Here is how I look at the picks (but it changes each year with different players)

Picks 1.01-1.05 (sometimes 1.05) - take best player available, preferably a rb

Picks 1.05-1.08 I try to trade this pick for a veteran player that can start for me or try to trade down. This is the tier where there is so much volatility. There are a few big successes like Vince Young last year. But, this tier usually has a ton of misses.

1.09-1.12 Take Best player available. usually the guy with the highest upside over the safest. if you are drafting this late in round one, you usually have a decent team so you can afford the risk.

 

[coolnerd]

QUESTIONS:

1. As a general rule: Do you favor high risk / reward picks in rookie dynasty picks?

As a general rule, I go for value. What value means is some mix of player talent, team needs, draft position, league mate draft tendencies and scoring systems. At times, it will look high risk; other will look well too consevative. My general rule is not to have too many and then violate those that I do when needed.

All the other questions roll back into question 1 and answer 1.

 

[KTM]

Is this start-up drafts or just rookie drafts?

 

[lord_helmet]

I always like to try and trade down in the rookie draft, to add solid players or multiple picks. But it has burned me a couple of times, and not really any amazing success to report.

2006 - I traded my #10 overall pick for Mike Brown CHI S, pick turned into Cutler (Plummer is my #2)

2007 - I traded my #12 overall for #23 and #26, jury still out

 

[-OZ-]

Is this start-up drafts or just rookie drafts?

I'm referring to rookie drafts in an established league, but feel free to discuss other drafts.

 

[-OZ-]

Aren't all rookie picks high risk?

I suppose "higher" would be the preferred term?Just as one example, take AJ Hawk and Brandon Marshall from last year, they went in around the same tier, but at least IMO, Hawk was the safer bet. This year AD/CJ/Lynch - CJ seems to be the safer bet, although many would disagree with that.

 

[EBF]

1. As a general rule: Do you favor high risk / reward picks in rookie dynasty picks?

No. I used to draft the Tyrone Calico and Adrian McPhersons of the world, but I've since learned that the guys you want to target for your team are not necessarily the flashy players who appear to have a lot of upside, but rather the solid football players who have proven their skills on the field. Mark Clayton is a good example of this kind of player. He's not the biggest guy and his speed isn't truly elite, but he's a playmaker. Not surprisingly, he's made a quick impact in the NFL.

2. If you're a contender, do you play it safe, or take additional risk?

2b: would the situation make you more likely to trade the pick?

I think you have to draft the best player regardless of need.

3. If you're building, do you play it safe, or take additional risk?

3b: would the situation make you more likely to trade the pick?

I think it's always best to play it safe. I am always open to trading my picks if a strong offer comes along.

4. If you have a high pick, do you play it safe, or take additional risk?

4b: Are you likely to trade the pick?

Again, take the best player available. I usually identify 4-5 players that I like from each draft crop and try to position myself to draft only from that pool.

5. If you have a low 1st, do you play it safe, or take additional risk?

5b: Are you likely to trade the pick?

The strategy is the same no matter where you're picking.

6. If you have a specific need to address, does that change your mind? (IOW, if you have a strong starting lineup except one position, do you want a risky pick at that position, or a more safe one?)

6b: would the situation make you more likely to trade the pick?

In my opinion, if you're drafting a rookie for need, you're already in trouble. Always draft the best player. You can always trade him for a player at a different position.

7. If you already have a strong lineup without any true needs, do you play it safe, or take additional risk?

7b: would the situation make you more likely to trade the pick?

I love to load up the bottom of my roster with good talent. It gives you more flexibility and trade options down the line.

 

[crnerblitz]

QUESTIONS:

1. As a general rule: Do you favor high risk / reward picks in rookie dynasty picks?

I tend to disfavor WR's as I see most of them as a high risk. It takes most 3 years to develope and then the bust rate at the top of the draft is pretty big.

2. If you're a contender, do you play it safe, or take additional risk?

2b: would the situation make you more likely to trade the pick?

I would tend to play it a bit safer with the pick. But I am still looking for value. I am always trying to trade. Provided It is helping my team.

3. If you're building, do you play it safe, or take additional risk?

3b: would the situation make you more likely to trade the pick?

Tend to take a few more risks

4. If you have a high pick, do you play it safe, or take additional risk?

4b: Are you likely to trade the pick?

I have tended toward the safer pick. People value high picks at unreal levels. I think you can get great value for your early pick if your willing to part with it for something less new and shiney

5. If you have a low 1st, do you play it safe, or take additional risk?

5b: Are you likely to trade the pick?

I'll take a risk later. I'll move down a little if I can work a good deal.

6. If you have a specific need to address, does that change your mind? (IOW, if you have a strong starting lineup except one position, do you want a risky pick at that position, or a more safe one?)

6b: would the situation make you more likely to trade the pick?

It has. In 2005 I only had Bledsoe and Collins as my QB's in a 16 teamer. I had the 1.5 and everyone said I reached for Alex Smith. Maybe I did a little, but he really was my 5 ranked player on the board. Remember I discount WR's a bit.

7. If you already have a strong lineup without any true needs, do you play it safe, or take additional risk?

7b: would the situation make you more likely to trade the pick?

I might be more likely to swing for the fences.

 

[-OZ-]

bump for more opinions following rookie drafts.

 

[Ash]

My league is a 16 team salary cap / auction league with 8 offense and 11 defense starters. Our rookies are assigned a salary based on their draft position, but from the last half of the first round, they're reasonble salaries, and from Round 2 onwards they're dirt cheap.

My strategy is to get whoever I think has the best chance to be a startable player. If I can draft a guy and get him in the lineup, he has a cheap salary and that frees up money for me to spend on other positions. I stay away from boom/bust type players (someone will always take them before me)

 

[Jene Bramel]

I think my philosophy is closest to EBFs of those posted thus far.

I'm a big believer that studs win championships and try to maximize the number of studs in my lineups. That's not rocket science I suppose, but in this thread and in practice I see plenty of owners make a safe pick or take the more immediately startable player. I believe you get to the playoffs with a nice 8-5 team with a nice combination of mostly above replacement level talent and good depth but you win titles with the 11-2 team with a lineup of studs. Again, not rocket science.

I'm happy to deal current and future first round picks for established older stud vets if there isn't a rookie available that has similar upside. I'd rather take a chance on a rookie with a high ceiling (assuming I believe that by talent or situation they have more than a fleeting chance at providing a serious lineup advantage) than a guy who I know will start on a team but is unlikely to ever provide much relative value.

It doesn't matter to me whether I'm rebuilding or contending in the rookie draft. I'm looking to draft the player with the highest upside at any point in the draft. I try to identify the few players at each position that have the capability to provide a lineup advantage and then try to aggressively move into a target range to get a guy before the draft or come up to a pick during the draft to get those kinds of players. If I believe a guy at a certain position (and I play in IDP leagues with a number of positions to consider) has an extended window of stud production, I'll do whatever I can (sometimes overpaying) to get him. I don't want to take the bad side of a deal too often, but there are many times where what looks the bad side of the deal initially isn't anywhere near the bad side of the deal in your particular roster situation.

I'm willing to risk some bad player evaluations and draft/trade decisions to get a chance at a title. Building slowly for a five year window is nice, but I'm not willing to sacrifice a couple of seasons along the way if I can avoid it.

 

[Biabreakable]

Best player available and for the most part regardless of positional need.

There are times where in leagues that you start multiple WR/LB/DB ect. that you may want to mix steady performers with less upside with more inconsistent players with higher upside in your lineups but ultimatly your going to play your best players and your best players will trade better as well. And that will be the ultimate goal.

As far as rookie players are concerned my teams are hopefully in a position where I do not expect or need to start rookies for quite awhile anyways so taking the best player even if not in ideal situation is the best course of action. I think it is a losing strategy to draft for need if that means you are passing up a better player.

I am kind of uncertain about the original questions and what they may mean here however. Perhaps some examples would help to clairify that.

There are times when you might take a player with a clearer path to producing over a player buried by thier situation that you think is better. But I would only do that if I think that player will have greater trade value than the buried player to the point where I think I can gain relative value.

For example if I think player A > than player B but I can trade player B for player A + then I might opt for player B so I can gain the extra value. If not then I will just draft player A.

 

[FUBAR]

QUESTIONS:

1. As a general rule: Do you favor high risk / reward picks in rookie dynasty picks? YES

2. If you're a contender, do you play it safe, or take additional risk? Safer

2b: would the situation make you more likely to trade the pick? YES

3. If you're building, do you play it safe, or take additional risk? Additional risk

3b: would the situation make you more likely to trade the pick? NO

4. If you have a high pick, do you play it safe, or take additional risk? Safer

4b: Are you likely to trade the pick? NO

5. If you have a low 1st, do you play it safe, or take additional risk? Risk

5b: Are you likely to trade the pick? YES

6. If you have a specific need to address, does that change your mind? (IOW, if you have a strong starting lineup except one position, do you want a risky pick at that position, or a more safe one?) Risky

6b: would the situation make you more likely to trade the pick? YES

7. If you already have a strong lineup without any true needs, do you play it safe, or take additional risk? YES

7b: would the situation make you more likely to trade the pick? NO, less likely

 

[FUBAR]

1. As a general rule: Do you favor high risk / reward picks in rookie dynasty picks?No. I used to draft the Tyrone Calico and Adrian McPhersons of the world, but I've since learned that the guys you want to target for your team are not necessarily the flashy players who appear to have a lot of upside, but rather the solid football players who have proven their skills on the field. Mark Clayton is a good example of this kind of player. He's not the biggest guy and his speed isn't truly elite, but he's a playmaker. Not surprisingly, he's made a quick impact in the NFL.

Do you still feel this way? Seems different than your other recent posts.

 

[s_ezy]

QUESTIONS:

1. As a general rule: Do you favor high risk / reward picks in rookie dynasty picks?

In the latter rounds, early i like less risk

2. If you're a contender, do you play it safe, or take additional risk?

safe

2b: would the situation make you more likely to trade the pick?

sure

3. If you're building, do you play it safe, or take additional risk?

risk

3b: would the situation make you more likely to trade the pick? sure

4. If you have a high pick, do you play it safe, or take additional risk?

BPA

4b: Are you likely to trade the pick?

if i can get value, sure

5. If you have a low 1st, do you play it safe, or take additional risk?

BPA, but more likely to have risk associated with them due to not going early in the first

5b: Are you likely to trade the pick?

if i can get value, sure

6. If you have a specific need to address, does that change your mind? (IOW, if you have a strong starting lineup except one position, do you want a risky pick at that position, or a more safe one?)

not really, in one league i was strong at WR with Harrison, Coles and Colston, BPA when i drafted was Bowe so i took him. I can always look to trade from a position of strength for a need after the draft

6b: would the situation make you more likely to trade the pick?

if i can get value, sure

7. If you already have a strong lineup without any true needs, do you play it safe, or take additional risk?

risk

7b: would the situation make you more likely to trade the pick?

if i can get value, sure

 

[EBF]

1. As a general rule: Do you favor high risk / reward picks in rookie dynasty picks?No. I used to draft the Tyrone Calico and Adrian McPhersons of the world, but I've since learned that the guys you want to target for your team are not necessarily the flashy players who appear to have a lot of upside, but rather the solid football players who have proven their skills on the field. Mark Clayton is a good example of this kind of player. He's not the biggest guy and his speed isn't truly elite, but he's a playmaker. Not surprisingly, he's made a quick impact in the NFL.

Do you still feel this way? Seems different than your other recent posts.

Yep. Above all you want good football players. Look at Greg Jennings and Santonio Holmes. Neither guy looks special on paper. Both are a bit smallish with merely good timed speed. But they get open and make plays all over the field. I'll take that over Matt Jones and his 4.3 40 every time out. This doesn't mean I don't respect players who have exceptional qualities. It just means I want football players and not "projects." From my experience, most projects never amount to anything. A guy can have all the speed and athletic ability in the world, but if he's not a football player then he's not going to get the job done (see: Williamson, M. Jones, Calico, Q. Morgan).

 

[FUBAR]

1. As a general rule: Do you favor high risk / reward picks in rookie dynasty picks?

No. I used to draft the Tyrone Calico and Adrian McPhersons of the world, but I've since learned that the guys you want to target for your team are not necessarily the flashy players who appear to have a lot of upside, but rather the solid football players who have proven their skills on the field. Mark Clayton is a good example of this kind of player. He's not the biggest guy and his speed isn't truly elite, but he's a playmaker. Not surprisingly, he's made a quick impact in the NFL.

Do you still feel this way? Seems different than your other recent posts.

Yep. Above all you want good football players. Look at Greg Jennings and Santonio Holmes. Neither guy looks special on paper. Both are a bit smallish with merely good timed speed. But they get open and make plays all over the field. I'll take that over Matt Jones and his 4.3 40 every time out. This doesn't mean I don't respect players who have exceptional qualities. It just means I want football players and not "projects." From my experience, most projects never amount to anything. A guy can have all the speed and athletic ability in the world, but if he's not a football player then he's not going to get the job done (see: Williamson, M. Jones, Calico, Q. Morgan).

That makes more sense. I was thinking about your post before, where you'd rather take the risk of a possible great player vs. a known WR2 quality-type. This appeared inconsistent at first, but it does make sense. Some "projects" do pan out, McNair was a project, IIRC, TO was even considered a project as was Brandon Marshall. On the whole though, you're correct. Odds are better with players who have proven they can perform, regardless of their 40 times or size. In many ways, I find those players who perform in college despite being smaller or somewhat slower, do better because they've learned to use their heads more.

 

[DWidmar]

I have a whole different philosophy with draft picks. In my league, everyone want's the newest, greatest, youngest prospect on the market. So I typically trade away my draft picks every year. Right before the draft I can get the best value for that pick. I am not a big risk / reward kind of guy. I prefer to trade for the proven stud player and go from there. Sometimes I give up to much in doing that but I know what I am getting and I have built a solid dynasty team in doing so. I have not drafted with my pick in the first round in probably 5 years. I have made the playoffs all 5 of the last years.

Here is how much our league loves the younger players. One owner just traded Lynch (#2 overall last year) and Boldin and a 2nd rounder (#23) for #1 overall this year. I like cashing in on that value and making my team better although that wasn't me that got that deal.

 

[EBF]

1. As a general rule: Do you favor high risk / reward picks in rookie dynasty picks?

No. I used to draft the Tyrone Calico and Adrian McPhersons of the world, but I've since learned that the guys you want to target for your team are not necessarily the flashy players who appear to have a lot of upside, but rather the solid football players who have proven their skills on the field. Mark Clayton is a good example of this kind of player. He's not the biggest guy and his speed isn't truly elite, but he's a playmaker. Not surprisingly, he's made a quick impact in the NFL.

Do you still feel this way? Seems different than your other recent posts.

Yep. Above all you want good football players. Look at Greg Jennings and Santonio Holmes. Neither guy looks special on paper. Both are a bit smallish with merely good timed speed. But they get open and make plays all over the field. I'll take that over Matt Jones and his 4.3 40 every time out. This doesn't mean I don't respect players who have exceptional qualities. It just means I want football players and not "projects." From my experience, most projects never amount to anything. A guy can have all the speed and athletic ability in the world, but if he's not a football player then he's not going to get the job done (see: Williamson, M. Jones, Calico, Q. Morgan).

That makes more sense. I was thinking about your post before, where you'd rather take the risk of a possible great player vs. a known WR2 quality-type. This appeared inconsistent at first, but it does make sense. Some "projects" do pan out, McNair was a project, IIRC, TO was even considered a project as was Brandon Marshall. On the whole though, you're correct. Odds are better with players who have proven they can perform, regardless of their 40 times or size. In many ways, I find those players who perform in college despite being smaller or somewhat slower, do better because they've learned to use their heads more.

My attitude with prospects is "what you see is what you get." If a receiver can't catch the ball, he'll never be able to catch the ball. If a passer can't be poised in the pocket, he'll never be poised in the pocket. You can be Quincy Morgan or Jamarcus Russell with "all the tools" needed to be successful, but if you can't play ball then you can't play ball.

 

[Sinn Fein]

In the draft I am looking to draft the best player available, no matter my spot in the draft, or my strength as a team.

I can get roster fillers on the waiver wire. In the draft I am purely looking for players who I think can be top-10 at their position. It certainly is a risky proposition, but if am a rebuilding team, I don't really want a bunch of mediocre players, without upside, who move me up a few slots in the standings. And, if I am a contending team, I can afford to wait for a prospect to develop, or I can use the hype surrounding the prospect to fill a hole in a trade.

 

[beto]

This thread could be turned into a questionaire that determines your "dynasty rookie draft profile"

For instance,

Your on the clock with the #13 pick in the 200x draft, the following 4 players are on the board:

1. Highest NFL drafted player (1pt)

2. Player with most preseason hype (3pt)

3. Backup of a player on your dynasty roster (2pt)

4. Highest risk player (4pt)

Add up all the points and would tell you if you are closest to Bloom, JohnnyU, Wannabee or EBF as a dynasty drafter. LOL Just kidding guys.

Would take a lot of work but would fit nicely in a magazine or website survey.