Survivor Commentary Draft (1 Viewer)

[Fullback Fro]

I drafted three RB's with my first three picks. People think I may have reached for Barlow, but I think he's going to be a rock-star this year. This is just my opinion and I except this. Value pick? No, but would I get a chance at him again? No. Rudi Johnson with my 2nd was standard. Thomas Jones could have some serious upside, then Gonzo at 4.5. Top at his position. What are people's view on my bye weeks? Do you really think this can hurt me that bad. If you think about it, its not as bad as having one of your top 4 picks with 1 bye before week 5.

 

[Sinrman]

In league two, my top two teams would be 1. Rudnicki 2 Sinrman after the first four rounds. I would say the bottom two are Culcasi and Anderson.It is tough to judge a team after 4 rounds, but I think those two have significant question marks that will be tough to overcome the rest of the way.

Hehe, thanks Joe T. As I stated in my commentary about Warrick Dunn (4.12), my first four picks are risky. Having Dunn as my second RB makes it tough. If he can stay healthy, he can be quietly productive. Sharing with Duckett does suck, and Duckett will steal TDs. But Dunn is one of the better receiving backs in the NFL, and this makes up for certain things.The tough part about drafting C Johnson and Terrell Owens is, of course, sharing a bye week (5). I'm sure I'll get reamed for that, but what people need to remember is that I have to MAKE it to week 5 first! In a Survivor-style league like this, I take things one week at a time. And don't forget that weeks 5 & 6 are combined scoring, with only one person being bounced, so if I DO make it there, and have some trouble week 5, it doesn't completely kill my chances...

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

In league two, my top two teams would be 1. Rudnicki 2 Sinrman after the first four rounds.

Unfortunately, I think my team gets stronger as the draft proceeds and Sinrman's gets progressively weaker.

 

[David Yudkin]

After 10 minutes of review:The steal of the draft(s) was Dante Culpepper to BostonFred at 3.07 IMO. Great value at that point. Worst picks:Obviously Shipp kills Rebel34 (took Marcel 2.8? - WOW) and Shick! (took Marcel at 2.12). When your 2nd round pick is 2nd on the depth chart, you're in twouble.Chris Brown at 3.09 to HERD and 4.03 to Yudkin bodes well for the MB team. HERD passed on Julius Jones, Kevin Jones, McNabb, and Hines Ward for the backup in Tenn. Likewise, Yudkin passed up Gonzalez, Mason, for Brown even though he already had 2 RBs. Rookie mistakes for two "experts" who obviously drank the Eddie George isn't coming back kool-aid.

Even if George comes back (which I'll cover in a minute), Brown still has a decent chance of a) winning the job outright out in camp, b) getting half of the work, c) getting the goal line carries, and d) becoming the #1 guy in the second half of the year.Brown was the 29th RB off of the board in our league. Last year's #29 RB was Hearst with about 900 total yards and 3 TD. Brown could get 1200-1300 total yards with 6-8 TD splitting time and emerging later in the year. If George is gone altogether, those numbers could be even higher.As far as George goes, most parties involved are saying there's a 50/50 chance George will come back. This item appeared in the Boston Globe yesterday:

With 13 rookies to sign, Tennessee was $523,000 under the cap as of June 15. Only the Raiders, with $313,628 to spare, were in a tighter cap situation. Pretty soon, it's going to be crunch time for the Titans and running back Eddie George. "The money's got to come from somewhere," said a source within the organization, who handicapped the chances of George staying with the team this year at 50-50. George, whom the Titans paid a $1 million roster bonus in March, is scheduled to make $4.25 million this season and count $7.3 million against the cap, so the Titans want to reduce the 30-year-old's salary to $1.5 million. Tennessee needs about $4 million to sign its rookies. "Where does it come from?" the source said. "We've already renegotiated damn near everyone. There's only one more place for it to come. It's not like we can afford to pay him that." At the end of last week's minicamp, coach Jeff Fisher expressed optimism that George would remain a Titan. "I think everyone expects it to be resolved by [July 30]," Fisher said, referring to the start of training camp. "I've got confidence it's going to work out." If it doesn't, Tennessee's workhorse will be working elsewhere this fall.

I don't read that and get overly optomistic that George will be back given the math involved, but maybe that's just me.The Titans previously indicated if George were to come back, he would remain the #1 back provided his numbers and productivity were strong. Given that his production has steadily decreased and now is substandard, it's easy to see Brown being more productive and winning the job.

 

[bostonfred2]

The Titans previously indicated if George were to come back, he would remain the #1 back provided his numbers and productivity were strong. Given that his production has steadily decreased and now is substandard, it's easy to see Brown being more productive and winning the job.

I don't read this and get overly optimistic that Brown's worth a third rounder, but maybe that's just me.

 

[David Yudkin]

The Titans previously indicated if George were to come back, he would remain the #1 back provided his numbers and productivity were strong. Given that his production has steadily decreased and now is substandard, it's easy to see Brown being more productive and winning the job.

I don't read this and get overly optimistic that Brown's worth a third rounder, but maybe that's just me.

Thus why I selected him in the 4th.Obviously, Brown is a risky pick, but there were few other RB out there that had much chance of being a starting RB in the NFL still available.The Titans have been in the Top 12 in rushing attempts for 9 straight seasons including Top 10 7 times in that stretch with a high rank of #1.IMO, Brown was worth the risk in the 4th.And for those saying that I already had 2 RB, who in their right mind would want Brown as their RB2?

 

[bostonfred2]

sinrman

 

[Chase Stuart]

To hijack back to the WR thing....It's not about RUSHING to get 3 WRs. I simply try to view WR as three separate positions. You have to fill QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR. And if you keep putting off your WR1, you will likely be hurt at WR2 and WR3. Sure you might find one sleeper to be your WR1 semi-late, but you'll be dying at the other positions. You don't want to take a position that starts every week (and an important one, not like PK) too late. Just my feeling. WRs = speed

 

[ravnzfan]

I don't read this and get overly optimistic that Brown's worth a third rounder, but maybe that's just me.

I thought the departure of the 'Chris Brown train' was a bit premature also... knowing Eddie George, he'll be back for another playoff terrorization of my beloved blackbirds I am of the StudWR school in this format, and drafted Moss-Holt in SSL-IV...although thin at RB, the Richie Anderson's of the world are GREAT selections later, providing super value....you can bet Parcells will continue to use this vet in a very productive manner, as the rookie Jones earns his NFL wings

 

[Sinrman]

sinrman

Chris Brown was taken at 4.03 in my league. If he had been available at 4.12/5.01, then yes, I would have taken him, along with Dunn. But he was not. Obviously I am not going to blow a 2.12/3.01 pick on Brown. I'm not completely sold on Brown yet, and the uncertainty of whether George will be back or not would scare me off from taking him in the 3rd round or most of the 4th round either (if I had had a different drafting position).

 

[Marc Levin]

In league two, my top two teams would be 1. Rudnicki 2 Sinrman after the first four rounds. I would say the bottom two are Culcasi and Anderson.It is tough to judge a team after 4 rounds, but I think those two have significant question marks that will be tough to overcome the rest of the way.

Why Calcusi? Three strong RBs and a top-5 QB whio gets ground yardage - where are the "significant question marks" that will be "tough to overcome the rest of the way."Remember, it is unfair (esp. in June) to criticize based on your personal player preference - unless someone made a clear reach for a player or made a draft gaffe regarding bye weeks, there is little basis to say someone will have a tough time going forward from round four - the only teams with tough stuff "going forward" at THIS point are B-Fred and Sinrman b/c they must do SOMEthing about significant bye problems. Rebel's escaped criticism so far, but he has Peyton and his weak RB2 of Shipp off on the same week, too.

 

[David Yudkin]

To hijack back to the WR thing....It's not about RUSHING to get 3 WRs. I simply try to view WR as three separate positions. You have to fill QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR. And if you keep putting off your WR1, you will likely be hurt at WR2 and WR3. Sure you might find one sleeper to be your WR1 semi-late, but you'll be dying at the other positions. You don't want to take a position that starts every week (and an important one, not like PK) too late. Just my feeling. WRs = speed

I think your perspective on WR makes more sense in a "regular" league than a survivor style league.There are only so many RB that start or get the majority of work in the NFL. For discussion's sake, that makes 32 starters and maybe 8 guys that are in a RBBC that could be worth playing.Coincidentally, there were exactly 40 RB that scored 100+ points in the survivor scoring system last year. The dropoff scoring wise from there was pretty dramatic.But there were 64 WR that scored 100+ points and 5 or 6 more that scored 95+.Troy Edwards was the #70 WR last year, and even he had 5 games of 10+ points scored. The lowest ranked RB with 5 games of 10+ points was Thomas Jones at RB ranking #36.This tells me that there are a lot more NFL WR that get opportunities than there are RB that get any decent amount of playing time.In a survivor format, that also indicates to me that you can get away with trying to mix or match 5 or 6 WR week to week and hoping a couple of them have solid weeks, as they are at least playing on a regular basis. You can't score if you don't play.However, I don't think there are enough RB to go around to mix and match RB week to week and hope to have a decent output.So while you might recommend a WR1 paired with another WR1 and then taking a shot at a decent WR3, I might suggest a WR1, a WR2, and several guys that might be WR4 that could produce at a WR2 level for a week.That strategy would likely fail miserably in a regular format, as trying to figure out which mediocre WR to play each week would be a fruitless exercise in futility.

 

[Marc Levin]

This occurs simply b/c the pt/ rec. thing allows WRs who don't get a lot of yards and don't catch a lot of TDs still score a decent number of points.But that is beside Chase's point.Platooning 5 or 6 WRs who score between :arbitrary numbers mode on: 85-135 points is not as good as grabbing one WR early who will get near 15-20 points every week - that starting WR will be supported better by the platoon of 4 WRs of the 85-135 level than your 6 WRs of 85-135 points. That makes your WR3 better (you two are the same at WR2, his WR3 is better b/c his WR 3 scoring simllarly to yours is buffered by the better WR1. That is an extremely simplified example, but I think it makes the point.

 

[BassNBrew]

Out of curiousity, who from the staff and board teams hadn't participate in a survivor style league before? Or had everyone been in one before?

I had never participated in one with 12 people. I have played in a 10 team twice before, IIRC.Colin

It showed.

 

[BassNBrew]

These were a few posts I made before the draft. You'll see I didn't follow my own strategy 100%, because I followed what I thought was value in the draft, but these are my general thoughts on survivor draft strategy and roster management.

Starters:1 Highest scoring QB2 Highest scoring RBs3 Highest scoring WRs1 Highest scoring TE1 Highest scoring K1 Highest scoring D__________________9 Highest scoring playersThat leaves 11 roster spots to handle backups, smooth out your scoring, and cover bye weeks.Unlucky has already pointed out that we should each take 2 Ks and 2 Ds, and he's asked that we take them with our last picks. (Note that you take kickers FIRST - you need to make sure you get kickers who are going to PLAY, and there aren't 24 kickers who have assured roster spots right now).That leaves 9 roster spots for other players.QB scoring is going to be a little higher than other positions. Remember there's only 4 pts per passing TD, so running QBs are somewhat more valuable. RB scoring is affected by the 1 pt per reception rule. Backs like Richie Anderson are GREAT backups in this league because they provide a decent amount of scoring week in and week out. A guy like Alstott is worth more because he will have a couple 2 TD games. Backup RBs are worth less in this system because of the best starter format. Very few backups are good for both random carries and as the true backup in a situation. WR scoring is highly variable, and you HAVE to start 3 each week. The very top WRs have about 10-12 games you'd like to start them. Bottom WRs have more like 3-4. You'd like to have as many WRs as possible. Don't be afraid of the #2 or #3 WR on a team. Unlike in regular leagues, you don't have to know when to start them, and when they blow up, they usually have huge weeks. TE scoring is the most variable of all positions. Gonzo going off for 3 TDs may help you in week 4, but what about week 5 when he catches one ball for 10 yards? Take at least two TEs if you don't get a stud; if you do, take at most two. K scoring is going to be high in this league. Remember that 40 yard FGs are worth 4 points, and 50 yard FGs are worth 5 points. This means guys like Vanderjagt and Elam are worth more than Wilkins and Morten Anderson. If you don't know who kicks long field goals, look at one of last year's magazines or look at the EOY kicker scoring on ESPN. D scoring is huge for shutouts - 10 pts - but if a team scores even a field goal on your D it drops down to 4. Same thing with yards - the dropoff for 10 points is at 0-199 yards. Thanks, but I'll look at Ds that get sacks and INTs. And I'll also look at Ds that play against St. Louis, Arizona, Minnesota, and the Giants so I can get extra INTs from them. I'd expect everyone to end up with a roster that looks like this:2-3 QBs If you get Manning or Favre, you really only need one decent backup. Just make sure they have a different bye week. If you get Vick, take two backup QBs as late as possible. If you get Culpepper, take Frerotte with your 20th pick. If your #1 QB is average or below average, take 3 QBs to maximize scoring. Even the bottom QBs put up a few good games a year. 3-5 RBs If you take RB-RB the first two rounds, you really don't need too many RBs on your roster. I made it far last year with just Fred Taylor, Jamal Lewis and TJ Duckett. But I got really lucky, too. Just don't go overboard on RBs, especially shot-in-the-dark backups - you only get to start 2 each week, so having a couple decent RBs is more important than having three great ones. 5-7 WRs Top WRs are overrated, IMO, but in this format they are nice because they can provide decent scoring each week. Imagine that the top tier WRs are worth 2 pts, the 3rd and 4th round WRs are worth 1.5 pts, the weak WR1s and good WR2s are worth 1 pt, and the bottom WRs are worth half a point. Using that scale, try to end up with 6 points at the WR position - in other words, I'd bet you 12 scrubs would score the same as a team with Moss, Harrison and Holt. 1-3 TEs The main advantage of having a top TE, IMO, is that you don't need to carry a backup. For people who don't get a top TE, I'd bet my 2 bottom-tier TEs I take in the later rounds outscore the middle tier TE you take in the 7th. Don't waste an early pick on a TE unless you REALLY think they're going to be huge. Instead, take 2-3 that will get PT, focusing on guys that rack up receptions, not TDs. 2 Ks Kicker scoring is already pretty variable, but the long FG bit adds a LOT to that variability. Guys like Elam and Vanderjagt are much more valuable in this system than Wilkins and M Anderson. I can't picture a case where you'd carry anything but two kickers. 2-3 Ds You can take any two Ds and get decent scoring from them. A third D is a luxury - it will add to overall scoring more than any WR you'd get in the 20th round, but the WRs available in the 15th and 16th are still good enough to play for you once in a while.

At minimum, everyone should have:2 QBs3 RBs5 WRs1 TE2 K2 DThat's 15 guys. What to do with your other 5? Well, that depends on your draft. Depending on the quality of players I get at other positions, I'd take, in order of preference:- Extra TE (unless I have Gonzo or maybe if I have Shockey. Non-optional for most of us.)- Extra RB (unless I have three guys who should all get PT - even if my RB3 is the lesser back in an RBBC where I don't have the other guy)- Extra WR (unless I have 4 very good ones)- Extra QB (unless I have a top one, or two very good ones)- Extra D (unless I have two very good ones)- Extra WR (a seventh WR is a luxury but would have really helped me last year)- Extra RB (unless I have two RBBC guys, and two other weekly contributors)If you're thinking about carrying 5 RBs, think of this: If your RB1 gets injured, you're probably screwed no matter what. If they don't, your RB5 will NEVER contribute. In fact, your RB4 will rarely contribute - we only use the top 2 RBs each week. This is a HUGE difference from non-Survivor drafts, where I usually stockpile RBs. But as I've said several times, it doesn't matter if you hit home runs. You're not trying to score the most points each week; you just don't want to score the least. Spending roster spots on guys who won't play for you means you'll score less at other spots, at least once in a while.

Nah, I'd say at LEAST 2 TEs...Heck, I'd agree that we all should probably even have 3 TEs, 3 Kickers, and 3 Defenses. Why? Bye weeks. Think about it. If I have 2 Kickers and one is on a bye week, then I have no choice but to take the other kickers production that week. And that's risky. What if that kicker only puts up 2 points? OUCH! Same with the defenses and TEs... 

Three Ks to make up one scoring spot isn't going to add much value most weeks. Three Ds could. Three TEs might, but it's a waste if you have a top 5-6 TE. I'd argue that a sixth WR is much more valuable than a third TE or third K, because you have to fill three starting positions. I'd love to have a seventh, but there's only about 70 WRs I'd be willing to draft, if that, and my WR70 wouldn't add as much to my team as my DT15. These are the decisions you have to make, and you need to start thinking about them early. If you wait on a TE, you need to plan on grabbing at least 2 later. If you go stud RB early, you shouldn't waste more than one or two more roster spots on backs. If you take Moss and Harrison at the 12 spot, you can probably just hold five WRs total, and you can wait to take them until the mid rounds as you stock up on RBs for the next several straight rounds. If you take a top TE, you're going to be hurting at another position (probably QB or WR) and you may need to stock up on that position.

Well done on the outline Bred. I was assigned to rate League 1 and a lot of what you said was incorporated.

 

[DeCleater]

League 1 I like 1.Unlucky2.Chase Stuart3.Clayton Gray4.Jason WoodLeague 21.Maurile Tremblay2.Rudnicki3.Sinrman4.BostonfredBut it is way to early to call anyone the favorite.

 

[Kid_Charlemagne]

 

[BassNBrew]

Guys...I'm sorry to hijack, but I split these two leagues into separate threads as I was having a hard time keeping the two unique conversations separate.

 

[Chris Smith]

Guys...I'm sorry to hijack, but I split these two leagues into separate threads as I was having a hard time keeping the two unique conversations separate.

Good decision BassNBrew...Let's use the other two threads to discuss the different drafts.

 

[cracKer]

In league two, my top two teams would be 1. Rudnicki 2 Sinrman after the first four rounds.  I would say the bottom two are Culcasi and Anderson.It is tough to judge a team after 4 rounds, but I think those two have significant question marks that will be tough to overcome the rest of the way.

Why Calcusi? Three strong RBs and a top-5 QB whio gets ground yardage - where are the "significant question marks" that will be "tough to overcome the rest of the way."

I agree with the "question marks", but by saying "tough to overcome" he's assuming that my questionable players will all turn into worst case scenarios. Pretty much gibberish at this point, or like you said, just anothers personal opinion.Because of my obvious question marks (Barlow first time stud, Faulk's age and injuries, rookie KJones) I didn't expect many to warm up to my squad as one of the best. Unless you're like me and realize their outstanding upside If one or two of these guys don't perform up to my expectations, of course I'll be in trouble. But that goes the same for every pick in the top 4 rounds.

 

[GregR_2]

Worst picks:Obviously Shipp kills Rebel34 (took Marcel 2.8? - WOW) and Shick! (took Marcel at 2.12). When your 2nd round pick is 2nd on the depth chart, you're in twouble.

Are you calling these the worst picks because Emmitt was named the starter after this draft took place? Or because you think Shipp, as the guy everyone thought would start at that time, is a bad pick?

 

[Chase Stuart]

To hijack back to the WR thing....It's not about RUSHING to get 3 WRs. I simply try to view WR as three separate positions. You have to fill QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR. And if you keep putting off your WR1, you will likely be hurt at WR2 and WR3. Sure you might find one sleeper to be your WR1 semi-late, but you'll be dying at the other positions. You don't want to take a position that starts every week (and an important one, not like PK) too late. Just my feeling. WRs = speed

I think your perspective on WR makes more sense in a "regular" league than a survivor style league.There are only so many RB that start or get the majority of work in the NFL. For discussion's sake, that makes 32 starters and maybe 8 guys that are in a RBBC that could be worth playing.Coincidentally, there were exactly 40 RB that scored 100+ points in the survivor scoring system last year. The dropoff scoring wise from there was pretty dramatic.But there were 64 WR that scored 100+ points and 5 or 6 more that scored 95+.Troy Edwards was the #70 WR last year, and even he had 5 games of 10+ points scored. The lowest ranked RB with 5 games of 10+ points was Thomas Jones at RB ranking #36.This tells me that there are a lot more NFL WR that get opportunities than there are RB that get any decent amount of playing time.In a survivor format, that also indicates to me that you can get away with trying to mix or match 5 or 6 WR week to week and hoping a couple of them have solid weeks, as they are at least playing on a regular basis. You can't score if you don't play.However, I don't think there are enough RB to go around to mix and match RB week to week and hope to have a decent output.So while you might recommend a WR1 paired with another WR1 and then taking a shot at a decent WR3, I might suggest a WR1, a WR2, and several guys that might be WR4 that could produce at a WR2 level for a week.That strategy would likely fail miserably in a regular format, as trying to figure out which mediocre WR to play each week would be a fruitless exercise in futility.

You make a good point David....in theory.The problem is, your theory is right. And everyone agrees with you. Everyone tries to do it. And then, you see a ton of value at WR slip down. If everyone passed on QBs for the first five rounds, wouldn't Pepper at 6.01 be an absolute steal? The point is, with everyone passing on WRs, there is a ton of value to be had at WR. And while the QB scenario is only one position, WR holds three on your roster. I love the way my draft turned out in regards to the WR position, as I was able to get the guys I wanted at excellent value. I think in the future you won't see WRs be avoided as much as they were in our survivor drafts.

 

[Sinrman]

On a side note, since there is a seperate thread now for League 2, should we just dedicate this one to League 1, or just have overall commentary? ***EDIT*** Ooops, nm -- BnB was reading my mind, and started a new one for League 1 just now.

 

[GregR_2]

After the first four rounds I have the top two teams as Unlucky and Mr. Pickles in League One. I have the bottom two teams as Colin and Dowling.As for my team, I don’t see how it could be better picking from the 10 spot.Jamal LewisDominick DavisCharlie GarnerHines Ward

Aren't you concerned about your bye weeks? Your 2nd-4th round picks will all have their byes during the same 2-week elimination period. While that's not good, it isn't as bad as having them gone during the same 1 week elimination period. But with the added risk that Jamal already gives, I'm surprised you'd have done this. You could be without your 1st pick both of those weeks, and without the next 3 for one of the two weeks.Not to mention that now you get stuck in that rut of trying to avoid those weeks the rest of the draft if possible, which can steer you away from guys you would have preferred otherwise.

 

[LHUCKS]

Let me first say that it is hard to judge a draft after only four rounds, mostly because a team's perceived weakness can be compensated for with depth and solid mid/late round drafting. That being said, I think a couple of teams really hurt their chances of Surviving through week 16.I'll hand out team grades and a brief blurb stating why.Boston Fred: A+I'm not the biggest supporter of Portis, but the Culpepper and Gonzo picks were huge value. The week 7 bye is definitely a concern, but the fact that the week 7 is a combo week is much more important than people realize. I would expect that Fred has relatively few byes in the week 6/7 period from his players going forward. I would also expect Fred gets solid RB backups that will contribute in week 7 so that the RB scoring is not a complete wash. FYI, BostonFred was my pick to win it all before the draft started...his squad comes as no surprise to me. Clearly outdrafted the others IMO. Aaron Rudnicki: AHas three uncontested starting runningbacks and Coles is a great player to have in this format given his ability to produce big games. Aaron really reduced his risk by getting three solid RBs. So that is two 2003 Survivor II alumni with a grade of A.Maurile Tremblay: AI'm not concerned about Lewis' legal troubles. Holt and Mason will pay huge dividends as two likely top 10 WRs. Martin was great value at 3.08. Couch Potato: AMoss is in his own WR tier and as many of you know I've been a huge Kevin Jones backer. Faulk and Dunn were solid picks given the pt/reception format. I would like to see a Stephen Jackson handcuff here...if not this team falls a bit. Unlucky: AFour solid players with very little risk. I think Manning is one of the few QBs that you only need to have one backup for, so I'd like to see Unlucky only go with 2 QBs and take an extra WR/TE/D...we'll see. Team is set up to take value going forward.Jason Wood: AI like all four players chosen and team is set up to take value going forward.Shawn Culcasi: BAgain, three uncontested starting runningbacks I like. I don't like the McNabb pick in round 4 because I like to see at least one WR in the first four rounds. If Shawn gets good middle round value at WR this team could be an A.Chris Smith: BVery similar to Culcasi's team in that he has three uncontested starting runningbacks and a QB in round 4. Again if Mid/Late round WR value can be had than this team could be an A. Sandbagger: BHard to argue with any of his top three selections. I'm just not high on Shockey. Had a WR been selected instead of Shockey this team would be an A. I would like to see a McGahee handcuff, but could be tricky given his ADP. Hopefully for bagger he slides.Mr. Pickles: BThe only pick I really don't like is Davis here, but I am high on the other three. With a solid RB #3 sleeper this team could be an A.Grouse: BThree uncontested starting backs and my #2 TE. I have Heap as the clear #2 TE this year. If WR quality is not lacking could be an A.Chase Stuart: BTwo of the players I identified as the most overrated in a previous rankings critique of mine were Vick and Portis. Nevertheless, the two are capable of carrying a team and will put up some monster weeks if they remain healthy. If solid QB and RB depth are had this team could win it all. Mason was great value. At this point too risky to give an A IMO. Joe T: B-Four solid picks and I really like Garner in this format. Ward was amazing value at 4.07...I'm not sure why he slid that far. If RBs didn't carry so much risk I'd rank higher, but each has his question marks. Week 6/7 is also stacking up to be troublesome.Clayton Gray: B-All picks are solid. Jones is a little risky as the #2 RB and I don't see the value in McNabb at 4.02...similar QBs could have been had later according to my projections. David Dodds: B-Ill be honest, this grade is based solely on my distaste for Westbrook, I really don't like him. This team can improve to an A with good QB/WR value in middle rounds.Mike Anderson: B-Like Dodd's squad, this team is dinged for the Westbrook pick. I like Dodd's squad a little better because he went WR in round 4. Not my kind of draft, but could still prove to be successful if WR value is found.David Shick: B-I don't think Shipp remains the backup in AZ, but it does force me to drop this team down a notch. LT and Bennet should be able to carry the load most weeks.Joffer: B-The Lee Suggs pick is really throwing me off. If the handcuff is complete this team is a potential A...risky considering the time between pick 4 and 5. David Yudkin: B-Chris Brown doesn't hurt as much given he was the #3 RB taken, but that in addition to the Vick pick forces this team's hand in the middle rounds and value will be lost. Too much risk.Fullback Fro: CYou cannot have the same bye week from three of your top four picks, Barlow does get AZ at home in week 5, but it is jut unecessary risk as far as I'm concerned...especially in a single week elimination period. Sinrman: CI have two problems with this squad. Warrick Dunn as the #2 and the top two WRs with week 5 byes. Twilight: C-I'll never endorse the stud WR theory in a survivor format. If T. Jones is not a stud this squad will suffer way too much at RB. Interesting twist though. Rebel34: C-I don't like Shipp as the #2 back for obvious reasons. Shick's grade was not as low because he had Shipp along with two additional starting RBs so he can recover. This squad will have a much tougher time doing so.Colin Dowling: DI really don't like the Brown and Duckett picks. Granted the George news took a U-Turn, but Brown was a reach regardless. Some serious value will need to be had for the rest of the draft. It's not a lost cause by any means, it's just the grade I'd give after four rounds. Outside of Dowling(no offense), I think everybody has a realistic shot of winning it.Everybody will get a shot at my draft in Survivor II or check out the EBF invitational for something current...notice Shipp and Brown weren't on my team in that draft I look forward to the upcoming rounds. The most interesting discussion IMO concerns a) the # of players taken at each position b) bye week strategy c) overall risk profileall of which obviously can't be discussed until the draft is complete.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Chase Stuart: BTwo of the players I identified as the most overrated in a previous rankings critique of mine were Vick and Portis.

Thank gosh I got them so late thenClinton Portis ADP 1.03Michael Vick ADP 3.01Both were taken with the seventh pick in those rounds Here's hoping Vick is the 2004 version of HolmesOn the other side, I have to commend you LHUCKS--you do a thorough review. Even if you're giving out so many high marks

 

[BassNBrew]

Guys...cna we get further comments moved into the league specific threads? Lhucks did some great analysis, but it's confusing with the leagues/players mixed.

 

[LHUCKS]

Chase Stuart:  BTwo of the players I identified as the most overrated in a previous rankings critique of mine were Vick and Portis.

Thank gosh I got them so late thenClinton Portis ADP 1.03Michael Vick ADP 3.01Both were taken with the seventh pick in those rounds Here's hoping Vick is the 2004 version of HolmesOn the other side, I have to commend you LHUCKS--you do a thorough review. Even if you're giving out so many high marks

I didn't say I didn't like the picks, I said you have taken two players that I had ranked as overrated in the consensus rankings...a different ball of wax. I mentioned it because, I still gave your team a B...which seems to point out that the statements contradict one another. I think both picks together give your team an overall risky profile after four rounds, but Vick's risk can be overcome with 2 other solid QBs...we'll see what you do.

 

[LHUCKS]

Guys...cna we get further comments moved into the league specific threads? Lhucks did some great analysis, but it's confusing with the leagues/players mixed.

Since the leagues are getting merged I thought it made since to combine them.There are no points for second place.

 

[BassNBrew]

Guys...cna we get further comments moved into the league specific threads? Lhucks did some great analysis, but it's confusing with the leagues/players mixed.

Since the leagues are getting merged I thought it made since to combine them.There are no points for second place.

Actually there are. Places 1-8 get points and determine whether the staff or the messageboard takes the title. Also, if theory, an owner in league one could have drafted the best, but becuase league two stunk so bad, an owner in that league could have a beeter team. Futhermore, runs in one league could impact value and could actually make Hasslebeck a better pick at 5.9 in league 2 then at 5.1 in league 1.

 

[LHUCKS]

Guys...cna we get further comments moved into the league specific threads?  Lhucks did some great analysis, but it's confusing with the leagues/players mixed.

Since the leagues are getting merged I thought it made since to combine them.There are no points for second place.

Actually there are. Places 1-8 get points and determine whether the staff or the messageboard takes the title. Also, if theory, an owner in league one could have drafted the best, but becuase league two stunk so bad, an owner in that league could have a beeter team. Futhermore, runs in one league could impact value and could actually make Hasslebeck a better pick at 5.9 in league 2 then at 5.1 in league 1.

I'm less concerned with the MB vs. FBGs rhetoric and more concerned with who comes out on top and why. But I understand your points. And will delete the irrelevant team analysis per the particular thread.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Chase Stuart:  BTwo of the players I identified as the most overrated in a previous rankings critique of mine were Vick and Portis.

Thank gosh I got them so late thenClinton Portis ADP 1.03Michael Vick ADP 3.01Both were taken with the seventh pick in those rounds Here's hoping Vick is the 2004 version of HolmesOn the other side, I have to commend you LHUCKS--you do a thorough review. Even if you're giving out so many high marks

I didn't say I didn't like the picks, I said you have taken two players that I had ranked as overrated in the consensus rankings...a different ball of wax. I mentioned it because, I still gave your team a B...which seems to point out that the statements contradict one another. I think both picks together give your team an overall risky profile after four rounds, but Vick's risk can be overcome with 2 other solid QBs...we'll see what you do.

I know LHUCKS--we're all a little defensive at this point. But don't you attack my Vick again.

 

[KKrew]

This was NOT an ADP draft.Go look at antsports' top-24 overall, and you see different players in 12-team league:s as the top-24 (sorry about the formatting): 

Hardly a dramatic variance from the ADP RBs. Anyway, my point is that all the teams (yeah, I know ... not all) go for 2 RBS and then the draft starts ...

that's not much of a point.

Call me naive (and I knwo you will) but what the heck are you guys doing??? I plugged the scoring rules into my VBD sheet with my projections. I have Moss, Harrison and Gonzo in the first round. How the heck do you let Gonzo fall to the 4th round???Here's the quote from League 1 regarding Gonzo there:

Draft Strategy: I had my RB's. Now it was time to focus on another position. There are two QB's I'd consider here, McNair and Hasselbeck. There are a ton of WR's I rank pretty close together OR the top TE in the game still around at 4.05. Hmm, tough call. What to do? TAKE HIM NOW AND DON'T LOOK BACK. I usually wait on TE's but when you have a guy that I rank in the top 20 overall players with 2 points per reception, how do you not pick him? I also wanted to be at the one who starts the runs and not one who follows them.

I realize its a Survivor format. But, I just don't see this as making sense. Gonzo getting 2 points per reception? And he lasted until the 41st pick? And the high TE counts every week???? I don't get it!

 

[Sinrman]

This was NOT an ADP draft.Go look at antsports' top-24 overall, and you see different players in 12-team league:s as the top-24 (sorry about the formatting):  

Hardly a dramatic variance from the ADP RBs. Anyway, my point is that all the teams (yeah, I know ... not all) go for 2 RBS and then the draft starts ...

that's not much of a point.

Call me naive (and I knwo you will) but what the heck are you guys doing??? I plugged the scoring rules into my VBD sheet with my projections. I have Moss, Harrison and Gonzo in the first round. How the heck do you let Gonzo fall to the 4th round???Here's the quote from League 1 regarding Gonzo there:

Draft Strategy: I had my RB's. Now it was time to focus on another position. There are two QB's I'd consider here, McNair and Hasselbeck. There are a ton of WR's I rank pretty close together OR the top TE in the game still around at 4.05. Hmm, tough call. What to do? TAKE HIM NOW AND DON'T LOOK BACK. I usually wait on TE's but when you have a guy that I rank in the top 20 overall players with 2 points per reception, how do you not pick him? I also wanted to be at the one who starts the runs and not one who follows them.

I realize its a Survivor format. But, I just don't see this as making sense. Gonzo getting 2 points per reception? And he lasted until the 41st pick? And the high TE counts every week???? I don't get it!

Even with the 2 pt/reception rule in this format, it's more of a trap. I think most everyone will agree that it is. If you double the points per reception for TEs, it certainly does add value to them, but they still don't crack the early rounds. I personally felt round 4 was still too early for a TE, despite this rule...

 

[jcjets]

I'd have to disagree and getting Gonzo is round 4 is a steal. 2 points per reception and taking Gonzo is a way to distance yourself between your team and the other teams. Taking players like Brown, Barber, Martin before him is just plain silly. Should I start on Hines Ward in round 4?!?!Show me where to sign up for a league with you guys in it, because if this is how you draft I want in!!! Well except for Unlucky, at least he appears to have some common sense.Maybe you have been doing this for too long and have become to complacent with your RB theory and knowledge of each other. Time to step back and look at your previous years draft and see when you went astray.

 

[David Yudkin]

Rather than have people bouncing all over the place in multiple threads, I am locking this one and have pinned the other threads for comments on the two individual leagues.