Taking a QB in the first round (1 Viewer)

[Catbird]

I play in a 16 team, QB flex allowed (effectively a 2 QB league) and QBs are just about a third of the players picked in rounds 1 and 2. I generally wouldn't leave round 2 without one. and have picked 2 (which although Marino and Warner, didn't turn out so great as I recall).

I am too unfamiliar with a 16 team 1 QB leagues to know much (but that rarely keeps me from having a strong opinion.

It seems to me that taking a QB first in a 16 teamer might be worse, since weakening each position down the list would be magnified as each slot falls 16 picks (on average) instead of 12. But there would be some further risk with a later QB too, as picking the 14th or 15th QB might be Stafford or McNabb or Flacco - and a further drop in QB value as well. I guess it depends on where the fairly good (Cutler, Ryan, Eli, Ben types are going. The later those guys go, the better it is to wait on taking one. If they are gone in 4 rounds or less, I would feel good about a QB in the first. Its really being able to stock up on valuable guys and still get an almost comperable QB that makes the wait worthwhile.

 

[Catbird]

And herin lies the biggest issue: Conflicting views on players. Catbird...I prefer the team you posted with Brees...then again, I don't think much of Calvin, but still-the 2nd team looks great to me.

With the other players being equal, you are saying you wouldtrade Cutler and Megatron straight up for Brees and Breaston. You may hate Cutler and CJ, but Ryan (or Ben or Eli or Kolb) and Fitzgerald were also available to me in those slots if waiting to pick my QB later. Personal preferences. The principles at work favor the great WR (or RB) upgrade over the slight QB drop. The claims of durability and long life are false, as Ryan or Cutler will last a comperable time to Rodgers, and Calvin or Fitz comperably to Breaston.

 

[Go deep]

Of course one pick doesn't make or break your dynasty team (although those who took Brady #1 a couple of years ago would agree it can cost you a season) and you can make up for slightly less value early with good picks later on. Particularly if the other guys aren't as aware as you are. The real question is do you want to finish the first round a little behind or a little ahead. If you are good being behind because you really like Rodgers, have it it - I don't think anyone disagrees. The discussion is whether a 1st round QB is a better or worse pick, on abverage - and IMO its worse.

Looking at the teams in taken in the draft resulting from this thread, and using mine because its the only one I know well, I had the 7th pick and Rodgers was already gone. I could have picked Brees or Calvin Johnson and chose CJ. My next 5 picks then (good or bad, but to use as an example) were Mendenhall, Best, Felix Jones, Percy Harvin and (A. Bradshaw, but I am going to replace Bradshaw with Ochocinco who was available instead, and makes the roster more understandable - since I went overboard with RBs and most people wouldn't), so Ochocinco. When I chose Cutler in the 7th, the best WRs and RBs available and chosen next at that time were Arian Foster and Steve Breaston. So the lineup I have taking Calvin first is:

QB: Cutler, CHI

RB1: Mendenhall, PIT

RB2: J. Best, DET

WR1: C. Johnson, DET

WR2: P. Harvin, MIN

WR:3 C. Ochocinco, CIN

Flex: F. Jones, DAL

If I had taken Brees, but otherwise built my team on the same best available picks, I would have:

QB: D. Brees, NO

RB1: Mendenhall, PIT

RB2: J. Best, DET

WR1: P. Harvin, MIN

WR2: C. Ochocinco, CIN

WR:3 S. Breaston, AZ

Flex: F. Jones, DAL

You choose?

The point people have been trying to make is that taking a QB in the first weakens the whole roster. Its not just choosing between Brees and Calvin, but choosing a QB first means that the heart of your lineup, your first 5 or 6 picks that deternine who you are, are going to each be chosen a step lower: Instead of Calvin you have Harvin at WR1, instead of Harvin you have Ochocinco at WR2, instead of Ochocinco you have Breaston at WR3 ...

Because you can still get Cutler, or Ryan or Ben in the 7th or 8th of a 12 teamer, the upgrade to Rodgers in the 1st for a couple if any extra years in the long run, and only a couple of points per game in anticipated production, is not worth downgrading all the spots in between. Or at least that's how I see it.

Which brings me to this:

I do not think the two teams will get the same value in the rounds between 2-6, assuming a QB is drafted by Team A in round one.

.

With pick 1.6 Team A selects Rodgers, with pick 1.7 team B selects DeAngelo Williams.

With Pick 8.7 team A selects RB Arian Foster, Team B selects Matt Ryan with pick 8.6

Now assuming the two teams pick the exact same positions in the rounds between picks 1 and 8(just to make it easier to follow), Team B would have a one round player value advantage in every round other than the 1st.

Here is what their picks would look like in between

Round 2 - Team A RB1, Team B RB2

Round 3 - Team A RB2, Team B WR1

Round 4 - Team A WR1, Team B WR2

Round 5 - Team A WR2, Team B WR3

Round 6 - Team A WR3, Team B TE1

Round 7 - Team A TE1, Team B RB3

Round 8 - Team A RB3, Team B QB1

With this scenario, each team ends up with:

QB1 - Team A's is 7 rounds better

RB1 - Team B's is 1 round better

RB2 - Team B's is 1 round better

RB3 - Team B's is 1 round better

WR1 - Team B's is 1 round better

WR2 - Team B's is 1 round better

WR3 - Teams B's is 1 round better

TE1 - Teams B's is 1 round better

With this being the case, it is not as simple as Rodgers and Foster being better than Ryan and Williams.

Everyone of team B's players is better than Team A's, except QB's. That's a big difference for a QB to make up.

 

[LessThanZero]

The team I posted was from a 12 team league, yes.

I dont think you drafted bad, but i think taking a QB in the first really hurt. This is a perfect example of why i wouldnt do it. Your Rb's actually turned out pretty good. However, your WR's are weak, and in a PPR, that is going to hurt even worse.

I think it was a good job to get the WR's where you got them, but i dont see a 75 catch guy in the bunch. Maybe Thomas, but that wont likely be for a couple years.

Agreed, the "Rogers in the first" method set of a noticeable impact on the rest of his team. But his team is young with potential. Not a first year Dynasty team. With the right moves he could do very well down the road.

This seems to be the theory for those drafting Rodgers in the first. That they can build up the rest of their team over the next couple years. This doesnt make much sense to me, you draft Rodgers for his longevity, yet you are wasting his first few(and probably best) years "rebuilding".

That is exactly the discussion point. If taking Rodgers (or any lesser 1st round QB) leaves you far enough behind at RB and WR that you are immediately re-building, then it isn't a good strategy - even if he is really good and you would like to own him. The cost to the rest of your roster in not getting a stud RB or WR in the first is too great to make up with the advantage that having a top QB brings you.

I disagree. One pick does not win you or lose you a league. There is absolutely no reason that with good drafting you can't have a competitive roster and have taken a QB in round 1. I also think that the "stud" RB's and WR's you are building around could be afterthoughts as soon as this season. Just ask the guys who last year built their strategy around filling their teams with "stud" RB's and WR's such as Steve Slaton, Kevin Smith, Marshawn Lynch, Dwayne Bowe, etc. There is a lot to be said for having a young QB who has put up #1 numbers and pretty much has a floor of a top 5 QB.

To weigh in, I don't view this team as one that is "immediately rebuilding." Rebuilding, to me, is when you have an aging mediocre roster that you have to start blowing up to get younger. This is more of a post-rebuild team. Barring some of those WRs coming on sooner than expected (which is possible, as is the possibility that they underperform), I think it'll be a middling team this year. But personally, I like my young WRs down the road -- and by "down the road," I mean as soon as next year. But the point is taken -- but that's why I said that Rodgers is the only QB that is viable in this strategy. He's got 5 years on Brees and nearly 8 on Manning, even 3.5 and 2 on Romo and Rivers, respectively. By the time my WRs mature (1-2 years is my projection, but obviously could be this year, could be never!), he'll still have LOTS of years left and so will the rest of the GB offense. Doing this with Brees, on the other hand, could mean you waste his remaining top-3 years on a middling team. And I don't think taking a veteran win-now approach on your RBs and WRs with later picks is going to bear enough fruit in year one to offset what you might lose long-term. I've tried to build a team that, with the right breaks, could be competitive year 1, but should also get better in years 2, 3, so on.

I think it's a viable option, but for me it's very situation- and draft-specific. This year, I think if AJ/Fitz/Calvin and CJ/MJD/Rice/ADP/Gore are gone by the 9-12 spots, which they should be, then Rodgers becomes a very attractive pick. The remaining RBs and WRs are all less than rock-solid locks to be long-term studs. That said, if any of those 8 are available or if I have a higher pick, I grab one of them and don't think twice about it.

 

[Go deep]

To weigh in, I don't view this team as one that is "immediately rebuilding." Rebuilding, to me, is when you have an aging mediocre roster that you have to start blowing up to get younger. This is more of a post-rebuild team. Barring some of those WRs coming on sooner than expected (which is possible, as is the possibility that they underperform), I think it'll be a middling team this year. But personally, I like my young WRs down the road -- and by "down the road," I mean as soon as next year.

But the point is taken -- but that's why I said that Rodgers is the only QB that is viable in this strategy. He's got 5 years on Brees and nearly 8 on Manning, even 3.5 and 2 on Romo and Rivers, respectively. By the time my WRs mature (1-2 years is my projection, but obviously could be this year, could be never!), he'll still have LOTS of years left and so will the rest of the GB offense. Doing this with Brees, on the other hand, could mean you waste his remaining top-3 years on a middling team. And I don't think taking a veteran win-now approach on your RBs and WRs with later picks is going to bear enough fruit in year one to offset what you might lose long-term. I've tried to build a team that, with the right breaks, could be competitive year 1, but should also get better in years 2, 3, so on.

I think it's a viable option, but for me it's very situation- and draft-specific. This year, I think if AJ/Fitz/Calvin and CJ/MJD/Rice/ADP/Gore are gone by the 9-12 spots, which they should be, then Rodgers becomes a very attractive pick. The remaining RBs and WRs are all less than rock-solid locks to be long-term studs. That said, if any of those 8 are available or if I have a higher pick, I grab one of them and don't think twice about it.

I agree 100%. However, what i dont liek is the idea of being a middling team. In the first year of a dynasty i want to be really good, or really bad. I always go young, so if my team is really good, it will be for a while. If my team is really bad, i will be adding good playeers with all my early picks to my already young players. Thats i the problem i have with mixing aging vets and youth. Of course you have to do this to some degree, but you will not find guys like Randy Moss and Michael Turner on my team. If i dont win in the first year or two, they are just good enough to keep you from getting a top 5 pick. Going young RB's and WR's in the first 5-6 rounds, and then young QB's and TE's in the next 4 is the best way to draft for a dynasty league...IMO. This i why i drafted Jonathan Stewart and Chris Wells with my first two picks of my recent dynasty draft. If they dont pan out right away, i will likely finish in the bottom 3-5, giving me a top pick. Since my QB's are also young, unless one of them breaks out big this year(Flacco, Ryan, and Bradford) they wont win any games for me. With VJackson and Colston as my WR's, they will be around for years and will help if my team is competitive, and wont hurt too much if i am going to be bad.

Anyway, i think the last thing you want to do is finish 7-7, and miss the playoffs in the first year of a dynasty.

 

[SSOG]

The first pick might not win you any leagues, but it can lose you one.

This is the worst cliche in all of fantasy football. Not only is it flat-out wrong, it's actually the EXACT OPPOSITE of reality. Nailing your first rounder does a lot more to ensure that you win your league than whiffing on your first pick does to ensure that you don't. I'm talking a *LOT* more. Many, many, many magnitudes greater.

 

[Catbird]

Okay SSOG, I feel like you are either fishing or have been waiting to pounce with a long and well thought out diatribe that I am blindly walking into (and I'll say first that I don't really see how your comment matters much to the dynasty discussion underway) but I'll bite. Surely you need a stage.

I took Brady first in a competitive 16 team, 2 QB league in his lost year. Since 32 starting QBs means that when losing Brady there is NO starting QB available on the wire, in fact no other QB starting or close to starting that doesn't cost an arm and a leg - he was irreplaceable. It took ten weeks of wheeling and dealing to even approach respectability, and by then it was far to late. Losing Brady ended my season. Tell me how drafting Andre at #5 and having him do GREAT, and even having him be the best WR (and thus just almost as valuable as the better of the four RBs drafted ahead of him) makes anywhere near as much difference to my teams' ultimate fortunes as losing Brady hurt them?

In the Brady situation, the season results were decided with his injury. Decided by how that draft pick worked out. In drafting Andre, to make a similar difference, owning him would have to guarantee me a league championship ( just as drafting Brady guaranteed I didn't win it). Instead, with a great choice in Andre, I am on par with at least a couple of the teams ahead of me for whom their RB will go unhurt and have a top 3 RB finish and who knows how many picking after me have similarly good luck with their pick. I still have a whole roster to get right and will need good injury luck to have even a shot at the championship. The Andre pick is nothing but a very good starting off point - although I agree its all of that, and vital. I just don't see how making a terribly solid first pick is nearly as season determinitive as making one which is disasterous?

My real question is how is the importance to success of that AJ pick, 'many, many, many magnitudes greater' than the impact of my Brady season blow-up? Will picking Andre at the right time in a re-draft guarantee me several consecutive championships?

 

[SSOG]

Okay SSOG, I feel like you are either fishing or have been waiting to pounce with a long and well thought out diatribe that I am blindly walking into (and I'll say first that I don't really see how your comment matters much to the dynasty discussion underway) but I'll bite. Surely you need a stage. I took Brady first in a competitive 16 team, 2 QB league in his lost year. Since 32 starting QBs means that when losing Brady there is NO starting QB available on the wire, in fact no other QB starting or close to starting that doesn't cost an arm and a leg - he was irreplaceable. It took ten weeks of wheeling and dealing to even approach respectability, and by then it was far to late. Losing Brady ended my season. Tell me how drafting Andre at #5 and having him do GREAT, and even having him be the best WR (and thus just almost as valuable as the better of the four RBs drafted ahead of him) makes anywhere near as much difference to my teams' ultimate fortunes as losing Brady hurt them? In the Brady situation, the season results were decided with his injury. Decided by how that draft pick worked out. In drafting Andre, to make a similar difference, owning him would have to guarantee me a league championship ( just as drafting Brady guaranteed I didn't win it). Instead, with a great choice in Andre, I am on par with at least a couple of the teams ahead of me for whom their RB will go unhurt and have a top 3 RB finish and who knows how many picking after me have similarly good luck with their pick. I still have a whole roster to get right and will need good injury luck to have even a shot at the championship. The Andre pick is nothing but a very good starting off point - although I agree its all of that, and vital. I just don't see how making a terribly solid first pick is nearly as season determinitive as making one which is disasterous?My real question is how is the importance to success of that AJ pick, 'many, many, many magnitudes greater' than the impact of my Brady season blow-up? Will picking Andre at the right time in a re-draft guarantee me several consecutive championships?

I wasn't looking for a stage. I've actually gotten on that particular soapbox many times in the past and wasn't planning on elaborating, but I can illustrate the concept pretty easily using last year's redraft results. Here are the first rounders last year and how much VBD they accumulated over the season.197- Chris Johnson140- Adrian Peterson122- Maurice Jones-Drew100- Andre Johnson92- Drew Brees92- Randy Moss75- Larry Fitzgerald48- Steven Jackson29- DeAngelo Williams14- Matt Forte10- LaDainian Tomlinson0- Michael TurnerObviously VBD isn't a perfect indicator (no way was Michael Turner worth less than Matt Forte, for instance), but it's a decent start. Let's say you drafted Matt Forte last year. That was a terrible pick. Would it have sunk your entire season, though? The Turner and Williams owners got decent production, but were without the services of their horse in the most vital stretch and would have been easy pickings in the playoffs (if they made it that far). The Tomlinson owner suffered through production every bit as mediocre. The Jackson and Fitzgerald owners both got solid production out of their stars, but the difference between Forte and Steven Jackson was 34 points. Between Forte and Fitzgerald (in VBD terms) it was 61 points. Meanwhile, the difference between Chris Johnson (the best pick) and Adrian Peterson (the second best pick possible) was 57 points, or as much as the difference between Matt Forte- a complete and absolute disaster- and Larry Fitzgerald- a top-5 wide receiver. If the Matt Forte owner lost his league in the first round, then so did the Larry Fitzgerald owner and the Randy Moss owner and the Andre Johnson owner and the Drew Brees owner and the Maurice Jones-Drew owner and the Steven Jackson owner, because Chris Johnson absolutely DESTROYED THEM. The difference between the first best and the fourth best pick last year was as great as the difference between the fourth best pick and the absolute worst first rounder you could have possibly taken. Getting one of those uberstuds did far more to help you win your league than getting one of the busts would have done to help you lose it.If you look across the board in VBD, you'll see that a team like Chris Johnson and a bunch of replacement-level players actually scores more points than a team composed of a bunch of value picks. Chris Johnson essentially provided as much value as Thomas Jones, Larry Fitzgerald, and Ben Roethlisberger COMBINED last year. Whiffing on your first is like missing out on one pick. Nailing your first is like getting 2-3 extra bonus picks to use (actually, it's worth more, because it's better to have your VBD concentrated in fewer players because it leaves more roster spots open for additional value).To be honest, a draft can't be won or lost in the first round... but a first round pick can do far more to help you win your league than it can do to help you lose your league.

 

[Catbird]

So we are talking about the best draft pick in 3 years being dominant enough to make a huge difference? Those aren't available very often to people hoping to hit on a first pick. And using VBD (while that is a great indicator in some regards) is a ridiculous measure of team success, particularly when actual points scoreare available. In real terms, a team with '09 Fitz and a solid cast of producers selected thereafter would crush a team of '09 super-Johnson and a cast of replacement players. That seems to me the correct measure of success rather than VBD?

Using a totally unique and incredible season like Johnson's as your good upside pick and a very mediocre season by Forte as the downside to prove your point is like comparing a days fortunes by using winning the lottery as a good day and stubbing your toe as the bad. On that measure, I too would say having a good day means a lot, lot more than having a bad one.

And even then, using actual points scored (which is how they measure in most of my leagues) getting CJ3 (who isn't going to be a realistic option for 11 out of 12 owners) makes nowhere near as much difference to team fortunes as picking a guy who disappears one day 1 for the season and can't be replaced. CJ gives you maybe 4 or 5 extra PPG (at best, depending on scoring) where losing a virutally irreplaceable starter will cost you a dozen or more, as much as 20 in the situation I related above.

I will agree that hitting on a great round 1 pick can send you on your way to success, might even guarantee respectability, but IMO your statement that it is of many, many, many times more important than the damage caused by a disastereous pick ... is a litttttle bit overstated.

 

[Instinctive]

@ the Brady scenario...if you just cuffed him with Cassel (something you should be doing in 2 QB leagues....or you could have taken 3 QBs...I would have) you would have been fine. Seriously, you weren't able to obtain his backup who had never started a game in the NCAA, much less the NFL?

CJ's was not the only performance of its kind...

2000---Marshall Faulk gave you a large advantage over Edge, but taking Stephen Davis or Corey Dillon didn't kill you

2001---Marshall Faulk gave you an even bigger advantage than CJ did this year...Eddie George/Fred Taylor didn't absolutely ruin you...

2002---Priest Holmes gave you a massive advantage over the #2 RB, and taking Marshall Faulk didn't ruin your chances

2003---Priest Holmes and his record setting TD year won it for many many owners

2004---Peyton Manning and Daunte culpeper, both of whom got 1st round consideration, whereas losing Preist Holmes didn't cost you the league...

2005---Shaun Alexander, and LJ to some extent, gave you a massive advantage over anyone else

2006---LT would have won you your league (probably)

2007---Tom Brady and/or Randy Moss gave you a massive advantage - not that they were first rounders, but you could have taken Shaun Alexander or Laurence Maroney (to name a couple potential round 1 busts) and it wouldn't have mattered at all

2008---I didn't notice any real busts or uberstuds in round 1

2009---Chris Johnson almost won it singlehandedly for many

I tried to name only guys who would have gone round 1 as busts, but I could be off on a few as I'm doing most of the draft recalling from memory.

 

[Go deep]

The first pick might not win you any leagues, but it can lose you one.

This is the worst cliche in all of fantasy football. Not only is it flat-out wrong, it's actually the EXACT OPPOSITE of reality. Nailing your first rounder does a lot more to ensure that you win your league than whiffing on your first pick does to ensure that you don't. I'm talking a *LOT* more. Many, many, many magnitudes greater.

Of course you do, but i think you are missing the point. Alot of people are going to hit with their first pick. If you are one of the few guys who dord not, it will be extremely difficult for you to win the league.

 

[Go deep]

Of course one pick doesn't make or break your dynasty team (although those who took Brady #1 a couple of years ago would agree it can cost you a season) and you can make up for slightly less value early with good picks later on. Particularly if the other guys aren't as aware as you are. The real question is do you want to finish the first round a little behind or a little ahead. If you are good being behind because you really like Rodgers, have it it - I don't think anyone disagrees. The discussion is whether a 1st round QB is a better or worse pick, on abverage - and IMO its worse.

Looking at the teams in taken in the draft resulting from this thread, and using mine because its the only one I know well, I had the 7th pick and Rodgers was already gone. I could have picked Brees or Calvin Johnson and chose CJ. My next 5 picks then (good or bad, but to use as an example) were Mendenhall, Best, Felix Jones, Percy Harvin and (A. Bradshaw, but I am going to replace Bradshaw with Ochocinco who was available instead, and makes the roster more understandable - since I went overboard with RBs and most people wouldn't), so Ochocinco. When I chose Cutler in the 7th, the best WRs and RBs available and chosen next at that time were Arian Foster and Steve Breaston. So the lineup I have taking Calvin first is:

QB: Cutler, CHI

RB1: Mendenhall, PIT

RB2: J. Best, DET

WR1: C. Johnson, DET

WR2: P. Harvin, MIN

WR:3 C. Ochocinco, CIN

Flex: F. Jones, DAL

If I had taken Brees, but otherwise built my team on the same best available picks, I would have:

QB: D. Brees, NO

RB1: Mendenhall, PIT

RB2: J. Best, DET

WR1: P. Harvin, MIN

WR2: C. Ochocinco, CIN

WR:3 S. Breaston, AZ

Flex: F. Jones, DAL

You choose?

The point people have been trying to make is that taking a QB in the first weakens the whole roster. Its not just choosing between Brees and Calvin, but choosing a QB first means that the heart of your lineup, your first 5 or 6 picks that deternine who you are, are going to each be chosen a step lower: Instead of Calvin you have Harvin at WR1, instead of Harvin you have Ochocinco at WR2, instead of Ochocinco you have Breaston at WR3 ...

Because you can still get Cutler, or Ryan or Ben in the 7th or 8th of a 12 teamer, the upgrade to Rodgers in the 1st for a couple if any extra years in the long run, and only a couple of points per game in anticipated production, is not worth downgrading all the spots in between. Or at least that's how I see it.

Which brings me to this:

I do not think the two teams will get the same value in the rounds between 2-6, assuming a QB is drafted by Team A in round one.

.

With pick 1.6 Team A selects Rodgers, with pick 1.7 team B selects DeAngelo Williams.

With Pick 8.7 team A selects RB Arian Foster, Team B selects Matt Ryan with pick 8.6

Now assuming the two teams pick the exact same positions in the rounds between picks 1 and 8(just to make it easier to follow), Team B would have a one round player value advantage in every round other than the 1st.

Here is what their picks would look like in between

Round 2 - Team A RB1, Team B RB2

Round 3 - Team A RB2, Team B WR1

Round 4 - Team A WR1, Team B WR2

Round 5 - Team A WR2, Team B WR3

Round 6 - Team A WR3, Team B TE1

Round 7 - Team A TE1, Team B RB3

Round 8 - Team A RB3, Team B QB1

With this scenario, each team ends up with:

QB1 - Team A's is 7 rounds better

RB1 - Team B's is 1 round better

RB2 - Team B's is 1 round better

RB3 - Team B's is 1 round better

WR1 - Team B's is 1 round better

WR2 - Team B's is 1 round better

WR3 - Teams B's is 1 round better

TE1 - Teams B's is 1 round better

With this being the case, it is not as simple as Rodgers and Foster being better than Ryan and Williams.

Everyone of team B's players is better than Team A's, except QB's. That's a big difference for a QB to make up.

I was hoping to get SSOG's thoughts on this. Do you think the difference between Aaron Rodgers and Matt Ryan is enough to make up for this?

 

[FUBAR]

Of course one pick doesn't make or break your dynasty team (although those who took Brady #1 a couple of years ago would agree it can cost you a season) and you can make up for slightly less value early with good picks later on. Particularly if the other guys aren't as aware as you are. The real question is do you want to finish the first round a little behind or a little ahead. If you are good being behind because you really like Rodgers, have it it - I don't think anyone disagrees. The discussion is whether a 1st round QB is a better or worse pick, on abverage - and IMO its worse.Looking at the teams in taken in the draft resulting from this thread, and using mine because its the only one I know well, I had the 7th pick and Rodgers was already gone. I could have picked Brees or Calvin Johnson and chose CJ. My next 5 picks then (good or bad, but to use as an example) were Mendenhall, Best, Felix Jones, Percy Harvin and (A. Bradshaw, but I am going to replace Bradshaw with Ochocinco who was available instead, and makes the roster more understandable - since I went overboard with RBs and most people wouldn't), so Ochocinco. When I chose Cutler in the 7th, the best WRs and RBs available and chosen next at that time were Arian Foster and Steve Breaston. So the lineup I have taking Calvin first is:QB: Cutler, CHIRB1: Mendenhall, PITRB2: J. Best, DETWR1: C. Johnson, DETWR2: P. Harvin, MINWR:3 C. Ochocinco, CINFlex: F. Jones, DALIf I had taken Brees, but otherwise built my team on the same best available picks, I would have:QB: D. Brees, NORB1: Mendenhall, PITRB2: J. Best, DETWR1: P. Harvin, MINWR2: C. Ochocinco, CINWR:3 S. Breaston, AZFlex: F. Jones, DALYou choose?The point people have been trying to make is that taking a QB in the first weakens the whole roster. Its not just choosing between Brees and Calvin, but choosing a QB first means that the heart of your lineup, your first 5 or 6 picks that deternine who you are, are going to each be chosen a step lower: Instead of Calvin you have Harvin at WR1, instead of Harvin you have Ochocinco at WR2, instead of Ochocinco you have Breaston at WR3 ... Because you can still get Cutler, or Ryan or Ben in the 7th or 8th of a 12 teamer, the upgrade to Rodgers in the 1st for a couple if any extra years in the long run, and only a couple of points per game in anticipated production, is not worth downgrading all the spots in between. Or at least that's how I see it.

IOW, instead of Cutler/Calvin you have Brees/Breaston. Obviously 2010 will be different than 2009 but in 2009 the C/C combo gave around 390 points, B/B scored 440.

 

[Go deep]

Of course one pick doesn't make or break your dynasty team (although those who took Brady #1 a couple of years ago would agree it can cost you a season) and you can make up for slightly less value early with good picks later on. Particularly if the other guys aren't as aware as you are. The real question is do you want to finish the first round a little behind or a little ahead. If you are good being behind because you really like Rodgers, have it it - I don't think anyone disagrees. The discussion is whether a 1st round QB is a better or worse pick, on abverage - and IMO its worse.

Looking at the teams in taken in the draft resulting from this thread, and using mine because its the only one I know well, I had the 7th pick and Rodgers was already gone. I could have picked Brees or Calvin Johnson and chose CJ. My next 5 picks then (good or bad, but to use as an example) were Mendenhall, Best, Felix Jones, Percy Harvin and (A. Bradshaw, but I am going to replace Bradshaw with Ochocinco who was available instead, and makes the roster more understandable - since I went overboard with RBs and most people wouldn't), so Ochocinco. When I chose Cutler in the 7th, the best WRs and RBs available and chosen next at that time were Arian Foster and Steve Breaston. So the lineup I have taking Calvin first is:

QB: Cutler, CHI

RB1: Mendenhall, PIT

RB2: J. Best, DET

WR1: C. Johnson, DET

WR2: P. Harvin, MIN

WR:3 C. Ochocinco, CIN

Flex: F. Jones, DAL

If I had taken Brees, but otherwise built my team on the same best available picks, I would have:

QB: D. Brees, NO

RB1: Mendenhall, PIT

RB2: J. Best, DET

WR1: P. Harvin, MIN

WR2: C. Ochocinco, CIN

WR:3 S. Breaston, AZ

Flex: F. Jones, DAL

You choose?

The point people have been trying to make is that taking a QB in the first weakens the whole roster. Its not just choosing between Brees and Calvin, but choosing a QB first means that the heart of your lineup, your first 5 or 6 picks that deternine who you are, are going to each be chosen a step lower: Instead of Calvin you have Harvin at WR1, instead of Harvin you have Ochocinco at WR2, instead of Ochocinco you have Breaston at WR3 ...

Because you can still get Cutler, or Ryan or Ben in the 7th or 8th of a 12 teamer, the upgrade to Rodgers in the 1st for a couple if any extra years in the long run, and only a couple of points per game in anticipated production, is not worth downgrading all the spots in between. Or at least that's how I see it.

IOW, instead of Cutler/Calvin you have Brees/Breaston. Obviously 2010 will be different than 2009 but in 2009 the C/C combo gave around 390 points, B/B scored 440.

I think people are seriously underestimating this. Plus, they are not taking what happens between rounds 2-7 into consideration.

 

[Instinctive]

The "every player is one round better" argument is, if you excuse me, bull####.

If I take Rodgers and then 3 receivers, then my 1st receiver is just as good as your first receiver, if no tbetter. (You may go RB-RB) My 2nd reciever will be better than your first as well if you went RB-RB, because I'll have Rodgers and 2 wideouts before you get a 3rd pick. And not, I'm assuming Rodgers at 1.05 or slightly later, because most of the people here wouldn't take him over the big 4.

If I take 2 RBs after Rodgers, then yes, they're each one round worse than your 2 picks of RBs. But if you went WR-WR or RB-WR, then one or both of my RBs will be better than your second or (in the latter case) both of your RBs.

Sorry, but it appears to be a moronic argument that doesn't hold up in the slightest.

 

[Instinctive]

IOW, instead of Cutler/Calvin you have Brees/Breaston. Obviously 2010 will be different than 2009 but in 2009 the C/C combo gave around 390 points, B/B scored 440.

I think people are seriously underestimating this. Plus, they are not taking what happens between rounds 2-7 into consideration.

Exactly. Who's to say that Breaston doesn't step it up this year as the #2 option, Leinart is good, and he's a 1000 yard receiver again? Or that Brees approaches 5000 yards again with Moore and Bush healthy all season?Or that Cutler never catches on to Martz's offense and sucks it up bigtime? The B/B combo could be even BETTER next year than they were this year, even if Calvin has a big year.

See how we can play that game?

 

[Go deep]

IOW, instead of Cutler/Calvin you have Brees/Breaston. Obviously 2010 will be different than 2009 but in 2009 the C/C combo gave around 390 points, B/B scored 440.

I think people are seriously underestimating this. Plus, they are not taking what happens between rounds 2-7 into consideration.

Exactly. Who's to say that Breaston doesn't step it up this year as the #2 option, Leinart is good, and he's a 1000 yard receiver again? Or that Brees approaches 5000 yards again with Moore and Bush healthy all season?Or that Cutler never catches on to Martz's offense and sucks it up bigtime? The B/B combo could be even BETTER next year than they were this year, even if Calvin has a big year.

See how we can play that game?

Thats true, and that could happen. My problem is that people keep using last years numbers as if it is some kind of proof.

I will say one thing though, the higher the numbers, the harder they will be to repeat, or better. I just see dont much room for improvement for Manning or Brees. Who is more likely to add 500 yards and 5 TD's to their totals from last year, Brees or Ryan?

 

[Go deep]

The "every player is one round better" argument is, if you excuse me, bull####.If I take Rodgers and then 3 receivers, then my 1st receiver is just as good as your first receiver, if no tbetter. (You may go RB-RB) My 2nd reciever will be better than your first as well if you went RB-RB, because I'll have Rodgers and 2 wideouts before you get a 3rd pick. And not, I'm assuming Rodgers at 1.05 or slightly later, because most of the people here wouldn't take him over the big 4.If I take 2 RBs after Rodgers, then yes, they're each one round worse than your 2 picks of RBs. But if you went WR-WR or RB-WR, then one or both of my RBs will be better than your second or (in the latter case) both of your RBs.Sorry, but it appears to be a moronic argument that doesn't hold up in the slightest.

Im not sure you quite understand, but im not going too explain, because either you are not capable of understanding, or you refuse to. Either way, its not worth my time.

 

[Instinctive]

The "every player is one round better" argument is, if you excuse me, bull####.If I take Rodgers and then 3 receivers, then my 1st receiver is just as good as your first receiver, if no tbetter. (You may go RB-RB) My 2nd reciever will be better than your first as well if you went RB-RB, because I'll have Rodgers and 2 wideouts before you get a 3rd pick. And not, I'm assuming Rodgers at 1.05 or slightly later, because most of the people here wouldn't take him over the big 4.If I take 2 RBs after Rodgers, then yes, they're each one round worse than your 2 picks of RBs. But if you went WR-WR or RB-WR, then one or both of my RBs will be better than your second or (in the latter case) both of your RBs.Sorry, but it appears to be a moronic argument that doesn't hold up in the slightest.

Im not sure you quite understand, but im not going too explain, because either you are not capable of understanding, or you refuse to. Either way, its not worth my time.

Wow. That time of month?What could possibly lend validity to your theory? The whole point is to zig where everyone else zags. Why on earth would I be taking the same position as everyone else when the whole point is to get ahead and take the Best Player Available?Your TE won't be one round better than mind if I take one in round 5 and you wait until round 6...it will be one round worse. It's an assinine theory. Seriously, where's the validity?

 

[SSOG]

So we are talking about the best draft pick in 3 years being dominant enough to make a huge difference? Those aren't available very often to people hoping to hit on a first pick. And using VBD (while that is a great indicator in some regards) is a ridiculous measure of team success, particularly when actual points scoreare available. In real terms, a team with '09 Fitz and a solid cast of producers selected thereafter would crush a team of '09 super-Johnson and a cast of replacement players. That seems to me the correct measure of success rather than VBD?

Using a totally unique and incredible season like Johnson's as your good upside pick and a very mediocre season by Forte as the downside to prove your point is like comparing a days fortunes by using winning the lottery as a good day and stubbing your toe as the bad. On that measure, I too would say having a good day means a lot, lot more than having a bad one.

And even then, using actual points scored (which is how they measure in most of my leagues) getting CJ3 (who isn't going to be a realistic option for 11 out of 12 owners) makes nowhere near as much difference to team fortunes as picking a guy who disappears one day 1 for the season and can't be replaced. CJ gives you maybe 4 or 5 extra PPG (at best, depending on scoring) where losing a virutally irreplaceable starter will cost you a dozen or more, as much as 20 in the situation I related above.

I will agree that hitting on a great round 1 pick can send you on your way to success, might even guarantee respectability, but IMO your statement that it is of many, many, many times more important than the damage caused by a disastereous pick ... is a litttttle bit overstated.

Chris Johnson is hardly the best draft pick of the last 3 years. Last year, CJ3 had 197 VBD, which was 95 VBD more than the 5th best player. In 2008, DeAngelo Williams had 135 VBD and there were a dozen players within 52 VBD of his total. So, which year was an aberration? 2008, by a huge margin.In 2007, Tom Brady had 241 VBD, a full 126 better than the 5th best player. In 2006, Tomlinson had 270 VBD, a mind-blowing 159 points better than the 5th best player in the league. In 2005, Shaun Alexander had 221 VBD, 96 more than the 5th best player. In 2004, Peyton Manning had 199 VBD, 69 points better than the 5th best player. In 2003, Priest Holmes had 231 VBD, 68 more than the 5th best player (and 93 more than the 6th best). In 2002, Priest Holmes had 220 VBD, 101 more than the 5th best player. In 2001, Marshall Faulk had 206 VBD, 79 more than the 5th best player. In 2000, Marshall Faulk had 216 VBD, 83 more than the 5th best player. In other words, Chris Johnson was awesome last year... but in EIGHT OF THE PRIOR NINE SEASONS in the last decade, there has been at least one player more valuable than Johnson was last year. His year was an aberration, but the fact that someone had an historic year was NOT an aberration. There was nothing really that "unique and extraordinary" about 2009 Chris Johnson from a fantasy perspective. He was just a garden variety "best player in fantasy football".

As for your claim that Fitz-and-respectable-players would crush Johnson-and-replacement-players... let's attach some names to demonstrate the concept, shall we?

Team #1-

Eli Manning (QB10)

Rashard Mendenhall (RB13)

Knowshon Moreno (RB17)

Larry Fitzgerald (WR5)

Derrick Mason (WR17)

Donald Driver (WR18)

Tony Gonzalez (TE5)

Total points = 1254

Team #2-

Kurt Warner (QB13)

Chris Johnson (RB1)

Willis McGahee (RB25)

Anquan Boldin (WR23)

Terrell Owens (WR27)

Hakeem Nicks (WR29)

Greg Olsen (TE10)

Total points = 1256

I think that pretty much speaks for itself.

Edit: And that's really not anything. You should see some of the 2006 all-star teams that Tomlinson-and-scrubs would have outscored.

Of course you do, but i think you are missing the point. Alot of people are going to hit with their first pick. If you are one of the few guys who dord not, it will be extremely difficult for you to win the league.

No they aren't. In a typical season, 50% of first round picks are going to bust. On the other hand, there's a big difference between a "hit" and a "home run", as I've just demonstrated in my Chris Johnson vs. Larry Fitzgerald comparison.

I was hoping to get SSOG's thoughts on this. Do you think the difference between Aaron Rodgers and Matt Ryan is enough to make up for this?

I wasn't ignoring it. I've already given my thoughts on it in this thread, and I'm tired of repeating myself. But since you want me to repeat myself...

Not true. The difference between QB/RB/WR/WR/RB and RB/RB/WR/WR/QB is only two players- the QB, and one of the two RBs (the one who moves from the 1st to the 5th). The other RB remains exactly the same. Sure, the arbitrary role we assign to him (RB1, RB2, whatever) might change, but in terms of total changes to the team the only difference is the QB and ONE of the two RBs.

That's it. Period. None of this "one round advantage every round for 7 rounds vs. 7 round advantage once" nonsense you keep spouting off. The only difference between taking a QB in the 1st and an RB in the 8th vs. taking a QB in the 8th and an RB in the 1st is that one player has a QB that is 7 rounds better, and the other has an RB that is 7 rounds better, and ALL OTHER PLAYERS ARE FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL IN EVERY POSSIBLE REGARD. Sure, you can arbitrarily have the different teams take positions in such a way that it cosmetically appears that one team is taking everyone a round after the other, but that's just a cosmetic change. In your hypothetical, the "QB early" team could just as easily match the "RB early" team's picks round-for-round and then just grab his second RB in the 8th round, resulting in absolutely no net difference other than the 1st round and 8th round picks.

 

[Go deep]

The "every player is one round better" argument is, if you excuse me, bull####.If I take Rodgers and then 3 receivers, then my 1st receiver is just as good as your first receiver, if no tbetter. (You may go RB-RB) My 2nd reciever will be better than your first as well if you went RB-RB, because I'll have Rodgers and 2 wideouts before you get a 3rd pick. And not, I'm assuming Rodgers at 1.05 or slightly later, because most of the people here wouldn't take him over the big 4.If I take 2 RBs after Rodgers, then yes, they're each one round worse than your 2 picks of RBs. But if you went WR-WR or RB-WR, then one or both of my RBs will be better than your second or (in the latter case) both of your RBs.Sorry, but it appears to be a moronic argument that doesn't hold up in the slightest.

Im not sure you quite understand, but im not going too explain, because either you are not capable of understanding, or you refuse to. Either way, its not worth my time.

Wow. That time of month?What could possibly lend validity to your theory? The whole point is to zig where everyone else zags. Why on earth would I be taking the same position as everyone else when the whole point is to get ahead and take the Best Player Available?Your TE won't be one round better than mind if I take one in round 5 and you wait until round 6...it will be one round worse. It's an assinine theory. Seriously, where's the validity?

I wasnt trying to sound like a jerk, i was just saying if you cant understand it, its not worth explaining.

 

[Instinctive]

There's nothing to understand. The entire premise is patently false because the QB team isn't suddenly going to take exactly the same players the other team takes one round later...

 

[Go deep]

There's nothing to understand. The entire premise is patently false because the QB team isn't suddenly going to take exactly the same players the other team takes one round later...

Lets pretend that he did, would you agree that Team B would likely be better?

 

[SSOG]

There's nothing to understand. The entire premise is patently false because the QB team isn't suddenly going to take exactly the same players the other team takes one round later...

Lets pretend that he did, would you agree that Team B would likely be better?

No.Team A would have one seven-round advantage. Team B would have seven one-round advantages. No matter how you slice it, no matter who those teams draft in each particular round, no team would ever have any round advantage to show for his drafting efforts after 8 rounds. It'll always come out as a wash.The one wildcard here is that if Team A keeps mimicking Team B a round later, then it's likely that Team A is drafting at the tail end of runs, which is not drafting for value. If that's the case, then yeah, Team B is likely better... but that has nothing to do with Team A drafting a QB in the first and everything to do with Team A chasing need rather than drafting for value, and as a result it's a completely irrelevant consideration for the current conversation.

 

[Go deep]

There's nothing to understand. The entire premise is patently false because the QB team isn't suddenly going to take exactly the same players the other team takes one round later...

Lets pretend that he did, would you agree that Team B would likely be better?

No.Team A would have one seven-round advantage. Team B would have seven one-round advantages. No matter how you slice it, no matter who those teams draft in each particular round, no team would ever have any round advantage to show for his drafting efforts after 8 rounds. It'll always come out as a wash.

The one wildcard here is that if Team A keeps mimicking Team B a round later, then it's likely that Team A is drafting at the tail end of runs, which is not drafting for value. If that's the case, then yeah, Team B is likely better... but that has nothing to do with Team A drafting a QB in the first and everything to do with Team A chasing need rather than drafting for value, and as a result it's a completely irrelevant consideration for the current conversation.

Considering the drop off in value of RB's and WR's from one round to the next, thats alot of ground for Rogers to make up over a QB like Ryan or Eli. Rodgers threw for 300 more yards and 3 more TD's than Manning last year. He also ran for 200 more yards than Manning and 5 TD's, but i dont think you can count on 5 rushing TD's from a QB, but thats besides the point. That gives Rodgers 80-85 more FF points than Manning.I dont feel like listing the difference one round can make between RB's and WR's from rounds 1-8, but just the first round to 2nd round alone is the difference between Andre Johnson and Greg Jennings which is more than 400 yards and 5 TD's. Thats 70-75 FF points, now i only have to make up 10 points between my next 6 picks, which i am picking one full round ahead of you for each one.

As far as your 2nd point, team A is basically playing catchup if he takes a QB in the first round. He almost has to draft for need. He is going to need to take RB's and WR's from rounds 2-8, the same thing that everyone else will be taking and have been taking. So he will essentially always be at the back end of runs. By the time he makes his 2nd pick, the top 10-12 RB's are off the board, and 4 or 5 of the top WR's. What if Manning is still available with his 2nd pick, does Team A take his 2nd QB if Manning is the best player left? You kind of leave yourself at the mercy of your leaguemates when you draft a QB early. Hypotheticall speaking, say you have 11 other guys like me drafting, who wont take a QB in the first 4-5 rounds, are you going to take 5 QB's?

 

[SSOG]

Considering the drop off in value of RB's and WR's from one round to the next, thats alot of ground for Rogers to make up over a QB like Ryan or Eli. Rodgers threw for 300 more yards and 3 more TD's than Manning last year. He also ran for 200 more yards than Manning and 5 TD's, but i dont think you can count on 5 rushing TD's from a QB, but thats besides the point. That gives Rodgers 80-85 more FF points than Manning.

I dont feel like listing the difference one round can make between RB's and WR's from rounds 1-8, but just the first round to 2nd round alone is the difference between Andre Johnson and Greg Jennings which is more than 400 yards and 5 TD's. Thats 70-75 FF points, now i only have to make up 10 points between my next 6 picks, which i am picking one full round ahead of you for each one.

As far as your 2nd point, team A is basically playing catchup if he takes a QB in the first round. He almost has to draft for need. He is going to need to take RB's and WR's from rounds 2-8, the same thing that everyone else will be taking and have been taking. So he will essentially always be at the back end of runs. By the time he makes his 2nd pick, the top 10-12 RB's are off the board, and 4 or 5 of the top WR's. What if Manning is still available with his 2nd pick, does Team A take his 2nd QB if Manning is the best player left? You kind of leave yourself at the mercy of your leaguemates when you draft a QB early. Hypotheticall speaking, say you have 11 other guys like me drafting, who wont take a QB in the first 4-5 rounds, are you going to take 5 QB's?

Again, the difference between Aaron Rodgers (QB1) and Eli Manning (QB10) last year was 104 fantasy points. The difference between Andre Johnson (WR1) and Greg Jennings (WR21) was 77 fantasy points. So yeah, if you're busy drafting WRs in the second round that finish outside of the top 20, then the team that took an RB in the 1st will easily catch up to you. Of course, the problem with that scenario isn't that you took Aaron Rodgers in the 1st... it's that you took a WR that finished outside of the top 20 in the 2nd round. The bad pick there wasn't Rodgers, it was Jennings.Let's use some comps. Let's pretend that where you draft a player is where he finishes (i.e. if you take a QB as the 1st off the board, he'll finish the season as QB1, and if you take the 8th WR off the board, he'll finish the season as WR8, etc). Let's also say we're drafting from the 10-hole here. Let's compare your hypothetical QB-RB-RB-WR-WR-WR-TE-RB drafting pattern to your hypothetical RB-RB-WR-WR-WR-TE-RB-QB drafting pattern.

With Pick #10, let's assume that you're choosing between the first QB or the seventh RB off the board.

With pick #14, based on MFL ADP you're picking the 9th RB off the board.

With pick #34, based on MFL ADP, you're either taking the 17th RB off the board, or you're taking the 13th WR

With pick #38, based on MFL ADP, you're taking the 15th WR off the board.

With pick #58, you're taking the 22nd WR off the board

With pick #62, you're either taking 25th WR off the board, or you're taking the 7th TE off the board.

With pick #82, you're either taking the 10th TE off the board, or you're taking the 32nd RB off the board.

With pick #86, you're either taking the 34th RB off the board, or you're taking the 13th QB off the board.

Using that ADP data, we have a choice between the following two teams:

QB1

RB9

RB17

RB34

WR15

WR22

WR25

TE10

QB13

RB7

RB9

RB32

WR13

WR15

WR22

TE7

So, which team is better? Let's see how that would look through the prism of actual numbers, shall we? Last year, team A would have scored 1429 points. Team B would have scored 1394 points. Meaning the winner would have been the team that took the QB in the first. That seven round advantage at QB would have outweighed those seven one-round advantages at every other position last season, assuming both teams possessed a perfectly equal ability to correctly project players.

Just because I can anticipate your objection... was last year an aberration? Using values from 2008 would leave Team A outscoring Team B 1397 to 1343. Using values from 2007 would have Team A outscoring Team B 1454 to 1299. I didn't bother going back any further because using the hyper-specific scenario you outlined, the "QB-in-the-first" strategy would have been the superior strategy in EACH OF THE LAST THREE SEASONS.

When you have one team doing something silly like drafting the 21st best receiver in the second round, then yeah, that team is going to suffer by comparison no matter *WHO* it drafts in the first round. In a fair comparison, however, the QB-in-the-late-first strategy actually beats the stuffing out of all this nonsense you keep spouting about being able to find comparable value 8 rounds later and how seven one-round advantages outweigh one seven-round advantage.

In the end, that's what VBD really means. It means that, despite what you keep claiming about how close the other QBs are to the Aaron Rodgers and Drew Breeses of the world, those guys stand every bit as far above their peers as the stud RBs. I don't think anyone would recommend taking a Rodgers or a Brees in the top 4, but when it comes down to a choice between Aaron Rodgers and Rashard Mendenhall in the latter half of the first round, you bet your freaking hindquarters that I'm taking Aaron Rodgers every day of the week and three times on Sunday.

 

[Catbird]

The reference to a multi-stage quality drop by taking a QB, at least as I raised it, isn't that the teams will actually take different players or the QB-firsters will take lesser players each round - or ever (I have been assumming they take the exact same players as best player available in rounds 2-6). My attempted point (probably poorly stated) is that the position which gets shorted early (the RB or WR not taken first in a QB-first team) is impacted top to bottom at that position. In my example, instead of Calvin, Harvin and Ochocinco, you end up with Harvin, Ochocinco and Breaston. Your whole WR pool is markedly weakened, even with the exact same players drafted 2-6 (this effect would also be consistent for whichever different RBs and WRs were selected in rounds 2-6 of comperable value).

FUBAR, I have no problem with Brees/Breaston outscoring Cutler/Calvin last year. With Brees being good and the rest mediocre, I would expect that. But we are drafting a dynasty team here. The question remains would you rather, now and going forward, for your dynasty squad, have Brees/Breaston or Cutler/Calvin (or alternatively Ryan/Fitzgerald, who were also available at the same spots to the wait-on-QB picker if he wasn't high on Calvin or Jay). If you would take the Brees/Breaston option, given the choice, just say that and let people decide which are better dynasty choices. We can sure disagree. To me the Fitzgerald or Calvin upgrade over Breaston is far more significant than the upgrade of Brees over Cutler or Ryan.

I think it all distills down to a pretty basic calculation. SSOG and others are right that its really only the difference in your 1st and 7th rounders that we are talking about. The issue is whether being able to only drop 5 or 6 QB ranking spots at your QB position by waiting to take him, is more or less difference in net value than dropping roughly 32 RB spots (or 24 WR spots) by taking a QB first and waiting to take a RB or WR in that 7th round spot. I would just rather have the 7th QB and a 3rd RB or WR than the number 2 QB and the number 36 RB (or number 26 WR). To me its the fact that the difference in QBs between the 1st and 7th is much less than the difference in value of RBs and WRs between the 1st and 7th that this is all about. I have no other reason to wait on my QB, but I think the difference is significant.

On a whole other note, SSOG, your listing of 2 teams, one supposedly replasement players plus CJ3 and the other of supposed quality picks is obviously going to score closely if you give the top level player team Eli and call Warner a 'replacement level' player when the difference between then is next to nothing. Or when all three of your 'replacement' WR's are from the top 20s of WRs - where the best of them should fall (in this 12 teamer) after WR 36 to be replacements? We can bicker player choices and lists forever, but no true replacement level team with CJ3 will beat a well picked regular team on actual points. The fact that you couldn't hand pick one that would do so (without seriously fudging your selections) should make that pretty clear.

You still haven't shown me anything that suggests that making a good first round pick is many times more significant than making a bad one? I still feel like making a good pick - getting a top tier player in the first - is just kind of average work in the first - a very good thing but equal to most other teams, while a disasterous pick, when everyone else is starting off pretty well, strikes me as more significant to your chances? I will agree with you, however, that except in extreme circumstances, neither a very good or an awfuly mediocre pick will determine your season. They just mean it will take more or less work to get where you're going.

 

[Go deep]

Considering the drop off in value of RB's and WR's from one round to the next, thats alot of ground for Rogers to make up over a QB like Ryan or Eli. Rodgers threw for 300 more yards and 3 more TD's than Manning last year. He also ran for 200 more yards than Manning and 5 TD's, but i dont think you can count on 5 rushing TD's from a QB, but thats besides the point. That gives Rodgers 80-85 more FF points than Manning.

I dont feel like listing the difference one round can make between RB's and WR's from rounds 1-8, but just the first round to 2nd round alone is the difference between Andre Johnson and Greg Jennings which is more than 400 yards and 5 TD's. Thats 70-75 FF points, now i only have to make up 10 points between my next 6 picks, which i am picking one full round ahead of you for each one.

As far as your 2nd point, team A is basically playing catchup if he takes a QB in the first round. He almost has to draft for need. He is going to need to take RB's and WR's from rounds 2-8, the same thing that everyone else will be taking and have been taking. So he will essentially always be at the back end of runs. By the time he makes his 2nd pick, the top 10-12 RB's are off the board, and 4 or 5 of the top WR's. What if Manning is still available with his 2nd pick, does Team A take his 2nd QB if Manning is the best player left? You kind of leave yourself at the mercy of your leaguemates when you draft a QB early. Hypotheticall speaking, say you have 11 other guys like me drafting, who wont take a QB in the first 4-5 rounds, are you going to take 5 QB's?

Again, the difference between Aaron Rodgers (QB1) and Eli Manning (QB10) last year was 104 fantasy points. The difference between Andre Johnson (WR1) and Greg Jennings (WR21) was 77 fantasy points. So yeah, if you're busy drafting WRs in the second round that finish outside of the top 20, then the team that took an RB in the 1st will easily catch up to you. Of course, the problem with that scenario isn't that you took Aaron Rodgers in the 1st... it's that you took a WR that finished outside of the top 20 in the 2nd round. The bad pick there wasn't Rodgers, it was Jennings.Let's use some comps. Let's pretend that where you draft a player is where he finishes (i.e. if you take a QB as the 1st off the board, he'll finish the season as QB1, and if you take the 8th WR off the board, he'll finish the season as WR8, etc). Let's also say we're drafting from the 10-hole here. Let's compare your hypothetical QB-RB-RB-WR-WR-WR-TE-RB drafting pattern to your hypothetical RB-RB-WR-WR-WR-TE-RB-QB drafting pattern.

With Pick #10, let's assume that you're choosing between the first QB or the seventh RB off the board.

With pick #14, based on MFL ADP you're picking the 9th RB off the board.

With pick #34, based on MFL ADP, you're either taking the 17th RB off the board, or you're taking the 13th WR

With pick #38, based on MFL ADP, you're taking the 15th WR off the board.

With pick #58, you're taking the 22nd WR off the board

With pick #62, you're either taking 25th WR off the board, or you're taking the 7th TE off the board.

With pick #82, you're either taking the 10th TE off the board, or you're taking the 32nd RB off the board.

With pick #86, you're either taking the 34th RB off the board, or you're taking the 13th QB off the board.

Using that ADP data, we have a choice between the following two teams:

QB1

RB9

RB17

RB34

WR15

WR22

WR25

TE10

QB13

RB7

RB9

RB32

WR13

WR15

WR22

TE7

So, which team is better? Let's see how that would look through the prism of actual numbers, shall we? Last year, team A would have scored 1429 points. Team B would have scored 1394 points. Meaning the winner would have been the team that took the QB in the first. That seven round advantage at QB would have outweighed those seven one-round advantages at every other position last season, assuming both teams possessed a perfectly equal ability to correctly project players.

Just because I can anticipate your objection... was last year an aberration? Using values from 2008 would leave Team A outscoring Team B 1397 to 1343. Using values from 2007 would have Team A outscoring Team B 1454 to 1299. I didn't bother going back any further because using the hyper-specific scenario you outlined, the "QB-in-the-first" strategy would have been the superior strategy in EACH OF THE LAST THREE SEASONS.

When you have one team doing something silly like drafting the 21st best receiver in the second round, then yeah, that team is going to suffer by comparison no matter *WHO* it drafts in the first round. In a fair comparison, however, the QB-in-the-late-first strategy actually beats the stuffing out of all this nonsense you keep spouting about being able to find comparable value 8 rounds later and how seven one-round advantages outweigh one seven-round advantage.

In the end, that's what VBD really means. It means that, despite what you keep claiming about how close the other QBs are to the Aaron Rodgers and Drew Breeses of the world, those guys stand every bit as far above their peers as the stud RBs. I don't think anyone would recommend taking a Rodgers or a Brees in the top 4, but when it comes down to a choice between Aaron Rodgers and Rashard Mendenhall in the latter half of the first round, you bet your freaking hindquarters that I'm taking Aaron Rodgers every day of the week and three times on Sunday.

Lets not, lets use last years ADP for dynasty startups. I bet the results would be different, and alot more accurate. Also, lets do it out of the 6 pr 7 spot. Which is right in the middle of the round, and where you said you would take Rodgers.

 

[Go deep]

I think it all distills down to a pretty basic calculation. SSOG and others are right that its really only the difference in your 1st and 7th rounders that we are talking about. The issue is whether being able to only drop 5 or 6 QB ranking spots at your QB position by waiting to take him, is more or less difference in net value than dropping roughly 32 RB spots (or 24 WR spots) by taking a QB first and waiting to take a RB or WR in that 7th round spot. I would just rather have the 7th QB and a 3rd RB or WR than the number 2 QB and the number 36 RB (or number 26 WR). To me its the fact that the difference in QBs between the 1st and 7th is much less than the difference in value of RBs and WRs between the 1st and 7th that this is all about. I have no other reason to wait on my QB, but I think the difference is significant.

Exactly, what is more likely to happen. A team who takes a QB in the 8th round has that QB throw for 4000 yards and 28 TD's or the team that takes a RB in the 8th round has that RB get 1500 total yards and 10 TD's? Which of those players are more likely to do it on a consistent basis?

 

[FUBAR]

IOW, instead of Cutler/Calvin you have Brees/Breaston. Obviously 2010 will be different than 2009 but in 2009 the C/C combo gave around 390 points, B/B scored 440.

I think people are seriously underestimating this. Plus, they are not taking what happens between rounds 2-7 into consideration.

Because it doesn't matter. Despite the breakdown, it all comes down to QB in round 1 and WR in round 8 or WR in round 1 and QB in round 8, assuming you take WR there as in the example given. I don't care if my WRs are all "bumped down a peg" if they're the same guys.

 

[FUBAR]

FUBAR, I have no problem with Brees/Breaston outscoring Cutler/Calvin last year. With Brees being good and the rest mediocre, I would expect that. But we are drafting a dynasty team here. The question remains would you rather, now and going forward, for your dynasty squad, have Brees/Breaston or Cutler/Calvin (or alternatively Ryan/Fitzgerald, who were also available at the same spots to the wait-on-QB picker if he wasn't high on Calvin or Jay). If you would take the Brees/Breaston option, given the choice, just say that and let people decide which are better dynasty choices. We can sure disagree. To me the Fitzgerald or Calvin upgrade over Breaston is far more significant than the upgrade of Brees over Cutler or Ryan.

Do I have to take Breaston?

 

[J-Dawg]

For what it's worth, I'm in the middle of a start-up dynasty draft right now that's nearing the end of the 7th round. I had 1.08 and traded up to 1.05 to take Aaron Rodgers and here's my team thus far. I like to think it's one of the better teams out there despite me being behind the proverbial 8 ball by going QB in the 1st.

QB - Aaron Rodgers (1.05)

RB - Beanie Wells (2.05)

RB - Michael Bush (7.08)

WR - Roddy White (3.08)

WR - Michael Crabtree (4.05)

WR - Jeremy Maclin (6.05)

TE - Jermichael Finley (5.08)

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

For what it's worth, I'm in the middle of a start-up dynasty draft right now that's nearing the end of the 7th round. I had 1.08 and traded up to 1.05 to take Aaron Rodgers and here's my team thus far. I like to think it's one of the better teams out there despite me being behind the proverbial 8 ball by going QB in the 1st.QB - Aaron Rodgers (1.05)RB - Beanie Wells (2.05)RB - Michael Bush (7.08)WR - Roddy White (3.08)WR - Michael Crabtree (4.05)WR - Jeremy Maclin (6.05)TE - Jermichael Finley (5.08)

I would agree it has to be one of the best teams out there, but I don't think a startup dynasty in which you got Roddy White @ 3.08 and Michael Crabtree @ 4.05 is really representative of anything. Those guys are gone at least a round to two rounds earlier in just about every other draft.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

For what it's worth, I'm in the middle of a start-up dynasty draft right now that's nearing the end of the 7th round. I had 1.08 and traded up to 1.05 to take Aaron Rodgers and here's my team thus far. I like to think it's one of the better teams out there despite me being behind the proverbial 8 ball by going QB in the 1st.QB - Aaron Rodgers (1.05)RB - Beanie Wells (2.05)RB - Michael Bush (7.08)WR - Roddy White (3.08)WR - Michael Crabtree (4.05)WR - Jeremy Maclin (6.05)TE - Jermichael Finley (5.08)

I would agree it has to be one of the best teams out there, but I don't think a startup dynasty in which you got Roddy White @ 3.08 and Michael Crabtree @ 4.05 is really representative of anything. Those guys are gone at least a round to two rounds earlier in just about every other draft.

Agreed, he had a few good ones drop to him..

 

[Go deep]

For what it's worth, I'm in the middle of a start-up dynasty draft right now that's nearing the end of the 7th round. I had 1.08 and traded up to 1.05 to take Aaron Rodgers and here's my team thus far. I like to think it's one of the better teams out there despite me being behind the proverbial 8 ball by going QB in the 1st.QB - Aaron Rodgers (1.05)RB - Beanie Wells (2.05)RB - Michael Bush (7.08)WR - Roddy White (3.08)WR - Michael Crabtree (4.05)WR - Jeremy Maclin (6.05)TE - Jermichael Finley (5.08)

If you can get that team in a 12(or even 10) man league while taking Aaron Rodgers in the first, i am all for taking a QB in the first.

 

[Catbird]

FUBAR, I have no problem with Brees/Breaston outscoring Cutler/Calvin last year. With Brees being good and the rest mediocre, I would expect that. But we are drafting a dynasty team here. The question remains would you rather, now and going forward, for your dynasty squad, have Brees/Breaston or Cutler/Calvin (or alternatively Ryan/Fitzgerald, who were also available at the same spots to the wait-on-QB picker if he wasn't high on Calvin or Jay). If you would take the Brees/Breaston option, given the choice, just say that and let people decide which are better dynasty choices. We can sure disagree. To me the Fitzgerald or Calvin upgrade over Breaston is far more significant than the upgrade of Brees over Cutler or Ryan.

Do I have to take Breaston?

No you don't. You can have any WR after about #30 in the 7th mid-7th (Wallace, Bryant, S, Moss, Cotchery) but you have to start a 7th round WR or RB (instead of a 1st round WR or RB) because you took Brees instead of waiting and taking Ryan, Cutler or Eli in the 7th. That's the whole discussion to me. The first round QB is sweet, but the 7th round payback is a ..... real problem.

 

[Instinctive]

Why are we comparing Breaston to Calvin, when the real comparison is more akin to Roddy White to Calvin (taking him in the 2nd after your QB) and then something like Breaston to Jeremy Maclin.

For instance, let's say team 1 goes QB and then 3 wideouts, while team 2 goes 3 wideouts and then QB. Both teams get 2 comparable RBs before the last WR and the last QB, respectively.

1. Aaron Rodgers

2. Roddy White

3. Sidney Rice

4. RB

5. RB

6. Dwayne Bowe (who I would take...)/Jeremy Maclin/Pierre Garcon (other 6th round receiver) (ETA: Dez Bryant might be the guy here too, he's generally available)

1. Calvin Johnson

2. Desean Jackson/Miles Austin/maybe Crabtree? (just guys who could go early-mid 2nd round at WR)

3. Greg Jennings/VJax/Colston (mid-late 3rd round guys)

4. RB

5. RB

6. Matt Ryan (or Cutler if you prefer, or Eli, whatever...)

I didn't look at any true ADP, I just went right off guys who were available in the right areas of the start-up we did. Do you really prefer the 2nd team? I think the first one looks miles better...

 

[ThePittbully]

Personally I would never take a QB in the first unless its a start 2 QB league, otherwise the value is deep enough to wait and get a RB early (where the talent pool drops off much more quickly)

 

[SSOG]

On a whole other note, SSOG, your listing of 2 teams, one supposedly replasement players plus CJ3 and the other of supposed quality picks is obviously going to score closely if you give the top level player team Eli and call Warner a 'replacement level' player when the difference between then is next to nothing. Or when all three of your 'replacement' WR's are from the top 20s of WRs - where the best of them should fall (in this 12 teamer) after WR 36 to be replacements? We can bicker player choices and lists forever, but no true replacement level team with CJ3 will beat a well picked regular team on actual points. The fact that you couldn't hand pick one that would do so (without seriously fudging your selections) should make that pretty clear.

You're picking nits.Team A had QB10 vs. QB13. It had RB17 vs. RB25. It had WR5 vs. WR23. It had WR17 vs. WR27. It had WR18 vs. WR29. It had TE5 vs. TE10. It had sizeable advantages at every single position except for RB1, where Team B had Chris Johnson, *AND* it had a bona-fide uberstud in Larry Fitzgerald. And it's not like Team A was starting dreck at RB1- it has Rashard Mendenhall, a borderline #1 RB last season. But that one difference, the difference between Rashard Mendenhall and Chris Johnson, was more than enough to outweigh the difference between Fitzgerald and Anquan, plus the difference between Mason and TO, plus the difference between Driver and Nicks, plus the difference between Gonzo and Olsen, plus the difference between Moreno and McGahee, plus the difference between Manning and Warner. It's like you gave team A a bona-fide stud (Larry Fitzgerald) and three extra draft picks... and it still wasn't enough to overcome the Chris Johnson factor.Just look at the names on those teams again. Fitzgerald, Mason, and Driver vs. Boldin, Owens, and Nicks. Mendenhall and Moreno vs. McGahee. Gonzalez vs. Olsen. And Chris Johnson came in and outweighed every single one of those advantages all by himself.

Lets not, lets use last years ADP for dynasty startups. I bet the results would be different, and alot more accurate. Also, lets do it out of the 6 pr 7 spot. Which is right in the middle of the round, and where you said you would take Rodgers.

They wouldn't be different, and they wouldn't be more accurate, but if you have ADP data from dynasty startups, I'd be thrilled to run the numbers to prove it to you once again.Also, I'd be happy to run the numbers from the 6 or 7 spot, which is about where I would expect the "QB in the first" strategy to reach a balance against the "RB in the first" strategy... but you were saying that you would NEVER under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES take a QB in the first EVER EVER EVER PERIOD FULL STOP, so what does it matter if I run the numbers from the 6 hole or the 10 hole? The 10th overall is still a 1st round pick, when last I checked. If I prove that taking a QB with the 10th is a smart play, then haven't I proved that taking a QB with a first can sometimes be a smart play? And if I've proven that, then your whole "never take a QB in the first" mantra is pretty much blown to smithereens. So how about instead of running the numbers from the 6 hole, I run them from the 12 hole to make the results even more dramatic and to demonstrate even more emphatically that "never take a QB in the first" is a losing strategy.

Exactly, what is more likely to happen. A team who takes a QB in the 8th round has that QB throw for 4000 yards and 28 TD's or the team that takes a RB in the 8th round has that RB get 1500 total yards and 10 TD's? Which of those players are more likely to do it on a consistent basis?

How is 4000/28 comparable to 1500/10? Eli Manning had 4150/27 (counting his rushing yards as double) last year and he still fell 100 points shy of the "first round QBs". Meanwhile, an RB who put up 1500/10 would have finished a point behind Ryan Grant for 8th place last year, meaning he would be falling just 5-10 points shy of the "first round RBs". If you're looking for an RB who scored 100 points fewer than the RBs in the 6-8 range (i.e. the "late first round RBs"), you're looking for an RB that put up 900/7.

 

[Go deep]

On a whole other note, SSOG, your listing of 2 teams, one supposedly replasement players plus CJ3 and the other of supposed quality picks is obviously going to score closely if you give the top level player team Eli and call Warner a 'replacement level' player when the difference between then is next to nothing. Or when all three of your 'replacement' WR's are from the top 20s of WRs - where the best of them should fall (in this 12 teamer) after WR 36 to be replacements? We can bicker player choices and lists forever, but no true replacement level team with CJ3 will beat a well picked regular team on actual points. The fact that you couldn't hand pick one that would do so (without seriously fudging your selections) should make that pretty clear.

You're picking nits.Team A had QB10 vs. QB13. It had RB17 vs. RB25. It had WR5 vs. WR23. It had WR17 vs. WR27. It had WR18 vs. WR29. It had TE5 vs. TE10. It had sizeable advantages at every single position except for RB1, where Team B had Chris Johnson, *AND* it had a bona-fide uberstud in Larry Fitzgerald. And it's not like Team A was starting dreck at RB1- it has Rashard Mendenhall, a borderline #1 RB last season. But that one difference, the difference between Rashard Mendenhall and Chris Johnson, was more than enough to outweigh the difference between Fitzgerald and Anquan, plus the difference between Mason and TO, plus the difference between Driver and Nicks, plus the difference between Gonzo and Olsen, plus the difference between Moreno and McGahee, plus the difference between Manning and Warner. It's like you gave team A a bona-fide stud (Larry Fitzgerald) and three extra draft picks... and it still wasn't enough to overcome the Chris Johnson factor.

Just look at the names on those teams again. Fitzgerald, Mason, and Driver vs. Boldin, Owens, and Nicks. Mendenhall and Moreno vs. McGahee. Gonzalez vs. Olsen. And Chris Johnson came in and outweighed every single one of those advantages all by himself.

Lets not, lets use last years ADP for dynasty startups. I bet the results would be different, and alot more accurate. Also, lets do it out of the 6 pr 7 spot. Which is right in the middle of the round, and where you said you would take Rodgers.

They wouldn't be different, and they wouldn't be more accurate, but if you have ADP data from dynasty startups, I'd be thrilled to run the numbers to prove it to you once again.Also, I'd be happy to run the numbers from the 6 or 7 spot, which is about where I would expect the "QB in the first" strategy to reach a balance against the "RB in the first" strategy... but you were saying that you would NEVER under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES take a QB in the first EVER EVER EVER PERIOD FULL STOP, so what does it matter if I run the numbers from the 6 hole or the 10 hole? The 10th overall is still a 1st round pick, when last I checked. If I prove that taking a QB with the 10th is a smart play, then haven't I proved that taking a QB with a first can sometimes be a smart play? And if I've proven that, then your whole "never take a QB in the first" mantra is pretty much blown to smithereens. So how about instead of running the numbers from the 6 hole, I run them from the 12 hole to make the results even more dramatic and to demonstrate even more emphatically that "never take a QB in the first" is a losing strategy.

Exactly, what is more likely to happen. A team who takes a QB in the 8th round has that QB throw for 4000 yards and 28 TD's or the team that takes a RB in the 8th round has that RB get 1500 total yards and 10 TD's? Which of those players are more likely to do it on a consistent basis?

How is 4000/28 comparable to 1500/10? Eli Manning had 4150/27 (counting his rushing yards as double) last year and he still fell 100 points shy of the "first round QBs". Meanwhile, an RB who put up 1500/10 would have finished a point behind Ryan Grant for 8th place last year, meaning he would be falling just 5-10 points shy of the "first round RBs". If you're looking for an RB who scored 100 points fewer than the RBs in the 6-8 range (i.e. the "late first round RBs"), you're looking for an RB that put up 900/7.

Well, when was that? Seriously though, I dont have a problem with you using the 10 hole, but we were talking about taking him in the 6 or 7 spot before that, so i just thoght we would stick to that. Plus, while i would never draft a QB(not sure why you needed all the drama to say that.) in a first round this year, and likely never or that matter, unless some 23 year old QB throws 60 TD passes in season, i do have Rodgers ranked somewhere in the early to mid 2nd. So using the 10 spot is not too far off where i would take him.

By the way, you would save yourself alot of typing without all the sarcasm like "last time i checked" and "that i would NEVER under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES take a QB in the first EVER, EVER, EVER FULL STOP." It adds nothing to the conversation except a bit of tool factor.

It sounds to me like you are taking this debate a bit too personally, so maybe we should stop. Even if you are not, i am growing tired of going back and forth about the same thing. There is no way either of us are going to convince the other either way, so why bother?

Thanks for the mostly civil debate and good luck with your teams in 2010!!!(and given the opportunity to take Stewart over Rodgers in the first, do not pass it up, trust me)

 

[hostile]

Update on my draft:

Here is my team after 9 rounds (1/4 of the way through the draft, and I dont have a 10th round pick:

1. Rodgers, Aaron GBP QB 10

2. Austin, Miles DAL WR 4

3. Jackson, DeSean PHI WR 8

4. Jones, Felix DAL RB 4

5. Gates, Antonio SDC TE 10

6. Meachem, Robert NOS WR 10

7. Bush, Michael OAK RB 10

8. Hester, Devin CHI WR 8

9. Lynch, Marshawn BUF RB 6

Cant say I'm that upset so far, and looking at the roster grid no team is dominant. The teams which went RB heavy have crap for WRs and QBs, so I dont buy the counter-argument here. I'll be able to back-fill RBs fairly easily, even within this draft if things fall right.

I could have very easily gone 2 of Stewart, Charles, Mendy, Wells, Mathews at the top of the draft, but going Rodgers/Austin, imo, will set me up far longer.

 

[Go deep]

Update on my draft:

Here is my team after 9 rounds (1/4 of the way through the draft, and I dont have a 10th round pick:

1. Rodgers, Aaron GBP QB 10

2. Austin, Miles DAL WR 4

3. Jackson, DeSean PHI WR 8

4. Jones, Felix DAL RB 4

5. Gates, Antonio SDC TE 10

6. Meachem, Robert NOS WR 10

7. Bush, Michael OAK RB 10

8. Hester, Devin CHI WR 8

9. Lynch, Marshawn BUF RB 6

Cant say I'm that upset so far, and looking at the roster grid no team is dominant. The teams which went RB heavy have crap for WRs and QBs, so I dont buy the counter-argument here. I'll be able to back-fill RBs fairly easily, even within this draft if things fall right.

I could have very easily gone 2 of Stewart, Charles, Mendy, Wells, Mathews at the top of the draft, but going Rodgers/Austin, imo, will set me up far longer.

I do like this team, you got great value with Desean and Jones in the 3rd and 4th. I think your team would probably be better with Stewart and Manning/Ryan in the 1 and 8 spots, but still a good job anyway.

 

[hostile]

Update on my draft:

Here is my team after 9 rounds (1/4 of the way through the draft, and I dont have a 10th round pick:

1. Rodgers, Aaron GBP QB 10

2. Austin, Miles DAL WR 4

3. Jackson, DeSean PHI WR 8

4. Jones, Felix DAL RB 4

5. Gates, Antonio SDC TE 10

6. Meachem, Robert NOS WR 10

7. Bush, Michael OAK RB 10

8. Hester, Devin CHI WR 8

9. Lynch, Marshawn BUF RB 6

Cant say I'm that upset so far, and looking at the roster grid no team is dominant. The teams which went RB heavy have crap for WRs and QBs, so I dont buy the counter-argument here. I'll be able to back-fill RBs fairly easily, even within this draft if things fall right.

I could have very easily gone 2 of Stewart, Charles, Mendy, Wells, Mathews at the top of the draft, but going Rodgers/Austin, imo, will set me up far longer.

I do like this team, you got great value with Desean and Jones in the 3rd and 4th. I think your team would probably be better with Stewart and Manning/Ryan in the 1 and 8 spots, but still a good job anyway.

If I had waited until the 8th round to snag my first QB, I would be looking at the remainder of McNabb, Palmer, Favre, Henne, Sanchez, Freeman, Smith, Young, Cassel, Garrard, Moore, etc...

The 7th round would have added Eli and Stafford. The 6th were Cutler and Flacco.

So, by the end of the 5th, 9 teams out of 12 had selected QBs. I'm actually glad I did things the way I did.

The team which went Mendy, Wells, and traded up for Charles has Matt Ryan as his QB1 and for WRs has Maclin, Aromashodu, and Hines as his three WRs so far... I like my situation much more than that.

 

[Go deep]

Update on my draft:

Here is my team after 9 rounds (1/4 of the way through the draft, and I dont have a 10th round pick:

1. Rodgers, Aaron GBP QB 10

2. Austin, Miles DAL WR 4

3. Jackson, DeSean PHI WR 8

4. Jones, Felix DAL RB 4

5. Gates, Antonio SDC TE 10

6. Meachem, Robert NOS WR 10

7. Bush, Michael OAK RB 10

8. Hester, Devin CHI WR 8

9. Lynch, Marshawn BUF RB 6

Cant say I'm that upset so far, and looking at the roster grid no team is dominant. The teams which went RB heavy have crap for WRs and QBs, so I dont buy the counter-argument here. I'll be able to back-fill RBs fairly easily, even within this draft if things fall right.

I could have very easily gone 2 of Stewart, Charles, Mendy, Wells, Mathews at the top of the draft, but going Rodgers/Austin, imo, will set me up far longer.

I do like this team, you got great value with Desean and Jones in the 3rd and 4th. I think your team would probably be better with Stewart and Manning/Ryan in the 1 and 8 spots, but still a good job anyway.

If I had waited until the 8th round to snag my first QB, I would be looking at the remainder of McNabb, Palmer, Favre, Henne, Sanchez, Freeman, Smith, Young, Cassel, Garrard, Moore, etc...

The 7th round would have added Eli and Stafford. The 6th were Cutler and Flacco.

So, by the end of the 5th, 9 teams out of 12 had selected QBs. I'm actually glad I did things the way I did.

The team which went Mendy, Wells, and traded up for Charles has Matt Ryan as his QB1 and for WRs has Maclin, Aromashodu, and Hines as his three WRs so far... I like my situation much more than that.

Wow, QB's went early in this draft.

The same guy has Mendenhall, Charles and Wells? Thats pretty awesome RB trio. Im a big Ryan fan, so i like his QB. His WR's are pretty weak, but i do like Maclin. I think your teams are pretty close, i would be happy with either.

 

[icehouse]

Would you draft a QB in the 1st round (technically 2nd) of a 1 player keeper league? I'm gonna keep a RB and when I pick (2nd) Rodgers and Manning will still be on the board. Is it bad to pick a QB early, as opposed to picking him in the 1st? What's wrong with picking a stud QB in picks 13-24?

 

[Go deep]

Would you draft a QB in the 1st round (technically 2nd) of a 1 player keeper league? I'm gonna keep a RB and when I pick (2nd) Rodgers and Manning will still be on the board. Is it bad to pick a QB early, as opposed to picking him in the 1st? What's wrong with picking a stud QB in picks 13-24?

I wouldnt have a problem picking a QB in the first under those circumstances. Of course alot depends on your league requirements. I am in a two player keeper league, but you cant keep two of the same position. The scoring system is pretty complex, but it values QB's a little higher than normal. I am keeping Rodgers, no questions asked, at the cost of my 2nd round pick.

 

[SSOG]

By the way, you would save yourself alot of typing without all the sarcasm like "last time i checked" and "that i would NEVER under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES take a QB in the first EVER, EVER, EVER FULL STOP." It adds nothing to the conversation except a bit of tool factor.

You're absolutely right. I was being snarky and sarcastic and was doing a disservice to you and to the pool at large. I'm sorry, and I'll make more of an effort to watch my tone in the future.At the end of the day, the sticking point in this discussion for me is the fact that you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that there could ever be any circumstances where it would make sense to take a QB in the first. You say that the dropoff from the 1st round to the 8th round is so small at QB that you'd be better served by waiting... so I use a lot of time and effort to cross-reference ADP with season-ending point totals to demonstrate that in each of the past 3 years teams would have been better off taking a QB at the end of the first than they would have been taking an RB... and you basically just ignore that work and keep clinging to your mantra despite the fact that it's already been shot down. You keep disparaging VBD and talking about using real-world point totals... but when I use real-world point totals to demonstrate my point, you discount them, too. It's clear that no amount of proof and evidence can possibly change your mind on the subject, which just makes me a bit frustrated that I went through all the effort to compile the proof or evidence in the first place. So, at this point, if you really want to cling to your "QB in the first round is always a bad idea, no exceptions" claim, then more power to you.

 

[Go deep]

By the way, you would save yourself alot of typing without all the sarcasm like "last time i checked" and "that i would NEVER under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES take a QB in the first EVER, EVER, EVER FULL STOP." It adds nothing to the conversation except a bit of tool factor.

You're absolutely right. I was being snarky and sarcastic and was doing a disservice to you and to the pool at large. I'm sorry, and I'll make more of an effort to watch my tone in the future.At the end of the day, the sticking point in this discussion for me is the fact that you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that there could ever be any circumstances where it would make sense to take a QB in the first. You say that the dropoff from the 1st round to the 8th round is so small at QB that you'd be better served by waiting... so I use a lot of time and effort to cross-reference ADP with season-ending point totals to demonstrate that in each of the past 3 years teams would have been better off taking a QB at the end of the first than they would have been taking an RB... and you basically just ignore that work and keep clinging to your mantra despite the fact that it's already been shot down. You keep disparaging VBD and talking about using real-world point totals... but when I use real-world point totals to demonstrate my point, you discount them, too. It's clear that no amount of proof and evidence can possibly change your mind on the subject, which just makes me a bit frustrated that I went through all the effort to compile the proof or evidence in the first place. So, at this point, if you really want to cling to your "QB in the first round is always a bad idea, no exceptions" claim, then more power to you.

Im not saying i would never do it, but it would take someone REALLY special. Maybe Manning after his rookie year. Like everyone im sure, I was a huge Peyton Manning fan coming out of college, so i might have drafted him at the end of the first round after his first few years.

I appreciate you going through all the time you put in, and you did make some good points. If it means anything, i did bump Rodgers up 2 points in my dynasty rankings, which would push him to the early 2nd, instead of the mid 2nd. However, the VBD data did very little to change my mind. It just doesnt do much than tell me what would have been smart to do last year in a Redraft.

Sure, you could have paired him with Sproles last year and outscored Matt Ryan and Jonathan Stewart, but would you really take Rodgers and Sproles over Stewart and Ryan going forward? I wouldnt, and its not even close. Do you really want to count on Spoles as your #2 or 3 RB? I think Matt Ryan has a much better chance at jumping into the top 5 QB's in the future than Sproles, or any other RB you can get in round 8 do of ever being top 10 RB's.

I am an upside guy, i tend to not take guys who have little chance of improving their value. Especially with picks after the first few rounds. An 8th round pick on a RB that will likely be off my team and/or be out of the NFL or a QB who i think has a good chance at being in the top 10 for years? The choice seems easy to me.

None of this takes perceived value into account. I wouldnt trade Jonathan Stewart for Rodgers, unless i was extremely deep at RB, and had nothing at QB. Odds are against that though. Look at any team in any of your leagues, and tell me how many are in need of a QB more than a RB. i doubt very many, if any. The Rodgers/Stewart choice is at least a close one. Try offering the Matt Ryan owner Sproles, or Foster, or and other 8th round RB for him, and see what he says.

Like i said, i respect your side and youve made some good points, but i just dont agree.

 

[dickey moe]

Found this thread interesting from awhile back and thought I'd post some results from a startup 10-team dynasty PPR performance league (6pts per passing TD) from two weeks ago.

Start

1QB

2RB

3WR

1TE

1 Off Flex

1 PK

1 Def/ST

Here are the three owners who drafted a QB in the first round and their rosters:

Team 1

1.04 Rodgers, Aaron QB GB

2.07 Greene, Shonn RB NYJ

3.04 Jennings, Greg WR GB

4.07 Benson, Cedric RB CIN

5.04 Nicks, Hakeem WR NYG

6.07 Witten, Jason TE DAL

7.04 Bryant, Dez WR DAL

8.07 Hardesty, Montario RB CLE

9.04 Vikings DST

10.7 Portis, Clinton RB WAS

11.4 Kaeding, Nate K SD

12.7 Floyd, Malcom WR SD

13.4 Jones, Thomas RB KC

14.7 Jackson, Fred RB BUF

15.4 Smith, Alex QB SF

16.7 Jenkins, Michael WR ATL

17.4 Patriots DST

18.7 Taylor, Fred RB NE

19.4 Dwyer, Jonathan RB PIT

20.7 Shockey, Jeremy TE NO

21.4 Longwell, Ryan K MIN

22.7 Ringer, Javon RB TEN

23.4 Chambers, Chris WR KC

24.7 Washington, Nate WR TEN

25.4 Bradford, Sam QB STL

Team 2

1.06 Manning, Peyton QB IND

2.05 Mendenhall, Rashard RB PIT

3.06 Smith, Steve WR NYG

4.05 Stewart, Jonathan RB CAR

5.06 Rice, Sidney WR MIN

6.05 Clark, Dallas TE IND

7.06 Williams, Ricky RB MIA

8.05 Harrison, Jerome RB CLE

9.06 Ravens DST

10.05 Knox, Johnny WR CHI

11.06 Thomas, Devin WR WAS

12.05 Meachem, Robert WR NO

13.06 Thomas, Demaryius WR DEN

14.05 Sanchez, Mark QB NYJ

15.06 Benn, Arrelious WR TB

16.05 Dixon, Anthony RB SF

17.06 Gresham, Jermaine TE CIN

18.05 Gonzalez, Anthony WR IND

19.06 Thomas, Mike WR JAC

20.05 Gould, Robbie K CHI

21.06 Garrard, David QB JAC

22.05 Cribbs, Josh WR CLE

23.06 Broncos DST

24.05 Smith, Kevin RB DET

25.06 Bess, Davone WR MIA

Team 3

1.10 Brees, Drew QB NO

2.01 Williams, DeAngelo RB CAR

3.10 Marshall, Brandon WR MIA

4.01 Charles, Jamaal RB KC

5.10 Smith, Steve WR CAR

6.01 Barber, Marion RB DAL

7.10 Best, Jahvid RB DET

8.01 Sims-Walker, Mike WR JAC

9.10 Harvin, Percy WR MIN

10.01 49ers DST

11.10 Ward, Hines WR PIT

12.01 Miller, Heath TE PIT

13.10 Roethlisberger, Ben QB PIT

14.01 Brown, Donald RB IND

15.10 Olsen, Greg TE CHI

16.01 Tate, Golden WR SEA

17.10 Gaffney, Jabar WR DEN

18.01 Choice, Tashard RB DAL

19.10 Buckhalter, Correll RB DEN

20.01 Henne, Chad QB MIA

21.10 Tynes, Lawrence K NYG

22.01 Buehler, David K DAL

23.10 Douglas, Harry WR ATL

24.01 Huggins, Kareem RB TB

25.10 Bryant, Antonio WR CIN

Any thoughts?