Taking Manning in the top half of round 1... (1 Viewer)

[Evilgrin 72]

Seems that the general consensus on this board is to never take a QB in round 1 with the possible exception of Manning at or near the turn. I haven't been able to find many people saying he could represent value as a top-5 pick. However, in researching this using my own league's scoring system (1 pt per 50 yds passing, 20 rushing, 15 receiving, all TDs 6, all TOs -1) and Dodds' projections - I found the following. Plugging Manning in as the pick at picks #1-4 turn out to be a poor decision. However, taking Manning at #5 and using ADP/my own draft's history to determine the likely available players in rounds 2 &3 and using DVBD to determine the best picks, I found the following:

1.5 - Manning - 280 FP

2.8 - Edgerrin James - 122 FP

3.5 - D. McAllister - 107 FP

Now using the conventional strategy :

1.5 - Alexander - 153 FP

2.8 - E. James - 122 FP

3.5 - C. Palmer - 234 FP

Both strategies give you 1 QB and 2 RBs going into round 4 and an identical 509 FP. Now, I could argue that strategy 1 might give you a lower risk/reward ratio, as Manning never gets injured and could explode this year with another threat at WR and less depth at RB. Alexander is viewed as a risky proposition this year coming off an injury-plagued year and Chris Henry's absence for half the season could affect Palmer's numbers. So, explain to me (assuming you'd draft the same players from the 4th round on) why scenario #1 is poor strategy?

 

[jkruppe]

Last year I played in a league where a team took Manning in the first round and then drafted Brees much later -- somewhere around 7th or 8th. I guess I'd have to look up total points to be sure, but I know they were very close. Lots of missed value there in the Manning pick.

 

[sholditch]

Play it out through round 6. Most if not all of the tier one and tier 2 wideouts are gone, while there are tier 2 QBs (McNabb, Bulger, sometimes Brady, always Kitna) available through rounds 4-7.

 

[David Yudkin]

Since you asked . . . (and simce this COMPLETELY overlaps with a series of articles I've been working on:

The problem is that QB scoring is so hard to get value from that it makes for a risky proposition. Over the course of his career, here is how Manning has ranked at the end of the season based on VALUE rankings (remember, FBG still uses 4 pts per passing TD and that impacts this): 40, 14, 11, 16, 24, 30, 2, 34, 4.

So even though he's been very consistent on the field, he's been somewhat inconsistent in terms of value. If you have a hunch that he is going to go nuts this year (and it plays out that way) *AND* the other pack of QBs do not go off like Manning does then it might be worth the gamble to take him there.

I understand that you can write Manning's name in your roster every week and that feels good to be able to do that, but you really won't know from a value perspective if it was worth it or not until the year is over.

 

[pizzatyme]

Seems that the general consensus on this board is to never take a QB in round 1 with the possible exception of Manning at or near the turn. I haven't been able to find many people saying he could represent value as a top-5 pick. However, in researching this using my own league's scoring system (1 pt per 50 yds passing, 20 rushing, 15 receiving, all TDs 6, all TOs -1) and Dodds' projections - I found the following. Plugging Manning in as the pick at picks #1-4 turn out to be a poor decision. However, taking Manning at #5 and using ADP/my own draft's history to determine the likely available players in rounds 2 &3 and using DVBD to determine the best picks, I found the following:

1.5 - Manning - 280 FP

2.8 - Edgerrin James - 122 FP

3.5 - D. McAllister - 107 FP

Now using the conventional strategy :

1.5 - Alexander - 153 FP

2.8 - E. James - 122 FP

3.5 - C. Palmer - 234 FP

Both strategies give you 1 QB and 2 RBs going into round 4 and an identical 509 FP. Now, I could argue that strategy 1 might give you a lower risk/reward ratio, as Manning never gets injured and could explode this year with another threat at WR and less depth at RB. Alexander is viewed as a risky proposition this year coming off an injury-plagued year and Chris Henry's absence for half the season could affect Palmer's numbers. So, explain to me (assuming you'd draft the same players from the 4th round on) why scenario #1 is poor strategy?

I'm not sure anyone would argue that depending on the type of league and its scoring, that Manning in the 1.05 slot is a bad pick. The issue is that many leagues aren't scored like yours. Secondly, most would probably agrue that also taking Palmer in the 3rd is a mistake. The real value is that you go something like RB-RB-WR and later in the draft (6th or 7th rounds) you get your QB.In your scenario, taking Palmer helps make your argument. But taking Palmer isn't the best option in the 3rd.

 

[Tau837]

THIS THREAD is focused on Gates, but there is a fair amount of discussion about the value of Manning in the first. That thread will make me seriously consider targeting Manning in the first and Gates in the third, depending on my draft slot.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Some notes:

We are not a TE-required league, so that factors in somewhat in that you don't need to fill a TE1 spot.

As far as taking Palmer in the third went, that was what the draft dominator suggested was the best pick in terms of DVBD. I could sit back and wait until round 6-8 and take someone like Kitna/Rivers/Roethlisberger and take a WR in round 2 or 3, but that strategy has not worked for me in the past couple of seasons. I'm becoming more and more convinced that in an all-TDs 6 points league, that having a top 5 QB is all but essential to having a shot to win it all unless you get incredibly lucky with your first 5 or so picks and have no busts (or even semi-busts.) Case in point, here was my draft last year :

1.8 - Rudi Johnson

2.5 - Larry Fitzgerald

3.8 - Brian Westbrook

4.5 - Donald Driver

5.8 - Derrick Mason

6.5 - Mike Bell

I ended up with Kitna and Vick as my QBs, drafted in rounds 10 and 8, respectively. One would think that getting Westbrook in round 3 (he is severely undervalued every year in this league) would have been a godsend, but between Mason's struggles and Fitz's injury, as well as QB unpredictability, I finished 6-7 and missed the playoffs.

 

[Jason Wood]

Justifying a high 1st round selection on Manning is really a debate about consistency versus pure numerical value.

If you're looking at pure VBD value, Manning is absolutely not worth a high 1st round selection in conventional redraft leagues. It took nine seasons for Manning to finish as the top ranked fantasy QB, and that was thanks to a HIGHLY uncharacteristic 4 rushing TDs.

But, if you value the perception of consistency, Manning looks more compelling.

9th, 4th, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 1st in his nine seasons = money in the bank.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Since you asked . . . (and simce this COMPLETELY overlaps with a series of articles I've been working on:The problem is that QB scoring is so hard to get value from that it makes for a risky proposition. Over the course of his career, here is how Manning has ranked at the end of the season based on VALUE rankings (remember, FBG still uses 4 pts per passing TD and that impacts this): 40, 14, 11, 16, 24, 30, 2, 34, 4.So even though he's been very consistent on the field, he's been somewhat inconsistent in terms of value. If you have a hunch that he is going to go nuts this year (and it plays out that way) *AND* the other pack of QBs do not go off like Manning does then it might be worth the gamble to take him there.I understand that you can write Manning's name in your roster every week and that feels good to be able to do that, but you really won't know from a value perspective if it was worth it or not until the year is over.

This is the kind of input I was hoping for - great stuff, David. Normally, I wouldn't consider Manning in round 1, but it seems to me this year that there's almost no way he doesn't go for at least 30 TDs, and I see a large dropoff between him and QBs 2-3. Like I said, I used Dodds' projections for this experiment, not my own, lest anyone think I have Manning penciled in for 37 TDs, and that is the reason for these #s.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Justifying a high 1st round selection on Manning is really a debate about consistency versus pure numerical value. If you're looking at pure VBD value, Manning is absolutely not worth a high 1st round selection in conventional redraft leagues. It took nine seasons for Manning to finish as the top ranked fantasy QB, and that was thanks to a HIGHLY uncharacteristic 4 rushing TDs. But, if you value the perception of consistency, Manning looks more compelling. 9th, 4th, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 1st in his nine seasons = money in the bank.

In our league's scoring system, he's been #1 more than once. Rushing yards and TDs don't factor in as much under our scoring format as some others, as rushing TDs arent worth 50% more than passing TDs.

 

[gianmarco]

Here is the simple problem I see with drafting Manning in the first round. As has been stated above, there's just too much value lost. Therefore, I think you have to be an excellent drafter in order to compensate. If you get Manning in the 1st, you really can't miss on your next 4-5 picks or you're going to struggle. While Manning is the model of consistency, he doesn't outscore other QB's on a week-to-week basis by enough to make up for holes elsewhere in your lineup. This is why bad managers who jump on him in the 1st evidently struggle because they aren't good enough to make up for the lost value.

Which then begs the question that if you are a good enough drafter that you COULD get Manning in the 1st, then you are better off using your skills to get the most value and get a very capable QB later in the draft at a much higher value.

I think what would be interesting is if everyone were to post, from their own experience, how many teams in a redraft league (dynasty doesn't count) win the SuperBowl that have Manning. While I'd have to check, I don't remember any of them in any of my leagues last year even making it to the championship game, much less winning it. Nor do I remember any in recent past. The team with Manning usually ends up being the team I hate to face during the season but doesn't get to make it all the way to the end.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Here is the simple problem I see with drafting Manning in the first round. As has been stated above, there's just too much value lost. Therefore, I think you have to be an excellent drafter in order to compensate. If you get Manning in the 1st, you really can't miss on your next 4-5 picks or you're going to struggle. While Manning is the model of consistency, he doesn't outscore other QB's on a week-to-week basis by enough to make up for holes elsewhere in your lineup. This is why bad managers who jump on him in the 1st evidently struggle because they aren't good enough to make up for the lost value.Which then begs the question that if you are a good enough drafter that you COULD get Manning in the 1st, then you are better off using your skills to get the most value and get a very capable QB later in the draft at a much higher value.I think what would be interesting is if everyone were to post, from their own experience, how many teams in a redraft league (dynasty doesn't count) win the SuperBowl that have Manning. While I'd have to check, I don't remember any of them in any of my leagues last year even making it to the championship game, much less winning it. Nor do I remember any in recent past. The team with Manning usually ends up being the team I hate to face during the season but doesn't get to make it all the way to the end.

This moron took Manning at 1.1 last year and drafted poorly from that point on, for the most part, and still finished a game ahead of me in the division at 7-6.

 

[gianmarco]

This moron took Manning at 1.1 last year and drafted poorly from that point on, for the most part, and still finished a game ahead of me in the division at 7-6.

Not sure I'd admit that And 7-6 sounds about right for a team that grabs him in the 1st.

 

[tomarken]

I think what would be interesting is if everyone were to post, from their own experience, how many teams in a redraft league (dynasty doesn't count) win the SuperBowl that have Manning. While I'd have to check, I don't remember any of them in any of my leagues last year even making it to the championship game, much less winning it. Nor do I remember any in recent past. The team with Manning usually ends up being the team I hate to face during the season but doesn't get to make it all the way to the end.

I went against my own opinions and took Manning at 1.06 last year (it's a keeper league, but we reshuffled a lot of teams, changed some rules, so we were basically drafting from scratch again last year). Drafting a QB early is something I always spoke out against. Midway through the season I was 4-5, and my playoff hopes were not looking good. Then I managed the trade of the decade (in my league at least), sending Manning to a seemingly playoff-bound owner for Brady, Gore, and his 3rd rd pick. (This was right before Gore really blew up). I then traded my third round pick for Burress. I ended up making the playoffs and losing in the championship to the Tomlinson owner, while the guy who got Manning tanked the rest of the season and missed the playoffs completely. So in essence, I traded Manning for Brady, Gore, Burress, and I moved up a few spots in the 3rd round this year. Because of that it worked out extremely well for me, but I wouldn't ever take Manning in the first again. All the numbers bear this out, but just once I wanted to know what it was like to own Peyton - it was not all it's cracked up to be.

 

[Tau837]

I think the historical precedent of results in our various leagues for the teams with Manning could be misleading.

Most of my leagues are a mix of a few sharp owners and a number of casual fantasy football players. In such leagues, I think if I draft Manning in the first round, I can draft a better team around him than most of the owners in my leagues, because I am better able to pick up value in the later rounds. Normally the "good" drafters ignore Manning in the first, and one of the "bad" drafters takes him and ultimately is not able to draft a good team around him. IMO this makes the results of such teams an apples and oranges comparison to the teams most of us here might build around him.

I also think it depends on draft position. If your first round pick is just after a tier dropoff in RBs, it might make a bit more sense. Of course, where that is depends on your own projections/expectations for RBs, and thus how steep the dropoff is, as well as your scoring system.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I think what would be interesting is if everyone were to post, from their own experience, how many teams in a redraft league (dynasty doesn't count) win the SuperBowl that have Manning. While I'd have to check, I don't remember any of them in any of my leagues last year even making it to the championship game, much less winning it. Nor do I remember any in recent past. The team with Manning usually ends up being the team I hate to face during the season but doesn't get to make it all the way to the end.

I went against my own opinions and took Manning at 1.06 last year (it's a keeper league, but we reshuffled a lot of teams, changed some rules, so we were basically drafting from scratch again last year). Drafting a QB early is something I always spoke out against. Midway through the season I was 4-5, and my playoff hopes were not looking good. Then I managed the trade of the decade (in my league at least), sending Manning to a seemingly playoff-bound owner for Brady, Gore, and his 3rd rd pick. (This was right before Gore really blew up). I then traded my third round pick for Burress. I ended up making the playoffs and losing in the championship to the Tomlinson owner, while the guy who got Manning tanked the rest of the season and missed the playoffs completely. So in essence, I traded Manning for Brady, Gore, Burress, and I moved up a few spots in the 3rd round this year. Because of that it worked out extremely well for me, but I wouldn't ever take Manning in the first again. All the numbers bear this out, but just once I wanted to know what it was like to own Peyton - it was not all it's cracked up to be.

Thanks for sharing this... good stuff here.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I think the historical precedent of results in our various leagues for the teams with Manning could be misleading.Most of my leagues are a mix of a few sharp owners and a number of casual fantasy football players. In such leagues, I think if I draft Manning in the first round, I can draft a better team around him than most of the owners in my leagues, because I am better able to pick up value in the later rounds. Normally the "good" drafters ignore Manning in the first, and one of the "bad" drafters takes him and ultimately is not able to draft a good team around him. IMO this makes the results of such teams an apples and oranges comparison to the teams most of us here might build around him.I also think it depends on draft position. If your first round pick is just after a tier dropoff in RBs, it might make a bit more sense. Of course, where that is depends on your own projections/expectations for RBs, and thus how steep the dropoff is, as well as your scoring system.

I see a tier of RBs from 1-3, another from 4-9, and another from 10-17. Ideally, I'd like to trade down to #10 and pick either one of my top 9 RBs or Manning in round 1 and an RB in round 2.

 

[moleculo]

in our league, one of the less-versed owners took Manning at 1.12, Harrison at 2.1, and then Wayne at 3.12. He ended up lucking out with Gore and Reggie Bush in the mid rounds. He won the league.

I was absolutely amazed that he had the balls for an all-colts strategy, and even more amazed that he pulled it off.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Maybe it is just bad luck but the two years I picked QB's early was last year, 4th round Carson Palmer and then McNabb in the 4th the year he blew up. Out of 12 years in the league I have been playing in those were the only two years I did not make the playoffs. Both teams seemed to be lacking WR fire power. This year I will not make that same mistake and I will be one of the last to choose a QB.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Could this lineup have a shot at a league title in a 12-team league?:

P. Manning

E. James

D. McAllister

D. Driver

S. Moss

J. Cotchery

S. Graham

Baltimore

 

[ImTheScientist]

Could this lineup have a shot at a league title in a 12-team league?:

P. Manning

E. James

D. McAllister

D. Driver

S. Moss

J. Cotchery

S. Graham

Baltimore

Depends on those two guys.....If James is top-10 I would say maybe, if he is not then

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Maybe it is just bad luck but the two years I picked QB's early was last year, 4th round Carson Palmer and then McNabb in the 4th the year he blew up. Out of 12 years in the league I have been playing in those were the only two years I did not make the playoffs. Both teams seemed to be lacking WR fire power. This year I will not make that same mistake and I will be one of the last to choose a QB.

See, I've had much the opposite experience. They year I drafted McNabb and the year I drafted Bulger were the two years in the last 5 that I made and went deep in the playoffs. Every other year, I've missed the playoffs.

 

[Tau837]

I think the historical precedent of results in our various leagues for the teams with Manning could be misleading.Most of my leagues are a mix of a few sharp owners and a number of casual fantasy football players. In such leagues, I think if I draft Manning in the first round, I can draft a better team around him than most of the owners in my leagues, because I am better able to pick up value in the later rounds. Normally the "good" drafters ignore Manning in the first, and one of the "bad" drafters takes him and ultimately is not able to draft a good team around him. IMO this makes the results of such teams an apples and oranges comparison to the teams most of us here might build around him.I also think it depends on draft position. If your first round pick is just after a tier dropoff in RBs, it might make a bit more sense. Of course, where that is depends on your own projections/expectations for RBs, and thus how steep the dropoff is, as well as your scoring system.

I see a tier of RBs from 1-3, another from 4-9, and another from 10-17. Ideally, I'd like to trade down to #10 and pick either one of my top 9 RBs or Manning in round 1 and an RB in round 2.

OK, so using this as an example, suppose your top 9 RBs went in the first 9 picks and you are picking 10. Too early for WR1 IMO. So two possible choices are to pick 2 RBs from your third tier, or to take Manning in the first and one of those RBs in the second. I doubt you could count on Manning falling to your second round pick (assuming you aren't in a 10 team league )... and, besides, what difference would that make anyway, if you have the RBs grouped together in the same tier?

 

[ImTheScientist]

Maybe it is just bad luck but the two years I picked QB's early was last year, 4th round Carson Palmer and then McNabb in the 4th the year he blew up. Out of 12 years in the league I have been playing in those were the only two years I did not make the playoffs. Both teams seemed to be lacking WR fire power. This year I will not make that same mistake and I will be one of the last to choose a QB.

See, I've had much the opposite experience. They year I drafted McNabb and the year I drafted Bulger were the two years in the last 5 that I made and went deep in the playoffs. Every other year, I've missed the playoffs.

My bad luck w/ that probably has a lot to do with my bad feelings. I do see were you are coming from. At pick 10 .... or even pick 5 there is not a RB I would feel great about. Seeing that about 50% of RB's in the first round Bust, why not pick a sure thing.

 

[gianmarco]

Could this lineup have a shot at a league title in a 12-team league? . ManningE. JamesD. McAllisterD. DriverS. MossJ. CotcheryS. GrahamBaltimore

Any team has a shot, but I wouldn't bank on it with that one. If either James or McAllister falters, that team is done.

 

[simey]

This will be my 7th year in my FF league, and nobody in my league has ever won the championship having P. Manning on their team. As a matter of fact, nobody having P. Manning on their team has ever been in the championship game. I'm not saying Manning isn't one of the best, or the best quarterback to have on your team, but obviously the surrounding cast matters just as much.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I think the historical precedent of results in our various leagues for the teams with Manning could be misleading.Most of my leagues are a mix of a few sharp owners and a number of casual fantasy football players. In such leagues, I think if I draft Manning in the first round, I can draft a better team around him than most of the owners in my leagues, because I am better able to pick up value in the later rounds. Normally the "good" drafters ignore Manning in the first, and one of the "bad" drafters takes him and ultimately is not able to draft a good team around him. IMO this makes the results of such teams an apples and oranges comparison to the teams most of us here might build around him.I also think it depends on draft position. If your first round pick is just after a tier dropoff in RBs, it might make a bit more sense. Of course, where that is depends on your own projections/expectations for RBs, and thus how steep the dropoff is, as well as your scoring system.

I see a tier of RBs from 1-3, another from 4-9, and another from 10-17. Ideally, I'd like to trade down to #10 and pick either one of my top 9 RBs or Manning in round 1 and an RB in round 2.

OK, so using this as an example, suppose your top 9 RBs went in the first 9 picks and you are picking 10. Too early for WR1 IMO. So two possible choices are to pick 2 RBs from your third tier, or to take Manning in the first and one of those RBs in the second. I doubt you could count on Manning falling to your second round pick (assuming you aren't in a 10 team league )... and, besides, what difference would that make anyway, if you have the RBs grouped together in the same tier?

Exactly. If I were picking #10, I'd take Manning in a second if my top 9 RBs were all gone. But right now, I'm sitting at #5 and having a hard time justifying Manning over Alexander, Parker, Rudi, or Addai.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Could this lineup have a shot at a league title in a 12-team league? . ManningE. JamesD. McAllisterD. DriverS. MossJ. CotcheryS. GrahamBaltimore

Any team has a shot, but I wouldn't bank on it with that one. If either James or McAllister falters, that team is done.

That's kind of my thinking as well.

 

[dparker713]

I don't think the year end statistics are necessarily the proper way to determine Manning's value. His value to your team is higher than his year end VBD may indicate. He's never going to sit. You never even need to think about him. You'll always get full value. You never need to worry about matchups or injury risks. And to this point he's never dragged a team down with a string of poor performances while continuing to get the starting nod. Take for instance Clinton Portis from last year, how many people lost games because of his nagging injuries?

I really am starting to think that evaluating drafts mainly on the basis of year end numbers and projections is inherently flawed.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Just take Parker and all day!

 

[ImTheScientist]

I don't think the year end statistics are necessarily the proper way to determine Manning's value. His value to your team is higher than his year end VBD may indicate. He's never going to sit. You never even need to think about him. You'll always get full value. You never need to worry about matchups or injury risks. And to this point he's never dragged a team down with a string of poor performances while continuing to get the starting nod. Take for instance Clinton Portis from last year, how many people lost games because of his nagging injuries?

I really am starting to think that evaluating drafts mainly on the basis of year end numbers and projections is inherently flawed.

Manning = Superman

 

[gianmarco]

And to this point he's never dragged a team down with a string of poor performances while continuing to get the starting nod.

Nope, he hasn't. You're absolutely right. But the guys you are stuck drafting in the 2nd and 3rd rounds as your top RB's will drag your team down.The other problem that drafting Manning in the 1st creates is almost locking in your drafting choices for the next couple rounds. You HAVE to go with a RB in the 2nd round and, depending on the quality of that RB, may lock you into a 2nd RB in the 3rd. No thanks.

 

[stevegamer]

Redraft:

I've won in leagues with Manning, and have seen other teams win with him. I've seen teams get smoked with him - due to poor drafts elsewhere.

Frankly, it comes down to whether or not you have a good draft elsewhere or not.

Dynasty:

He's a lot more valuable, as his season-to-season consitency makes him a reasonable choice anywhere.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Redraft:

I've won in leagues with Manning, and have seen other teams win with him. I've seen teams get smoked with him - due to poor drafts elsewhere.

Frankly, it comes down to whether or not you have a good draft elsewhere or not.

Dynasty:

He's a lot more valuable, as his season-to-season consitency makes him a reasonable choice anywhere.

It comes down to can you find the Frank Gore or MJD of this year.

 

[dparker713]

And to this point he's never dragged a team down with a string of poor performances while continuing to get the starting nod.

Nope, he hasn't. You're absolutely right. But the guys you are stuck drafting in the 2nd and 3rd rounds as your top RB's will drag your team down.The other problem that drafting Manning in the 1st creates is almost locking in your drafting choices for the next couple rounds. You HAVE to go with a RB in the 2nd round and, depending on the quality of that RB, may lock you into a 2nd RB in the 3rd. No thanks.

I dont think it would lock you into a draft strategy. I'd have no problem going Manning, CJ, Gates. Then I'd be fairly locked into taking RBs in the next 2 rounds, but by that time the run is nearly over. Despite the widely held belief that RBs are consistent, when your picking RB24 at draft position 32 its pretty much a crap shoot. The value of what you find there and what you find a round or two later isnt much different. In the end, I think a strategy like this would work out much better over the course of a season with an active owner. The value of those RBs draft in the second and third round are more likely than not going to be not much higher than the replacement in the 4th or 5th or even a WW pickup. Basically, its much easier to find someone on the scrap heap that can fill in for Jamal Lewis than Chad Johnson.

 

[FFdork]

1. In my experience, in fairly standard scoring systems, it not the guy that takes Manning in the first round that wins. It's the guy that gets him or a similar QB (e.g. Culpepper in '04) at a discount. For Manning, good value is somewhere in the second round. Usually for the other top 2-3 QBs on my list, good value is usually rounds 3-5 (what round is kind of irrelevant b/c it will be so different from league to league), which is a little easier to accommodate in my overall drafting scheme, so if I do pull the trigger it tends to be one of those guys. I know QB is a position where there's always good value in the middle of a draft, but I've had great results taking the guy with a great VBD number that falls to round 3 or lower.

2. This thread does raise some interesting points about how to value Manning's (or other players for that matter) consistency and never missing a game. I certainly think it's worth considering.

However, it's all about winning. In the end, winning in FF is more about guessing right on the most players. The problem is that once you've taken Manning early, you really have to strike gold with some of your other picks. Since RBs are at a premium in most leagues, getting to draft a top-rated RB in the first round greatly increases your chance of hitting on enough other players to win a championship. In the mock drafts presented in this thread you can see that once you spend that first round pick on Manning, you are really going to have to pick those RBs and WRs well to compete with the person that landed the top RB in round 1, a top flight WR in round 2, and another quality RB in round 3 (i.e. the guy most likely to win your standard league).

To put it another way, Manning's consistent production all year long doesn't mean much when you hit the playoffs and you have 2 starting RBs that should be RB2s at best. Meanwhile the team you face in the playoffs, to use a 2006 example, drafted LT2, Reggie Wayne, and Frank Gore.

 

[gianmarco]

I dont think it would lock you into a draft strategy. I'd have no problem going Manning, CJ, Gates. Then I'd be fairly locked into taking RBs in the next 2 rounds, but by that time the run is nearly over. Despite the widely held belief that RBs are consistent, when your picking RB24 at draft position 32 its pretty much a crap shoot. The value of what you find there and what you find a round or two later isnt much different.

In the end, I think a strategy like this would work out much better over the course of a season with an active owner. The value of those RBs draft in the second and third round are more likely than not going to be not much higher than the replacement in the 4th or 5th or even a WW pickup. Basically, its much easier to find someone on the scrap heap that can fill in for Jamal Lewis than Chad Johnson.

The run is over because no one is left. You'd be stuck with garbage as your #1 RB and even worse garbage at #2 RB. As far as waiting a couple more rounds as it's a crapshoot, yeah, that's great, if you're picking your #2 or #3 RB. Not when it's the 1st RB you're taking.Manning/CJ/Gates isn't enough if you have no quality whatsoever at RB. So no, it doesn't have to lock you into a draft strategy. You can absolutely ignore getting your first RB until the 5th round. You won't win, though, unless you land the next MJD or MBIII.

 

[montana_grizzly_bears]

I dont think it would lock you into a draft strategy. I'd have no problem going Manning, CJ, Gates. Then I'd be fairly locked into taking RBs in the next 2 rounds, but by that time the run is nearly over. Despite the widely held belief that RBs are consistent, when your picking RB24 at draft position 32 its pretty much a crap shoot. The value of what you find there and what you find a round or two later isnt much different.

In the end, I think a strategy like this would work out much better over the course of a season with an active owner. The value of those RBs draft in the second and third round are more likely than not going to be not much higher than the replacement in the 4th or 5th or even a WW pickup. Basically, its much easier to find someone on the scrap heap that can fill in for Jamal Lewis than Chad Johnson.

The run is over because no one is left. You'd be stuck with garbage as your #1 RB and even worse garbage at #2 RB. As far as waiting a couple more rounds as it's a crapshoot, yeah, that's great, if you're picking your #2 or #3 RB. Not when it's the 1st RB you're taking.Manning/CJ/Gates isn't enough if you have no quality whatsoever at RB. So no, it doesn't have to lock you into a draft strategy. You can absolutely ignore getting your first RB until the 5th round. You won't win, though, unless you land the next MJD or MBIII.

You just have to get lucky with your picks at RB than. You can get M. Lynch, A Green, C.Brown, J.Lewis, Caddy, AP (min), Dunn, and fred taylor. All of which are going to be serviceable next year. I just did a Mock on DD and took Manning(1.05), Holt (2.08), Gates (3.05). was able to get a RB stable of Lynch, Kjones, J. lewis, and C.Brown. The DD has my team rated 4th best on the team strengths and team winning 13 of 16 games. That is just the DD but i don't see how you can say there is no quality there. By taking Manning Holt and Gates your gaining on average 7 points per week over your competitors. That being said... is it a strategy I would employ- Probable not. I prefer to wait on te until the 9th and grab Witten but I'm not against taking Manning/Holt that early.

 

[SSOG]

Seems that the general consensus on this board is to never take a QB in round 1 with the possible exception of Manning at or near the turn. I haven't been able to find many people saying he could represent value as a top-5 pick. However, in researching this using my own league's scoring system (1 pt per 50 yds passing, 20 rushing, 15 receiving, all TDs 6, all TOs -1) and Dodds' projections - I found the following. Plugging Manning in as the pick at picks #1-4 turn out to be a poor decision. However, taking Manning at #5 and using ADP/my own draft's history to determine the likely available players in rounds 2 &3 and using DVBD to determine the best picks, I found the following:

1.5 - Manning - 280 FP

2.8 - Edgerrin James - 122 FP

3.5 - D. McAllister - 107 FP

Now using the conventional strategy :

1.5 - Alexander - 153 FP

2.8 - E. James - 122 FP

3.5 - C. Palmer - 234 FP

Both strategies give you 1 QB and 2 RBs going into round 4 and an identical 509 FP. Now, I could argue that strategy 1 might give you a lower risk/reward ratio, as Manning never gets injured and could explode this year with another threat at WR and less depth at RB. Alexander is viewed as a risky proposition this year coming off an injury-plagued year and Chris Henry's absence for half the season could affect Palmer's numbers. So, explain to me (assuming you'd draft the same players from the 4th round on) why scenario #1 is poor strategy?

Your league is an aberration in that it weights TD *EXTREMELY* heavily (basically, TDs are worth twice as much as in a standard scoring league). In that scoring system, then yes, I could definitely see Manning representing great value at #5. In normal scoring systems where yards actually matter, I'd wait until closer to the turn.

Last year I played in a league where a team took Manning in the first round and then drafted Brees much later -- somewhere around 7th or 8th. I guess I'd have to look up total points to be sure, but I know they were very close. Lots of missed value there in the Manning pick.

Trades down?

I don't think the year end statistics are necessarily the proper way to determine Manning's value. His value to your team is higher than his year end VBD may indicate. He's never going to sit. You never even need to think about him. You'll always get full value. You never need to worry about matchups or injury risks. And to this point he's never dragged a team down with a string of poor performances while continuing to get the starting nod. Take for instance Clinton Portis from last year, how many people lost games because of his nagging injuries?

I really am starting to think that evaluating drafts mainly on the basis of year end numbers and projections is inherently flawed.

Manning = Superman

Second longest consecutive starts streak for a QB in NFL history. Peyton Manning, as far as I'm concerned, has officially entered into Brett Favre territory in that no, I really don't worry about an injury to him. I mean, I know it's always possible, but it's far less of a concern with Manning than with anyone else.

 

[Tau837]

I don't think the year end statistics are necessarily the proper way to determine Manning's value. His value to your team is higher than his year end VBD may indicate. He's never going to sit. You never even need to think about him. You'll always get full value. You never need to worry about matchups or injury risks. And to this point he's never dragged a team down with a string of poor performances while continuing to get the starting nod. Take for instance Clinton Portis from last year, how many people lost games because of his nagging injuries? I really am starting to think that evaluating drafts mainly on the basis of year end numbers and projections is inherently flawed.

 

[Tau837]

And to this point he's never dragged a team down with a string of poor performances while continuing to get the starting nod.

Nope, he hasn't. You're absolutely right. But the guys you are stuck drafting in the 2nd and 3rd rounds as your top RB's will drag your team down.The other problem that drafting Manning in the 1st creates is almost locking in your drafting choices for the next couple rounds. You HAVE to go with a RB in the 2nd round and, depending on the quality of that RB, may lock you into a 2nd RB in the 3rd. No thanks.

I dont think it would lock you into a draft strategy. I'd have no problem going Manning, CJ, Gates. Then I'd be fairly locked into taking RBs in the next 2 rounds, but by that time the run is nearly over. Despite the widely held belief that RBs are consistent, when your picking RB24 at draft position 32 its pretty much a crap shoot. The value of what you find there and what you find a round or two later isnt much different. In the end, I think a strategy like this would work out much better over the course of a season with an active owner. The value of those RBs draft in the second and third round are more likely than not going to be not much higher than the replacement in the 4th or 5th or even a WW pickup. Basically, its much easier to find someone on the scrap heap that can fill in for Jamal Lewis than Chad Johnson.

Another

 

[John Mamula]

there is too much results based thinking in this thread.

it doesn't matter if someone in some random league did it and it worked. what matters is if doing this strategy gives you the best expectation to win.

the answer is decidedly no.

if you do it, you should be acknowledging the fact that you are giving up production to trade off with reliability. that is not how i would draft as i always draft to maximize team production, but not everyone is the same.

it is baffling to me that while manning is consistent, you have a very real chance to draft a QB who can outperform him 3-4 rounds later. why would you draft someone that high when that is the probable outcome?

other than having pick 1.1 and picking a RB, i typically never want to be the first person picking the top player at a position. there is just too much of a premium you have to pay in doing so. i'd rather build a team of very good players at every position and have depth.

 

[Ilov80s]

Here is the simple problem I see with drafting Manning in the first round. As has been stated above, there's just too much value lost. Therefore, I think you have to be an excellent drafter in order to compensate. If you get Manning in the 1st, you really can't miss on your next 4-5 picks or you're going to struggle. While Manning is the model of consistency, he doesn't outscore other QB's on a week-to-week basis by enough to make up for holes elsewhere in your lineup. This is why bad managers who jump on him in the 1st evidently struggle because they aren't good enough to make up for the lost value.

Which then begs the question that if you are a good enough drafter that you COULD get Manning in the 1st, then you are better off using your skills to get the most value and get a very capable QB later in the draft at a much higher value.

I think what would be interesting is if everyone were to post, from their own experience, how many teams in a redraft league (dynasty doesn't count) win the SuperBowl that have Manning. While I'd have to check, I don't remember any of them in any of my leagues last year even making it to the championship game, much less winning it. Nor do I remember any in recent past. The team with Manning usually ends up being the team I hate to face during the season but doesn't get to make it all the way to the end.

I will start by saying that I am not a believer in drafting QBs early. That being said, I don't agree taking Manning in the first is losing value. Last year, lets say you had the 5th pick and SA, LT, LJ, and Tiki were gone. Your options were essentially: Manning, Portis, Edge, Rudi, Jordan, Sjax, or Ronnie. Now lets examine actual value in a standard scoring league:Manning finished as the #1 QB.

How did all those RBs do at their position?

Portis: 35th

Edge: 22nd

Rudi: 9th

Jordan: worthless

Sjax: 3rd

Ronnie: 25th

I see 2 players that were worth a 1st round pick and 4 that were not. Taking a RB over Manning was a crapshoot. If you took one of the RBs, you had a 33% chance to get good value and a 66% chance to get significantly less value. My guess is that if we looked at previous years, we would see a similar pattern. The mid-1st round RBs are the iffiest and most overhyped players in any draft. Be very careful with them. Manning is the safer pick and his trade value is always very high, so he is a safe piece you can draft and then sell off later to fill in any areas of weakness.

 

[SSOG]

I don't think the year end statistics are necessarily the proper way to determine Manning's value. His value to your team is higher than his year end VBD may indicate. He's never going to sit. You never even need to think about him. You'll always get full value. You never need to worry about matchups or injury risks. And to this point he's never dragged a team down with a string of poor performances while continuing to get the starting nod. Take for instance Clinton Portis from last year, how many people lost games because of his nagging injuries? I really am starting to think that evaluating drafts mainly on the basis of year end numbers and projections is inherently flawed.

Another good point to make is that you know that Manning's trade value is always going to be strong. Everyone says that you can always get gems later in the draft (like Drew Brees last year)... well, you can still get those with Manning, and you know there will always be a market to trade him if he ever becomes superfluous. A lot of other first rounders are never going to have the same trade value.Besides, someone in this thread listed Manning's year-end VBD ranks, but he failed to compare those to the average year-end VBD ranks of the 1st rounders from year-to-year. Even if I knew Manning was going to finish 20th in VBD this year, he'd still be worth a first rounder if the average first rounder finishes with a VBD of 50.I think a lot of the reason why people are down on Manning is because everyone is confident in their own projections. Historically speaking, everyone's projections suck, but at the same time, everyone is convinced that this time maybe theirs won't.

 

[John Mamula]

Here is the simple problem I see with drafting Manning in the first round. As has been stated above, there's just too much value lost. Therefore, I think you have to be an excellent drafter in order to compensate. If you get Manning in the 1st, you really can't miss on your next 4-5 picks or you're going to struggle. While Manning is the model of consistency, he doesn't outscore other QB's on a week-to-week basis by enough to make up for holes elsewhere in your lineup. This is why bad managers who jump on him in the 1st evidently struggle because they aren't good enough to make up for the lost value.

Which then begs the question that if you are a good enough drafter that you COULD get Manning in the 1st, then you are better off using your skills to get the most value and get a very capable QB later in the draft at a much higher value.

I think what would be interesting is if everyone were to post, from their own experience, how many teams in a redraft league (dynasty doesn't count) win the SuperBowl that have Manning. While I'd have to check, I don't remember any of them in any of my leagues last year even making it to the championship game, much less winning it. Nor do I remember any in recent past. The team with Manning usually ends up being the team I hate to face during the season but doesn't get to make it all the way to the end.

I will start by saying that I am not a believer in drafting QBs early. That being said, I don't agree taking Manning in the first is losing value. Last year, lets say you had the 5th pick and SA, LT, LJ, and Tiki were gone. Your options were essentially: Manning, Portis, Edge, Rudi, Jordan, Sjax, or Ronnie. Now lets examine actual value in a standard scoring league:Manning finished as the #1 QB.

How did all those RBs do at their position?

Portis: 35th

Edge: 22nd

Rudi: 9th

Jordan: worthless

Sjax: 3rd

Ronnie: 25th

I see 2 players that were worth a 1st round pick and 4 that were not. Taking a RB over Manning was a crapshoot. If you took one of the RBs, you had a 33% chance to get good value and a 66% chance to get significantly less value. My guess is that if we looked at previous years, we would see a similar pattern. The mid-1st round RBs are the iffiest and most overhyped players in any draft. Be very careful with them. Manning is the safer pick and his trade value is always very high, so he is a safe piece you can draft and then sell off later to fill in any areas of weakness.

why weren't any of the other RBs who finished 5-8 an option?seems like this is cherry picking, and is again results based based on past information, which doesn't apply in looking forward to drafting manning in comparison with expectations of other RBs.

adam vinatieri is safe too. Should I take him at 1.06 after manning is off the board?

 

[John Mamula]

Historically speaking, everyone's projections suck

i would imagine that some are better than others.

 

[Ilov80s]

there is too much results based thinking in this thread.

it doesn't matter if someone in some random league did it and it worked. what matters is if doing this strategy gives you the best expectation to win.

the answer is decidedly no.

if you do it, you should be acknowledging the fact that you are giving up production to trade off with reliability. that is not how i would draft as i always draft to maximize team production, but not everyone is the same.

it is baffling to me that while manning is consistent, you have a very real chance to draft a QB who can outperform him 3-4 rounds later. why would you draft someone that high when that is the probable outcome?

other than having pick 1.1 and picking a RB, i typically never want to be the first person picking the top player at a position. there is just too much of a premium you have to pay in doing so. i'd rather build a team of very good players at every position and have depth.

In 06, the RBs taken after LT, LJ, SA, and Tiki were likely Portis, SJax, Rudi, Edge, Brown or Jordan. With the exception of Rudi and SJax, there were plenty of RBs available later that outproduced these mid 1st round backs. Think Frank Gore, Jones-Drew, Addai, Betts, Chester, Ahman Green, Reggie Bush, Fred Taylor, Thomas Jones, Travis Henry, Marion Barber.

 

[John Mamula]

it is always interesting to me how the people who have been around this site since the cheatsheets days are typically on one side of the fence and the newer posters are on the other in regards to this issue.

i wonder why? (and i am being serious)

 

[Ilov80s]

Here is the simple problem I see with drafting Manning in the first round. As has been stated above, there's just too much value lost. Therefore, I think you have to be an excellent drafter in order to compensate. If you get Manning in the 1st, you really can't miss on your next 4-5 picks or you're going to struggle. While Manning is the model of consistency, he doesn't outscore other QB's on a week-to-week basis by enough to make up for holes elsewhere in your lineup. This is why bad managers who jump on him in the 1st evidently struggle because they aren't good enough to make up for the lost value.

Which then begs the question that if you are a good enough drafter that you COULD get Manning in the 1st, then you are better off using your skills to get the most value and get a very capable QB later in the draft at a much higher value.

I think what would be interesting is if everyone were to post, from their own experience, how many teams in a redraft league (dynasty doesn't count) win the SuperBowl that have Manning. While I'd have to check, I don't remember any of them in any of my leagues last year even making it to the championship game, much less winning it. Nor do I remember any in recent past. The team with Manning usually ends up being the team I hate to face during the season but doesn't get to make it all the way to the end.

I will start by saying that I am not a believer in drafting QBs early. That being said, I don't agree taking Manning in the first is losing value. Last year, lets say you had the 5th pick and SA, LT, LJ, and Tiki were gone. Your options were essentially: Manning, Portis, Edge, Rudi, Jordan, Sjax, or Ronnie. Now lets examine actual value in a standard scoring league:Manning finished as the #1 QB.

How did all those RBs do at their position?

Portis: 35th

Edge: 22nd

Rudi: 9th

Jordan: worthless

Sjax: 3rd

Ronnie: 25th

I see 2 players that were worth a 1st round pick and 4 that were not. Taking a RB over Manning was a crapshoot. If you took one of the RBs, you had a 33% chance to get good value and a 66% chance to get significantly less value. My guess is that if we looked at previous years, we would see a similar pattern. The mid-1st round RBs are the iffiest and most overhyped players in any draft. Be very careful with them. Manning is the safer pick and his trade value is always very high, so he is a safe piece you can draft and then sell off later to fill in any areas of weakness.

why weren't any of the other RBs who finished 5-8 an option?seems like this is cherry picking, and is again results based based on past information, which doesn't apply in looking forward to drafting manning in comparison with expectations of other RBs.

adam vinatieri is safe too. Should I take him at 1.06 after manning is off the board?

Perhaps your league is more savy then mine, but I didn't see too many drafts in 06 that had Frank Gore, FWP, Jones-Drew, or Westbrook ahead of Edge, Jordan, Brown, or Portis.

 

[gianmarco]

I see 2 players that were worth a 1st round pick and 4 that were not. Taking a RB over Manning was a crapshoot. If you took one of the RBs, you had a 33% chance to get good value and a 66% chance to get significantly less value. My guess is that if we looked at previous years, we would see a similar pattern. The mid-1st round RBs are the iffiest and most overhyped players in any draft. Be very careful with them. Manning is the safer pick and his trade value is always very high, so he is a safe piece you can draft and then sell off later to fill in any areas of weakness.

No argument that you can definitely miss with that 1st round RB. None at all. But if you think it's bad in the 1st round, it gets even worse in the 2nd round. Problem is, the person you're drafting in the 2nd round still has to be your #1 RB. And the longer you wait to draft that 1st RB, the lower your % is going to be.So, does Manning make up for that possibility? Most likely not. There are too many QB's that are within 2-3 ppg of Manning that can be had at least 3-4 rounds later. The difference between the top RB's and the lower ones is usually more than the difference at the QB spot.I also think people see the success of players like MJD and MBIII and think it's easy to land that gem in the 4th or 5th round. Truth of the matter is that it's pretty rare and very difficult to do. Postponing that #1 RB beyond the 1st round just increases your chances of not doing well at the RB1 spot and Manning, whild great and consistent, isn't enough to make up for that.