The Official Staff/Messageboard Survivor Thread (1 Viewer)

[BassNBrew]

Sorry to hijack the current thread, but it's hard to follow with people mix and matching the two leagues.

 

[BassNBrew]

BumpJust a taste of my analysis....Current Odds To Win After Round 2avid Shick –12%Unlucky – 6%Jason Wood – 7%Mr. Pickles - 6%David Dodds – 6%joffer – 10%Chase Stuart – 6%Fullback Fro – 9%Colin Dowling – 10%Joe T – 10%Clayton Gray – 9%Couch Potato – 9%Team Staff – 50%Team Messageboard – 50%

 

[bostonfred2]

Unlucky – 6%

I don't understand this projection. Forgetting my own personal opinions on players, he's got a very solid start to his team so far. He has Priest, who may be the highest scoring RB in the league again this year. He has Dillon, a solid RB2. He has Manning, a consistent top QB who stays healthy. And he has a WR1 in S Moss, who is the number 10 WR in FBG projections and should be good with Pennington this year. How do you have him tied for last so far?

 

[Sinrman]

I thought Unlucky had one of the best teams so far after the first four rounds.. And BnB, you didn't take into account that one person will be dropped after Week 1. Who ya think it's gonna be?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Current Odds To Win After Round 2avid Dodds – 6%

uh oh...someone doubts Dodds.

 

[LHUCKS]

Let me first say that it is hard to judge a draft after only four rounds, mostly because a team's perceived weakness can be compensated for with depth and solid mid/late round drafting. That being said, I think a couple of teams really hurt their chances of Surviving through week 16.I'll hand out team grades and a brief blurb stating why.Couch Potato: AMoss is in his own WR tier and as many of you know I've been a huge Kevin Jones backer. Faulk and Dunn were solid picks given the pt/reception format. I would like to see a Stephen Jackson handcuff here...if not this team falls a bit. Unlucky: AFour solid players with very little risk. I think Manning is one of the few QBs that you only need to have one backup for, so I'd like to see Unlucky only go with 2 QBs and take an extra WR/TE/D...we'll see. Team is set up to take value going forward.Jason Wood: AI like all four players chosen and team is set up to take value going forward.Fullback Fro: B+Three starting RBs and Gonzalez who is in his own TE tier. This squad would be an A without the heavy bye burden in 5/6 period.Mr. Pickles: BThe only pick I really don't like is Davis here, but I am high on the other three. With a solid RB #3 sleeper this team could be an A.Chase Stuart: BTwo of the players I identified as the most overrated in a previous rankings critique of mine were Vick and Portis. Nevertheless, the two are capable of carrying a team and will put up some monster weeks if they remain healthy. If solid QB and RB depth are had this team could win it all. Mason was great value. At this point too risky to give an A IMO. Joe T: B-Four solid picks and I really like Garner in this format. Ward was amazing value at 4.07...I'm not sure why he slid that far. If RBs didn't carry so much risk I'd rank higher, but each has his question marks. Clayton Gray: B-All picks are solid. Jones is a little risky as the #2 RB and I don't see the value in McNabb at 4.02...similar QBs could have been had later according to my projections. David Dodds: B-Ill be honest, this grade is based solely on my distaste for Westbrook, I really don't like him. This team can improve to an A with good QB/WR value in middle rounds.David Shick: B-I don't think Shipp remains the backup in AZ, but it does force me to drop this team down a notch. LT and Bennet should be able to carry the load most weeks.Joffer: B-The Lee Suggs pick is really throwing me off. If the handcuff is complete this team is a potential A...risky considering the time between pick 4 and 5. Colin Dowling: DI really don't like the Brown and Duckett picks. Granted the George news took a U-Turn, but Brown was a reach regardless. Some serious value will need to be had for the rest of the draft. It's not a lost cause by any means, it's just the grade I'd give after four rounds. Everybody will get a shot at my draft in Survivor II or check out the EBF invitational for something current...notice Shipp and Brown weren't on my team in that draft I look forward to the upcoming rounds. The most interesting discussion IMO concerns a) the # of players taken at each position b) bye week strategy c) overall risk profileall of which obviously can't be discussed until the draft is complete.

 

[BassNBrew]

I thought Unlucky had one of the best teams so far after the first four rounds.. And BnB, you didn't take into account that one person will be dropped after Week 1. Who ya think it's gonna be?

I wrote a 26 page analysis on this draft that should be released at some point in time. The knock on Unlucky is that his top two picks have week 3 and 5 byes. As a team competition, the later bye weeks are better. 12 teams, 4 advance. The goal should have been to advance 4 teams, which means taking on the opposing team as earlier as possible. There were equal backs on the board when Unlucky selected Dilon/week 3 bye. Although my analysis somewhat gets into the the player evaluation, it mostly focuses on byes and roster distribution.

 

[GregR_2]

I thought Unlucky had one of the best teams so far after the first four rounds.. And BnB, you didn't take into account that one person will be dropped after Week 1. Who ya think it's gonna be?

I wrote a 26 page analysis on this draft that should be released at some point in time. The knock on Unlucky is that his top two picks have week 3 and 5 byes. As a team competition, the later bye weeks are better. 12 teams, 4 advance. The goal should have been to advance 4 teams, which means taking on the opposing team as earlier as possible. There were equal backs on the board when Unlucky selected Dilon/week 3 bye. Although my analysis somewhat gets into the the player evaluation, it mostly focuses on byes and roster distribution.

Me personally, I don't like criticizing other's rankings when evaluating a draft (unless they are really indefensible).I don't think you'd have passed up a guy you think is a top 12 back at 2.11. And even if you don't agree with Unlucky's ranking, I have a hard time envisioning who was left after Dillon that is proven to be capable of RB1 numbers, plus is in a situation where he will get the majority of the carries.I think it was a great value pick for him.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I thought Unlucky had one of the best teams so far after the first four rounds..  And BnB, you didn't take into account that one person will be dropped after Week 1.  Who ya think it's gonna be? 

I wrote a 26 page analysis on this draft that should be released at some point in time. The knock on Unlucky is that his top two picks have week 3 and 5 byes. As a team competition, the later bye weeks are better. 12 teams, 4 advance. The goal should have been to advance 4 teams, which means taking on the opposing team as earlier as possible. There were equal backs on the board when Unlucky selected Dilon/week 3 bye. Although my analysis somewhat gets into the the player evaluation, it mostly focuses on byes and roster distribution.

Me personally, I don't like criticizing other's rankings when evaluating a draft (unless they are really indefensible).I don't think you'd have passed up a guy you think is a top 12 back at 2.11. And even if you don't agree with Unlucky's ranking, I have a hard time envisioning who was left after Dillon that is proven to be capable of RB1 numbers, plus is in a situation where he will get the majority of the carries.I think it was a great value pick for him.

considering that I picked at the #2 spot and ALSO took Priest Holmes and Corey Dillon, I think it's safe to assume that was the CORRECT decision to make. BTW, early bye weeks did not scare me as much as they might have scared others. Reason being that in week 3, you are competing against 10 other teams. Missing out on Dillon while you still have Priest the Beast in Arrowhead against Houston (#31 run defense last year) should not be a huge concern. Week 5 is less of a concern b/c you are in the first 2-week elimination period and are competing against 8 other teams, all of whom will almost certainly be missing at least a key player or 2 themselves. The key, for me anyway, was making sure I had a solid RB3 option to contribute during those weeks to offset the potential loss.Upside of grabbing players with early bye weeks is that once you survive, you are in much better shape than the rest of the teams b/c they will often be facing you shorthanded. It is critical to have as close to a full squad when the # of teams you are competing against starts to drop down to the 6 or lower portion of the season.

 

[BassNBrew]

Aaron and Greg...In a standard Survivor league I would agree with you, but bragging rights go to either the staff or messageboard based upon a point system. Only those in the final eight get points. In this format, risking a 1-4 bye week is follish unless there's huge value. The Ideal scenaroio would be to eliminate 4 of the other team's teams in week 1-4 and then battle out for the final four sposts with a 6-2 advantage. If you feel Dillon is a top 12 finisher then he is a good pick. He was a bad pick for me last year at number 14. With a week 3 bye there were a number of similiar players that could have been drafted. Again, I tryed to used consensus rankings to define value over bye week strategy to come up with a fair ranking.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

In this format, risking a 1-4 bye week is follish unless there's huge value.

and, IMO, Dillon was a tremendous value at the 2.11 spot. I will be shocked if my team ends up getting eliminated that week. I rarely end up with any bye week problems at the end of a survivor draft. Sometimes you get forced into them based on the talent available, but I wasn't going to pass on Dillon with either the 2.11 or 3.02 pick simply b/c of a week 3 bye. I think he has a great chance to outperform his draft position, but we shall see how it works out. My 2.11 pick last year in SII ended up being my undoing despite all the high hopes I had for him.BTW, the staff strategy was to try and get as many teams to the merger as possible, so we didn't worry too much about late season matchups, and I believe there was an effort to avoid players with a week 3 or week 4 bye. But, it would be silly to pass on a player that you think will do much better than the alternative simply b/c of an early bye week. In other words, you don't pass up RB15 for RB20 just b/c of the bye week. As I mentioned, early bye weeks aren't as bad as they seem and may actually give your team a decent advantage once you get past them.

 

[BassNBrew]

In this format, risking a 1-4 bye week is follish unless there's huge value.

and, IMO, Dillon was a tremendous value at the 2.11 spot. I will be shocked if my team ends up getting eliminated that week. I rarely end up with any bye week problems at the end of a survivor draft. Sometimes you get forced into them based on the talent available, but I wasn't going to pass on Dillon with either the 2.11 or 3.02 pick simply b/c of a week 3 bye. I think he has a great chance to outperform his draft position, but we shall see how it works out. My 2.11 pick last year in SII ended up being my undoing despite all the high hopes I had for him.BTW, the staff strategy was to try and get as many teams to the merger as possible, so we didn't worry too much about late season matchups, and I believe there was an effort to avoid players with a week 3 or week 4 bye. But, it would be silly to pass on a player that you think will do much better than the alternative simply b/c of an early bye week. In other words, you don't pass up RB15 for RB20 just b/c of the bye week. As I mentioned, early bye weeks aren't as bad as they seem and may actually give your team a decent advantage once you get past them.

Looks like we are saying the same thing Aaron. Regardless, I used the FBG.com projections as a baseline for judging reaches. I figured this would be fairer then using my persoanal opinion.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I think the difference is that I grabbed a RB3 with my 3.02 pick so I was assured of having 2 solid RBs during Dillon (week 3) and Priest's (week 5) bye weeks, whereas Unlucky went stud QB. He was in a tough spot b/c the next few RBs that went off the board all shared a bye week with either Holmes or Dillon. I suppose Marcel Shipp would have been the appropriate choice if he wanted to avoid early bye weeks at all costs, but that would sure look a whole lot worse right now had he made that choice. If I were in his position, I likely would have been forced into grabbing a Kevin Jones at 3.02, but that would have left me with my top-3 picks on bye in weeks 3, 4, and 5. That would definitely be stretching things a little thin and would have made me pretty uncomfortable. I ended up being pretty fortunate with the way things turned out in League 2, because if Sinrman had taken Duce Staley, I would have been forced into grabbing Kevin Jones. That may have worked out just fine but I think Staley is the safer choice and the later bye week was also nice to have.

 

[BassNBrew]

I think the difference is that I grabbed a RB3 with my 3.02 pick so I was assured of having 2 solid RBs during Dillon (week 3) and Priest's (week 5) bye weeks, whereas Unlucky went stud QB. He was in a tough spot b/c the next few RBs that went off the board all shared a bye week with either Holmes or Dillon. I suppose Marcel Shipp would have been the appropriate choice if he wanted to avoid early bye weeks at all costs, but that would sure look a whole lot worse right now had he made that choice. If I were in his position, I likely would have been forced into grabbing a Kevin Jones at 3.02, but that would have left me with my top-3 picks on bye in weeks 3, 4, and 5. That would definitely be stretching things a little thin and would have made me pretty uncomfortable. I ended up being pretty fortunate with the way things turned out in League 2, because if Sinrman had taken Duce Staley, I would have been forced into grabbing Kevin Jones. That may have worked out just fine but I think Staley is the safer choice and the later bye week was also nice to have.

Aaron...I had to grade the drafts in two round increments. If you came back (and I didn't grade your league) with a pick to solve a problem in the next round, I couldn't evaluate that in advance. What I have to go off of was the consensus rankings of X RBs in a tier and you took one of those X with a week 3 bye then you got downgraded. Now maybe you took X because his bye was different from the others, you'll get props for that later and marked up accordingly.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

no problem BnB...just discussing strategy here more than the grades you are planning to give out. as I think we both said, avoiding early bye weeks was a good idea...but not if it meant passing on a superior player.looking forward to reading both critiques when they are posted.

 

[Colin Dowling]

Colin Dowling: DI really don't like the Brown and Duckett picks. Granted the George news took a U-Turn, but Brown was a reach regardless. Some serious value will need to be had for the rest of the draft. It's not a lost cause by any means, it's just the grade I'd give after four rounds. Outside of Dowling(no offense), I think everybody has a realistic shot of winning it.

I suppose anyone, you included, are free to think that the Brown and Duckett picks were reaches. However, I'm more than comfortable with them. I felt like not getting one of the Big-6 RBs was going to have to be compensated for by having some extra depth. I'm willing to face the fact that Ricky isn't likely to drop 150 total/2 TDs as frequently as Portis or LT2, for example. As such, I have to do everything I can to make sure the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" is minimized by getting the absolute most out of my RB2. That made the Brown and Duckett picks worth it to me. The biggest hack on these 4 picks is that I missed out on value at other positions. I didn't see it that way. Julius and Kevin may outproduce Chris Brown, but at least I know he can run in the NFL and it won't be long until he's getting the goalline carries in Tennessee. Charlie Garner may catch more passes, but will he catch enough to offset the TDs Brown will score that Garner won't? Duckett over Gonzo was a tough call, but I'd much rather have TJ as my 4th RB over any of the next guys taken as WR1 (Mason, S.Smith, Coles, Boldin, Moss, Suggs, Moulds). Of that group, WRs 8-13 selected in this draft, Moulds 2002 and Mason, Moss, and Boldin 2003 represent the only top-12 seasons from that group. Its hardly a lock that any or all of them will continue to be WR1s in this system. Thats how I saw it on draft day. Some or all of them may well turn out to be the uber-studs that people suspect, and Moulds may well bounce back to being a top-10 performer, but at this junture, I'm going with Joe T's adage: You can't win in the first 4 rounds, but you can lose.Colin

 

[KKrew]

I'll admit up front that I'm a novice with respect to the Survivor format. However, can someone please tell me why Gonzo lasted until the 42nd pick? Using my projections, VBD shows him in the 1st round. He'll average 17 points per week using those scoring rules. The weekly delta between him and Heap (my 2nd rated TE) is 3 points per week. The delta between him and the 6th best TE is 7 points per week!Recognizing that you get eliminated for poor scoring and seeing that Gonzo doesn't have a bye until Week 5, I'd say anyone fielding him is in pretty good shape for Weeks 1 through 4.What am I missing?

 

[Sinrman]

Colin Dowling: DI really don't like the Brown and Duckett picks. Granted the George news took a U-Turn, but Brown was a reach regardless. Some serious value will need to be had for the rest of the draft. It's not a lost cause by any means, it's just the grade I'd give after four rounds. Outside of Dowling(no offense), I think everybody has a realistic shot of winning it.

I suppose anyone, you included, are free to think that the Brown and Duckett picks were reaches. However, I'm more than comfortable with them. I felt like not getting one of the Big-6 RBs was going to have to be compensated for by having some extra depth. I'm willing to face the fact that Ricky isn't likely to drop 150 total/2 TDs as frequently as Portis or LT2, for example. As such, I have to do everything I can to make sure the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" is minimized by getting the absolute most out of my RB2. That made the Brown and Duckett picks worth it to me. The biggest hack on these 4 picks is that I missed out on value at other positions. I didn't see it that way. Julius and Kevin may outproduce Chris Brown, but at least I know he can run in the NFL and it won't be long until he's getting the goalline carries in Tennessee. Charlie Garner may catch more passes, but will he catch enough to offset the TDs Brown will score that Garner won't? Duckett over Gonzo was a tough call, but I'd much rather have TJ as my 4th RB over any of the next guys taken as WR1 (Mason, S.Smith, Coles, Boldin, Moss, Suggs, Moulds). Of that group, WRs 8-13 selected in this draft, Moulds 2002 and Mason, Moss, and Boldin 2003 represent the only top-12 seasons from that group. Its hardly a lock that any or all of them will continue to be WR1s in this system. Thats how I saw it on draft day. Some or all of them may well turn out to be the uber-studs that people suspect, and Moulds may well bounce back to being a top-10 performer, but at this junture, I'm going with Joe T's adage: You can't win in the first 4 rounds, but you can lose.Colin

I won't slam you nearly as much as the others, Colin. Having 4 RBs like that almost ensures that you get solid production each week out of that position. The one thing I do have a problem though, is that you burned your top four picks on RBs, partially to make up for the fact that you didn't get one of the top 5-7 RBs. That's pretty risky. Two, possibly three, of which may be RBBC (Tiki sharing with Dayne a bit - Brown possibly sharing with George - Duckett sharing with Dunn).

 

[Colin Dowling]

I won't slam you nearly as much as the others, Colin. Having 4 RBs like that almost ensures that you get solid production each week out of that position. The one thing I do have a problem though, is that you burned your top four picks on RBs, partially to make up for the fact that you didn't get one of the top 5-7 RBs. That's pretty risky. Two, possibly three, of which may be RBBC (Tiki sharing with Dayne a bit - Brown possibly sharing with George - Duckett sharing with Dunn).

Solid criticism. I happen to think that Dayne is a non-factor regardless of Coughlin's history and I've watched enough of the Titans to know that the team wants to win and the guy that gives them the best chance to win is Brown. Duckett/Dunn will surely be a committee, but I'm hopeful that Duckett continues to get the goalline carries. Could any or all of these situations change between now and week 1? You bet. Dayne could get ALL the goalline love, George could firmly place Brown on the bench, and Duckett's foot could make him useless on the field. But with the information I had at my disposal on draft day, and the way I happen to think things will shake out, I was comfortable with the picks.Colin

 

[David Yudkin]

I'll admit up front that I'm a novice with respect to the Survivor format. However, can someone please tell me why Gonzo lasted until the 42nd pick? Using my projections, VBD shows him in the 1st round. He'll average 17 points per week using those scoring rules. The weekly delta between him and Heap (my 2nd rated TE) is 3 points per week. The delta between him and the 6th best TE is 7 points per week!Recognizing that you get eliminated for poor scoring and seeing that Gonzo doesn't have a bye until Week 5, I'd say anyone fielding him is in pretty good shape for Weeks 1 through 4.What am I missing?

As you will see in forthcoming rounds, there is an element that is missing here. This is not an "every man for himself" draft, and you will see later on that there were other team-based strategies at play.Specifically, our staff team elected to hoarde certain positions and (temporarily) ignore others at specific points in the draft.That's why some players will be going way too soon or way too late in comparison to their "normal" ADP numbers.Whether this strategy works out in the long run remains to be seen, but our initial goal was to win the team competition. Basically, it is possible to have a member of the opposition win the competition as an individual but for that team to lose the overall team competition. There are points awarded to the Top 8 individual finishers. Whichever team gets the most points wins the team competition.

 

[KKrew]

I'll admit up front that I'm a novice with respect to the Survivor format. However, can someone please tell me why Gonzo lasted until the 42nd pick? Using my projections, VBD shows him in the 1st round. He'll average 17 points per week using those scoring rules. The weekly delta between him and Heap (my 2nd rated TE) is 3 points per week. The delta between him and the 6th best TE is 7 points per week!Recognizing that you get eliminated for poor scoring and seeing that Gonzo doesn't have a bye until Week 5, I'd say anyone fielding him is in pretty good shape for Weeks 1 through 4.What am I missing?

As you will see in forthcoming rounds, there is an element that is missing here. This is not an "every man for himself" draft, and you will see later on that there were other team-based strategies at play.Specifically, our staff team elected to hoarde certain positions and (temporarily) ignore others at specific points in the draft.That's why some players will be going way too soon or way too late in comparison to their "normal" ADP numbers.Whether this strategy works out in the long run remains to be seen, but our initial goal was to win the team competition. Basically, it is possible to have a member of the opposition win the competition as an individual but for that team to lose the overall team competition. There are points awarded to the Top 8 individual finishers. Whichever team gets the most points wins the team competition.

OK. I'll buy that. However, looking at the draft, both teams appear to have the same strategy. For future reference, one might consider hoarding a position other than RB?

 

[bostonfred2]

I'll admit up front that I'm a novice with respect to the Survivor format. However, can someone please tell me why Gonzo lasted until the 42nd pick? Using my projections, VBD shows him in the 1st round. He'll average 17 points per week using those scoring rules. The weekly delta between him and Heap (my 2nd rated TE) is 3 points per week. The delta between him and the 6th best TE is 7 points per week!Recognizing that you get eliminated for poor scoring and seeing that Gonzo doesn't have a bye until Week 5, I'd say anyone fielding him is in pretty good shape for Weeks 1 through 4.What am I missing?

I answered this in the league 2 thread. They locked the other thread so I didn't know where to respond.

 

[Colin Dowling]

I'll admit up front that I'm a novice with respect to the Survivor format.  However, can someone please tell me why Gonzo lasted until the 42nd pick?  Using my projections, VBD shows him in the 1st round.  He'll average 17 points per week using those scoring rules.  The weekly delta between him and Heap (my 2nd rated TE) is 3 points per week.  The delta between him and the 6th best TE is 7 points per week!Recognizing that you get eliminated for poor scoring and seeing that Gonzo doesn't have a bye until Week 5, I'd say anyone fielding him is in pretty good shape for Weeks 1 through 4.What am I missing?

As you will see in forthcoming rounds, there is an element that is missing here. This is not an "every man for himself" draft, and you will see later on that there were other team-based strategies at play.Specifically, our staff team elected to hoarde certain positions and (temporarily) ignore others at specific points in the draft.That's why some players will be going way too soon or way too late in comparison to their "normal" ADP numbers.Whether this strategy works out in the long run remains to be seen, but our initial goal was to win the team competition. Basically, it is possible to have a member of the opposition win the competition as an individual but for that team to lose the overall team competition. There are points awarded to the Top 8 individual finishers. Whichever team gets the most points wins the team competition.

OK. I'll buy that. However, looking at the draft, both teams appear to have the same strategy. For future reference, one might consider hoarding a position other than RB?

Interesting. I did use my Mod priviledges to log in under "Unlucky," before sending PMs to the message board team suggesting a K/TE/D run in rounds 3,4, and 5, but they didn't take the bait.Colin

 

[bostonfred2]

As you will see in forthcoming rounds, there is an element that is missing here. This is not an "every man for himself" draft, and you will see later on that there were other team-based strategies at play.

I can't wait to talk about this. Absolutely can't wait.

 

[David Yudkin]

I'll admit up front that I'm a novice with respect to the Survivor format.  However, can someone please tell me why Gonzo lasted until the 42nd pick?  Using my projections, VBD shows him in the 1st round.  He'll average 17 points per week using those scoring rules.  The weekly delta between him and Heap (my 2nd rated TE) is 3 points per week.  The delta between him and the 6th best TE is 7 points per week!Recognizing that you get eliminated for poor scoring and seeing that Gonzo doesn't have a bye until Week 5, I'd say anyone fielding him is in pretty good shape for Weeks 1 through 4.What am I missing?

As you will see in forthcoming rounds, there is an element that is missing here. This is not an "every man for himself" draft, and you will see later on that there were other team-based strategies at play.Specifically, our staff team elected to hoarde certain positions and (temporarily) ignore others at specific points in the draft.That's why some players will be going way too soon or way too late in comparison to their "normal" ADP numbers.Whether this strategy works out in the long run remains to be seen, but our initial goal was to win the team competition. Basically, it is possible to have a member of the opposition win the competition as an individual but for that team to lose the overall team competition. There are points awarded to the Top 8 individual finishers. Whichever team gets the most points wins the team competition.

OK. I'll buy that. However, looking at the draft, both teams appear to have the same strategy. For future reference, one might consider hoarding a position other than RB?

In future installments, you will see what happens to teams that DID NOT hoarde running backs. You will also get to see what happens to teams that did not pick up on a major run on quarterbacks. It's basically a fantasy football version of musical chairs.As I mentioned above, it remains to be seen if this strategy plays out over the course of the season.

 

[jcjets]

So taking Gonzo the #1 TER who averages 17 points a week isn't going to help you win your 'Team' competition? Isn;t scoring points the name of the game here?Here is what I think:Survivor or not, you so called 'experts' don't want to lose due to lack of RBs or you will lose some credibility due to the RB theory 90% of the people here believe in. Could you imagine if the Couch Potato went Moss/Harrison/Gonzo and then won? What would people think? There would be FF anarchy and we know that is not allowed to happen.Since its Surviror format I'd be happy going into the competition with Moss/Harrison/Gonzo/Ward. Give me a few third down backs like K.Faulk and some TD machines like Buckhalter in the later rounds. Heck T.Wheatley/W.Green are still out there and they may their teams starters. With the 3 out of the top 5 WRs and top TE I have my scoring already set and distanced myself in 2 categories. Grab a QB like T.Green or T.Brady in round 7 to round out your squad.I see too many commentaries stating things like 'a player I was factoring into my plans long before this draft started' OR 'the plan was to select Barber all along''With three RBs on my roster, my plan is to forego additional backs until very late in the draft''Solidifying my running backs with Garner was the plan. It fell in to place'AS far as I knew a plan is great to have, but the whole point about good drafting is adapting to the draft. It appears most of you stuck to your plan no matter what happened in the draft. Dodds taking Staley in round 2 just because he wanted 3 RBs is sticking to a plan even when better players fell to him.Sign me up guys I want in!!

 

[Chase Stuart]

I thought about taking Gonzo in the fourth--but I wouldn't have. Here's why:I could grab Gonzo in the fourth, but then I wouldn't grab my first WR till the sixth. My draft strategy told me there was no other pick in the fifth round but a QB, as that was BY FAR the most value (I ended up being even more dead on than I expected). So it comes down to:4 - Gonzo6 - WR1or4 - WR114 - TE1That's pretty hard to compare. But consider this: If I take Gonzalez, my WR1 is now hurt. In the seventh, I can only take one QB or one WR. So in the seventh, I take my WR2. Or my QB2. Basically, by taking Gonzalez I hurt two positions--WR1, and either QB3, or WR2. And if I hurt WR2, I'm also hurting WR3--because I would grab my WR3 in the 9th now, as opposed to the eight. And this also hurts my WR4...and so on.I think the best move is probably to just grab Gonzo and then forget all about QB3. With Vick, I don't think that's the best idea in the world. Either way, I feel you lose too much value by going TE in the fourth. I think Fullback Fro's team was hurt by it--hopefully for his sake, Gonzo makes up the point differential with a big year.The biggest trap I think people fall into is when they feel that all the players at X position are the same, so they take another position. If you like all 5 WRs the same, you still need to grab one! Why? Because they'll all likely be gone by your next turn. What if you like 8 the same? Well guess what, grab one this round--AND one next round.I don't want to come off sounding too anti-TE, but I personally think it would have made MY team worse if I drafted Gonzalez.

 

[Colin Dowling]

Since its Surviror format I'd be happy going into the competition with Moss/Harrison/Gonzo/Ward. Give me a few third down backs like K.Faulk and some TD machines like Buckhalter in the later rounds. Heck T.Wheatley/W.Green are still out there and they may their teams starters. With the 3 out of the top 5 WRs and top TE I have my scoring already set and distanced myself in 2 categories. Grab a QB like T.Green or T.Brady in round 7 to round out your squad.

You are going to fall out of your chair when you see where some of the guys you listed were selected.Colin

 

[David Yudkin]

Since its Surviror format I'd be happy going into the competition with Moss/Harrison/Gonzo/Ward. Give me a few third down backs like K.Faulk and some TD machines like Buckhalter in the later rounds. Heck T.Wheatley/W.Green are still out there and they may their teams starters. With the 3 out of the top 5 WRs and top TE I have my scoring already set and distanced myself in 2 categories. Grab a QB like T.Green or T.Brady in round 7 to round out your squad.

But let's just for whits and giggles throw out there a remote possibility that there were NO STARTING QB left after you took Moss/Harrison/Gonzo/Ward . . . then what would you do????Like I said before, it is impossible to equate value and draft position to a draft the way this one unfolded.RB were gone in a flash. Those that did not get decent ones had very little to pick from later on.A lot of this is somewhat premature . . . consider it a preview of coming attractions . . .

 

[bostonfred2]

II could grab Gonzo in the fourth, but then I wouldn't grab my first WR till the sixth. My draft strategy told me there was no other pick in the fifth round but a QB, as that was BY FAR the most value (I ended up being even more dead on than I expected).

As you might imagine, I disagree. Whereas you started with Vick, I started with Culpepper. Otherwise, our drafts so far are similar - RB-RB-QB. I took Gonzalez, and I think it made my team a lot better.

 

[GregR_2]

So taking Gonzo the #1 TER who averages 17 points a week isn't going to help you win your 'Team' competition? Isn;t scoring points the name of the game here?Here is what I think:Survivor or not, you so called 'experts' don't want to lose due to lack of RBs or you will lose some credibility due to the RB theory 90% of the people here believe in. Could you imagine if the Couch Potato went Moss/Harrison/Gonzo and then won? What would people think? There would be FF anarchy and we know that is not allowed to happen.Since its Surviror format I'd be happy going into the competition with Moss/Harrison/Gonzo/Ward. Give me a few third down backs like K.Faulk and some TD machines like Buckhalter in the later rounds. Heck T.Wheatley/W.Green are still out there and they may their teams starters. With the 3 out of the top 5 WRs and top TE I have my scoring already set and distanced myself in 2 categories. Grab a QB like T.Green or T.Brady in round 7 to round out your squad.I see too many commentaries stating things like 'a player I was factoring into my plans long before this draft started' OR 'the plan was to select Barber all along''With three RBs on my roster, my plan is to forego additional backs until very late in the draft''Solidifying my running backs with Garner was the plan. It fell in to place'AS far as I knew a plan is great to have, but the whole point about good drafting is adapting to the draft. It appears most of you stuck to your plan no matter what happened in the draft. Dodds taking Staley in round 2 just because he wanted 3 RBs is sticking to a plan even when better players fell to him.Sign me up guys I want in!!

I think you are not taking into account how few RBs, even in a survivor format, put up numbers that you'd be ok with starting. If I had to take my shots at having a solid WR1 and a gaggle of guys who are the #2 and #3 WR on their team at WR, vs having not a single solid RB1 and using a gaggling of guys at RB, I'd much rather do that with WR.I can also tell you from first hand experience that if you don't get a couple of solid RBs, you are going to be spending extra roster spots on RB, and having to take those RBs when there are value picks out there at other positions. Not that you can't do well like that, but there's definitely a trade off, and you lose a lot of your flexibility. I still feel a balanced approach is probably best.

 

[Chase Stuart]

BF--I think both your WR position and your QB position is not desirable. On the other hand, HAD Culpepper fallen to me in MY league at 3.07, that would have certainly changed things. I would have less need for a QB3, and I would feel more confident with taking Gonzalez. However, since you messed up the rest of your draft so much there's no point in really comparing our two teams anymore

 

[Unlucky]

I think some of the RB picks were down right awful so far. I don't like Staley, Westbrook, Shipp, or Chris Brown at all. Shipp wasn't so bad at the time. With the huge run on RBs, those who drafted top WRs like Moss, Harrison, and Holt got really good value. Remember, we do start 3 WRs and with 1 pt. per reception, the top WRs have really good value. While you can do well playing 3 QBs that are all mediocre, it is nice to have a stud QB so you can wait a bit longer to draft your backup.Finally, I never like to draft "backups" in the early rounds. For those that drafted 3 RBs right away, that means that one of your top 3 picks won't count towards your final score EVERY week. How is that good again? This also forces you to take other positions later. If you try to draft studs at each position and balance your roster, you have flexibility all throughout the draft. I think taking the best player available with each pick is priority #1, with position and bye week considerations #2. Finally finally, the only concern I had with bye weeks was to avoid doubling up on them within a position. There are byes in weeks 3 to 10 - 8 weeks. We start 9 players each week, and have 20 on our roster. I thought it would be best to spread out my significant byes as much as possible. If I avoid early byes, then I'm loaded up for late byes. With the Dillon pick, he was by far the best RB on my board. I'm not going to take a lesser RB that has a later bye week.

 

[KKrew]

I think some of the RB picks were down right awful so far. I don't like Staley, Westbrook, Shipp, or Chris Brown at all. Shipp wasn't so bad at the time. With the huge run on RBs, those who drafted top WRs like Moss, Harrison, and Holt got really good value. Remember, we do start 3 WRs and with 1 pt. per reception, the top WRs have really good value. While you can do well playing 3 QBs that are all mediocre, it is nice to have a stud QB so you can wait a bit longer to draft your backup.Finally, I never like to draft "backups" in the early rounds. For those that drafted 3 RBs right away, that means that one of your top 3 picks won't count towards your final score EVERY week. How is that good again? This also forces you to take other positions later. If you try to draft studs at each position and balance your roster, you have flexibility all throughout the draft. I think taking the best player available with each pick is priority #1, with position and bye week considerations #2. Finally finally, the only concern I had with bye weeks was to avoid doubling up on them within a position. There are byes in weeks 3 to 10 - 8 weeks. We start 9 players each week, and have 20 on our roster. I thought it would be best to spread out my significant byes as much as possible. If I avoid early byes, then I'm loaded up for late byes. With the Dillon pick, he was by far the best RB on my board. I'm not going to take a lesser RB that has a later bye week.

 

[LHUCKS]

I think some of the RB picks were down right awful so far. I don't like Staley, Westbrook, Shipp, or Chris Brown at all. Shipp wasn't so bad at the time. With the huge run on RBs, those who drafted top WRs like Moss, Harrison, and Holt got really good value. Remember, we do start 3 WRs and with 1 pt. per reception, the top WRs have really good value. While you can do well playing 3 QBs that are all mediocre, it is nice to have a stud QB so you can wait a bit longer to draft your backup.Finally, I never like to draft "backups" in the early rounds. For those that drafted 3 RBs right away, that means that one of your top 3 picks won't count towards your final score EVERY week. How is that good again? This also forces you to take other positions later. If you try to draft studs at each position and balance your roster, you have flexibility all throughout the draft. I think taking the best player available with each pick is priority #1, with position and bye week considerations #2. Finally finally, the only concern I had with bye weeks was to avoid doubling up on them within a position. There are byes in weeks 3 to 10 - 8 weeks. We start 9 players each week, and have 20 on our roster. I thought it would be best to spread out my significant byes as much as possible. If I avoid early byes, then I'm loaded up for late byes. With the Dillon pick, he was by far the best RB on my board. I'm not going to take a lesser RB that has a later bye week.

a) I agree with your assesment of the bad RB picks...it's as if people went straight off the consensus rankings. I disagree with you on Staley...he is the uncontested starter in Pitt which automatically increases his value in this format...a guarantee to produce RB points every week(barring injury of course)b) I also agree with your implication that WR is undervalued in both drafts.c) I agree that drafting backups is a bad strategy in the first four rounds, but I believe the William Green/Suggs handcuff at the 4/5 turn is a solid move if you need it to secure a third runner.d) Bye weeks: I have a tendency to backload in the double weeks.

 

[LHUCKS]

If I had to take my shots at having a solid WR1 and a gaggle of guys who are the #2 and #3 WR on their team at WR, vs having not a single solid RB1 and using a gaggling of guys at RB, I'd much rather do that with WR.I can also tell you from first hand experience that if you don't get a couple of solid RBs, you are going to be spending extra roster spots on RB, and having to take those RBs when there are value picks out there at other positions. Not that you can't do well like that, but there's definitely a trade off, and you lose a lot of your flexibility. I still feel a balanced approach is probably best.

This is my approach in a nutshell.

 

[David Yudkin]

Finally, I never like to draft "backups" in the early rounds. For those that drafted 3 RBs right away, that means that one of your top 3 picks won't count towards your final score EVERY week. How is that good again? This also forces you to take other positions later. If you try to draft studs at each position and balance your roster, you have flexibility all throughout the draft. I think taking the best player available with each pick is priority #1, with position and bye week considerations #2.

However, since you don't set a weekly lineup, in practical reality YOU ARE playing them all each week.For example, let's say you took only 2 top RB and waited until much later to take another (which in this draft meant getting a really poor RB.Say you had Portis and DDavis. Portis is on a bye and DDavis bombs that week. What happens to your RB scoring? What happens to your overall chances of getting tossed that week?If you have 3 Top RB (or at least guys that will play regularly), you cover yourself for byes, you cover yourself better against injury, and you cover yourself against a bad week.IIRC, the team with Jam Lewis and LT got bounced in the first week last year, as LT did close to nothing and Lewis had one of his worst games of the entire season. What would have happened if that team had taken one more RB early and managed to get out of the first week?

 

[LHUCKS]

If you have 3 Top RB (or at least guys that will play regularly), you cover yourself for byes, you cover yourself better against injury, and you cover yourself against a bad week.I

A very important truth in this format. I think it is safer to secure a solid #3RB than it is to get value at the other positions early in the draft...of course you have to weigh how safe that #3RB is vs. the value you are getting at the other positions so there is obviously never going to be an ultimate cure-all strategy.

 

[Fullback Fro]

Fullback Fro: CYou cannot have the same bye week from three of your top four picks, Barlow does get AZ at home in week 5, but it is jut unecessary risk as far as I'm concerned...especially in a single week elimination period.

Please note Round five and six are combined elimination. Do you think I would really pick three guys out of my first four with a single elimination bye week? Your crazy m'annnn.

 

[LHUCKS]

Fullback Fro: CYou cannot have the same bye week from three of your top four picks, Barlow does get AZ at home in week 5, but it is jut unecessary risk as far as I'm concerned...especially in a single week elimination period.

Please note Round five and six are combined elimination. Do you think I would really pick three guys out of my first four with a single elimination bye week? Your crazy m'annnn.

I stand corrected, I thought 5 was a single elimination week. Given the new information:Fullback Fro: B+

 

[Fullback Fro]

Fullback Fro: CYou cannot have the same bye week from three of your top four picks, Barlow does get AZ at home in week 5, but it is jut unecessary risk as far as I'm concerned...especially in a single week elimination period.

Please note Round five and six are combined elimination. Do you think I would really pick three guys out of my first four with a single elimination bye week? Your crazy m'annnn.

I stand corrected, I thought 5 was a single elimination week. Given the new information:Fullback Fro: B+

Please edit your original post as to save you from further corrections.

 

[LHUCKS]

Fullback Fro: CYou cannot have the same bye week from three of your top four picks, Barlow does get AZ at home in week 5, but it is jut unecessary risk as far as I'm concerned...especially in a single week elimination period.

Please note Round five and six are combined elimination. Do you think I would really pick three guys out of my first four with a single elimination bye week? Your crazy m'annnn.

I stand corrected, I thought 5 was a single elimination week. Given the new information:Fullback Fro: B+

Please edit your original post as to save you from further corrections.

You need to go back to your old Avatar...it was my favorite.Fullback Fro: B+Three starting RBs and Gonzalez who is in his own TE tier. This squad would be an A without the heavy bye burden in 5/6 period.

 

[Fullback Fro]

You need to go back to your old Avatar...it was my favorite.

It'll happen. Just paying tribute to my pal Trey.

 

[Joe T]

Joe T: B-Four solid picks and I really like Garner in this format. Ward was amazing value at 4.07...I'm not sure why he slid that far. If RBs didn't carry so much risk I'd rank higher, but each has his question marks. Week 6/7 is also stacking up to be troublesome.

I agree with what you’ve got here mostly although B- is a little tough considering your write up. At the time of the draft, there were only some minor grumblings about Lewis. It was the week after the draft that all the stuff started coming out on Sportscenter about him. If I could draft again, I probably wouldn’t take Lewis because he is a risk at 1.10. That said I still think he will play and do not think he is that big of a disappointment. I do not see that much of a question with Davis or Garner. I know both may share a little time, but the fact that both will likely have 60+ receptions this year makes up for those questions.If I were told today that Lewis was done for the season, I still wouldn’t count my team out. As we make our way through the draft over the next couple of weeks, you will see that my team is VERY deep. I like what I’ve got at running back outside of Lewis. I love my receivers and am solid at QB. The draft is early. Lewis is a big question mark, but if he plays like expected my team will be tough.

 

[LHUCKS]

Joe T: B-Four solid picks and I really like Garner in this format. Ward was amazing value at 4.07...I'm not sure why he slid that far. If RBs didn't carry so much risk I'd rank higher, but each has his question marks. Week 6/7 is also stacking up to be troublesome.

I agree with what you’ve got here mostly although B- is a little tough considering your write up. At the time of the draft, there were only some minor grumblings about Lewis. It was the week after the draft that all the stuff started coming out on Sportscenter about him. If I could draft again, I probably wouldn’t take Lewis because he is a risk at 1.10. That said I still think he will play and do not think he is that big of a disappointment. I do not see that much of a question with Davis or Garner. I know both may share a little time, but the fact that both will likely have 60+ receptions this year makes up for those questions.If I were told today that Lewis was done for the season, I still wouldn’t count my team out. As we make our way through the draft over the next couple of weeks, you will see that my team is VERY deep. I like what I’ve got at running back outside of Lewis. I love my receivers and am solid at QB. The draft is early. Lewis is a big question mark, but if he plays like expected my team will be tough.

B- may have been relatively harsh, but I really prefer RBs with zero question marks and all of your's seem to have something going on and that is why I dinged you. Still possibly an A team IMO.

 

[bagger]

The biggest trap I think people fall into is when they feel that all the players at X position are the same, so they take another position. If you like all 5 WRs the same, you still need to grab one! Why? Because they'll all likely be gone by your next turn. What if you like 8 the same? Well guess what, grab one this round--AND one next round.

This statement is incorrect if you use DVBD. DVBD by it's very nature tells you how many of each position will be taken in between your two picks. That is what determines your falloff. If 5 WRs are the same and 6 are taken, it is that difference between WR1 and WR6 compared to TE1 and TE4 (if 3 TEs are taken) that should drive your decsion-making process.I agree that if you use VBD statically you can miss out on some value due to runs, but with DBVD if there is a run on one position, you know fewer of that position will be taken in the 2 rounds subsequent, and more of other positions will be taken. You can use this information to wait on certain players and pull the trigger "early" on others.

 

[Fullback Fro]

The biggest trap I think people fall into is when they feel that all the players at X position are the same, so they take another position. If you like all 5 WRs the same, you still need to grab one! Why? Because they'll all likely be gone by your next turn. What if you like 8 the same? Well guess what, grab one this round--AND one next round.

This statement is incorrect if you use DVBD. DVBD by it's very nature tells you how many of each position will be taken in between your two picks. That is what determines your falloff. If 5 WRs are the same and 6 are taken, it is that difference between WR1 and WR6 compared to TE1 and TE4 (if 3 TEs are taken) that should drive your decsion-making process.I agree that if you use VBD statically you can miss out on some value due to runs, but with DBVD if there is a run on one position, you know fewer of that position will be taken in the 2 rounds subsequent, and more of other positions will be taken. You can use this information to wait on certain players and pull the trigger "early" on others.

Good Post. As you will see in this draft, I used these principals.

 

[Che]

Based on a quick review, my thoughts:

Poor Picks

Portis - with a new HC I wouldn't have taken over Jamal Lewis

Barlow - massive personnel changes on offense would not make me comfortable spending my first round pick on him

Tiki Barber - a new HC and system and possibly a rookie qb too - yuck

Rudi Johnson - not an established player yet, new quarterback

Duce Staley - would rather have had Dillon on the world champs or Stephen Davis on the runner-ups.

Marcel Shipp - even before getting hurt, there was a lot of risk here with an unheralded QB, new HC and new system.

Curtis Martin - an uninspired pick that will continue to look worse as the season progresses. He's not aging gracefully.

Eric Moulds - new HC, increased competition from Lee Evans and deteriorating body and skills. A real head scratcher.

The crazy run of very questionable nobodies that were drafted from the RB position - Thomas Jones, Chris Brown, Julius Jones, Kevin Jones, T.J. Duckett and Lee Suggs. To spend a mid 3rd rounder to mid 4th rounder on these types of players when productive guys like Tony Gonzalez, Steve Smith and Joe Horn are sitting there is disappointing.

Good Picks

Jamal Lewis - 2000 yard rusher at 10th overall

Torry Holt - in the mid second round to land a player of his caliber is great. Kurt Warner's no longer around to cloud the situation.

Charlie Garner - amazing how he's flying under everyone's radar this year. He should succeed under Gruden once again. Should have been taken about a round earlier.

Most everyone else went about where I think they should have gone.

Best Draft So Far

Unlucky - Dillon being very good value

Joe T - Charlie Garner being the standout

Worst Draft So Far

Shick - One of the worst drafts I've ever seen from the #1 spot overall

Fullback Fro - Your drafting priveleges should be revoked immediately

It was fun looking at this and look forward to the next rounds. Cheers.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The biggest trap I think people fall into is when they feel that all the players at X position are the same, so they take another position. If you like all 5 WRs the same, you still need to grab one! Why? Because they'll all likely be gone by your next turn. What if you like 8 the same? Well guess what, grab one this round--AND one next round.

This statement is incorrect if you use DVBD. DVBD by it's very nature tells you how many of each position will be taken in between your two picks. That is what determines your falloff. If 5 WRs are the same and 6 are taken, it is that difference between WR1 and WR6 compared to TE1 and TE4 (if 3 TEs are taken) that should drive your decsion-making process.I agree that if you use VBD statically you can miss out on some value due to runs, but with DBVD if there is a run on one position, you know fewer of that position will be taken in the 2 rounds subsequent, and more of other positions will be taken. You can use this information to wait on certain players and pull the trigger "early" on others.

You can't use DVBD to decide between taking a TE/WR in two rounds, or WR/other in another round. Since you're going to wait awhile on TEs, the dropoff from TE1 to TE4 is irrelevant.Additionally, WR is three positions. Taking two WRs in a row can be a very good strategy. You have to then look three rounds in advance to do that, which not everyone does.

 

[bagger]

You can't use DVBD to decide between taking a TE/WR in two rounds, or WR/other in another round. Since you're going to wait awhile on TEs, the dropoff from TE1 to TE4 is irrelevant.Additionally, WR is three positions. Taking two WRs in a row can be a very good strategy. You have to then look three rounds in advance to do that, which not everyone does.

Sure you can. You have to do some general mocks to see how it trends but you should have a good idea of what position you will be taking in what round based on your draft position and average mock draft position.Obviously the draft will deviate from that, but I had a solid idea of who to take to maximize my team's potential.