Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Bagger, I think we're kinda getting off what the original point was. I was saying that just because five WRs are all equal, doesn't mean you shouldn't take one. You need to grab your WR1 at that time, IMO. If you keep putting that off because there are players of similar value around at WR, you're going to be left with nothing.
Are you agreeing to this whole post or just the part about your team?
really? I disagreed with most of his best/worst value.95% of it.
I as well.really? I disagreed with most of his best/worst value.95% of it.
So if Tiki slips to the sixth round and you grab him there, then its a poor pick?
By the next set of results (rounds 7-8), you'll see the full impact of the QB squeeze. I honestly think it was a novel approach to try to catch the MB guys unaware. At this level, pretty much everyone is solid at this hobby we all obsess over, so we needed to try something unexpected.I'm interested to see a) the reaction of others about our decision, and b) how this actually plays out. As I say in my writeup of my Carson Palmer selection, this could backfire on us significantly depending on how the draft plays out. Stay tuned.
Or come out ahead of it. The QB run made Manning more valuable for Unlucky because he got a huge value for only a slightly more expensive draft pick. Same with me for Culpepper, rebel34 for Manning, Bulger for Grouse, and Favre for sandbagger in the other league. The way I see it, you made twelve staff teams reach for QBs to get six MB teams to reach for QBs, and in so doing, increased the relative value of several MB team selections. n
. ManningP. HolmesC. DillonS. MossJ. WalkerJ. ShockeyThe QB and RBs are solid and reliable. The WRs and TE have a good upside and potential for big games. I think this is a sound strategy thus far.
Did anyone run the numbers on having 3 QBs as opposed to 2? It's not as impressive as you'd think. In fact, if the QB1 is good, the QB2 really only adds a small # of points if any. The QB3 is really only there as an injury replacement.
According to Chase, if you think that way, you should take several of those WRs, not just wait until the bottom of the tier.
I agree with Bfred on this to a certain extent. I don't see how the run would effect the guys drafting from the the 4 to 8 spot too much. However, if someone on the corner missed out on a QB and had to wait 20 plus picks, they got screwed. I think the strategy worked a bit and made some of the MBers reach for substandard QBs early because they had no choice. I liked how Dodds started the run in league 1 with Hasselbeck and it was a good thing that J Dub already had Culpepper, but the FBGs must have coordinated that a little bit. I like the strategy and we'll see how it plays out. I think it really hurt some MBers but allowed other ones to build a much better team ala Fred's team.
well, last year, my QB3 saved my ### on multiple occasions. I'm a big proponent of having 3 QBs in a survivor league, but will admit I haven't studied the numbers extensively.As for Chase...I'd have to see some explanation of exactly what he said, but that makes little sense to me. If I KNOW I can get a similar quality WR in round 8 that I can get in round 6, but I also KNOW that the talent at QB will drop off substantially in that time period, why would I grab the WR first?
I looked at this and have already addressed it to some extent in the EBF Invitational thread. In the Survivor leagues last year, the last 4 teams alive had either one or two starters for most of the yaer. The first 4 teams out all had drafted three QBs they expected to start (one was a Vick team). I've also seen teams in the 16 team MBSL survive a week w/o any starting QB.
This year in the IBF I drafted Brad Johnson, Joey Harrington, and Rattay late. There final rankings in this scoring system were 8th, 17th, and 41st. Using those numbers, Harrington outscore Johnson by 7 points in week 1, 16 pt in wk 4 (bye), 3 pts in week 8, 11 pt in week 11, 2 pts in wk 13, and 1 pt in week 15. Thats a grand total of 40 points. Manning ended up with 312 total points or 20.8 PPG where Johnson/Harrington ended up at 320 total points or 20.0 PPG (one more game).Let's throw McNair (a 6th ranked QB) into the mix. He would have added 3 pts in week 3, 2 pt in wk 4, 5 pt in wk 4, 6 pt in wk 5, 3 pt in wk 6, 11 pt in wk 7, 11 pt in wk 13, and 12 pt in wk 14. Spending a 5 round pick would have netted another 53 total points (3.3 PPG). Personally I think the pick would have been better used on a top flight WR or TE.
Interesting note, the guy that started the run (and who master minded the strategy?) chose not to participate by selecting Chambers in the 6th. From my commentary..."Interesting enough the man who kicks off this carnage interrupts it briefly to grab a quality WR. Whether Dodds intended these consequences or not, he ends the beneficiary of a cheap WR." I have a suspicion that the leader of the FBG.com free world sucker punched his own team mates. While Chase and Clayton were taking one for the team by selecting a player that will likely contribute little if anything to their squad, Dodds was distancing himself from the competition.
Are you still down on my team because of my first 4 picks? Or because you don't like Brooks/Plummer as well? (I'm seriously asking, because with the exception of taking Duckett because Dunn was not available and I would have preferred Dunn, I've selected the exact first 6 players I was hoping to get from the time the draft order was selected. There is PLENTY of WR depth left. I'm not saying my strategy is perfect, and I'm not above learning from others, so I thought I'd ask.)Colin
I didn't use the Shipp or Brown hindsight to adversely mark anyone down and tried to keep my personal view of the talent to a minimun, focusing more on byes, strategy, and the overall roster. I order for a team to move the most members to the final four, I thought it was very important to back load byes and almost entirely avoid week 3/4 byes with your power players. The only way anyone should have dipped in the round 3/4 bye cesspool was if that player was a table pounding bye.Shick! got a bump for his drafting for two reason. First he went anyway from his posted rankings for a player that was in a better bye position with his first selection. Considering the two equal, he used his head and might a strategic choice. Assuming that Shipp was in a tier with other talent, he made the right bye choice. Note that I applied the criteria pretty consistantly when he got hammered in rounds 3/4.In addition to keeping a running ranking of the teams by draft performance, I will separately ranking each team by position when everything is said and done. While the % differences between teams are minor, once I adjust the weekly % difference to a cummulative %, you will more separation.Hey Bass,I assume your grades were given out BEFORE Shipp got "demoted?" I take McAllister and Culpepper in the first two rounds and you give me a 5 b/c of Culpepper's Week 4 bye week and then you give LT, Shipp an 8?
I guess I'm still not sure about your obsession with Week 3/Week 4 byes. Buffalo (Henry, Moulds)Carolina (Smith, Davis)New England (Brady, Dillon)NY Jets (Martin, Pennington, Moss)Dallas (J. Jones, Keyshawn)Detroit (K. Jones, Rogers)Minnesota (Culpepper, Moss, Bennett)Seattle (Hasselbeck, Alexander, DJax, Robinson)These are all guys that should be off the board earlier rather than later by any estimation of value. Yes, the goal is to get team to the merge, but the ultimate goal is also to WIN. To pass up on guys who are clearly far more valuable than alternative choices because of fear over Week 3/Wee 4 is myopic. I honestly think you're putting WAY too much emphasis on the bye issue.If someone has two or three key players on the same bye or more importantly on the same early bye, I could see you holding that against them, but having one player on bye, regardless of week shouldn't be problematic. You don't think guys with later byes aren't going to have a bad week or two early? I made careful consideration to spread out my bye weeks over the course of the year, and think in looking back at the results I have a more balanced team than most from a bye week standpoint, but I just don't see how you can honestly suggest it's better to pass on someone you think could score significantly higher for the sake of avoiding Week 3/4.In my opinion, owners need to have confidence that they will build a balanced enough team to not need to worry about the absence of one big gun. Two or three (as some teams we'll see get plagued with) is another story.My $0.02I didn't use the Shipp or Brown hindsight to adversely mark anyone down and tried to keep my personal view of the talent to a minimun, focusing more on byes, strategy, and the overall roster. I order for a team to move the most members to the final four, I thought it was very important to back load byes and almost entirely avoid week 3/4 byes with your power players. The only way anyone should have dipped in the round 3/4 bye cesspool was if that player was a table pounding bye.Shick! got a bump for his drafting for two reason. First he went anyway from his posted rankings for a player that was in a better bye position with his first selection. Considering the two equal, he used his head and might a strategic choice. Assuming that Shipp was in a tier with other talent, he made the right bye choice. Note that I applied the criteria pretty consistantly when he got hammered in rounds 3/4.In addition to keeping a running ranking of the teams by draft performance, I will separately ranking each team by position when everything is said and done. While the % differences between teams are minor, once I adjust the weekly % difference to a cummulative %, you will more separation.Hey Bass,I assume your grades were given out BEFORE Shipp got "demoted?" I take McAllister and Culpepper in the first two rounds and you give me a 5 b/c of Culpepper's Week 4 bye week and then you give LT, Shipp an 8?
Link to compete analysisColin...In my article I noted that you looked like you were drafting based upon a pre-conceived plan. Interesting to note that you state you got the players you targetted. I think you got hurt to some extent that the RB pool didn't continue to thin out in rounds 4-6. I think RB4 is a luxary when top TEs and WRs were available. After 4 rounds, during most weeks you wouldn't be using 2 of your top picks. I understand the importance of depth, but a 20 spot from a stud TE for example would have gotten you 15-20% of the way to advancing each week.
I agree with you. I was using the past performance and the FBG projections to identify a tier of players. What I'm saying is that if the where multiple chioces says within 5% of each other, defer to the later bye. If an entire team (messegeboard/staff) had done this, you could have significantly increased the chances of but out the other teams from the other side, thereby increasing the chance of advancing 4 from your side. Obviously you wouldn't pass on a superior player and your projections will differ from the consensus. In that case grab them, however when I'm grading a draft, I'm not using your projections, so you're not going to receive the benefit in my graded. I tried to keep personal preferences to a minimun. I think Davis will be a huge disappointment this year. I marked down the Davis pick for the early bye, but didn't ding the guy who drafted him further becuase I think he'll stink it up this year, especially in this scoring system.
Ah, I just found the analysis. Interesting. I certainly see your point, even if we disagree a bit. If I had a WR1 at this point instead of a RB4, I suspect my grade would be better. That should come in good time. My 7th round pick is going to make you think I lost my mind, but my 8th rounder is my favorite of the entire draft!Colin
The majic formula is that single elimination week byes are brutal. Add to that this this is also a "team" contest and it becomes even more important to knock out the competition early.Yup...Manning allowed you to make that hay later. You had a couple of slight reaches based on projections and historical data. In the league 2 thread, you'll see how a Johnson/Harrington combo last year would have given up little to Manning who had a stud year.
BF--you're right and you're wrong.Yes, you should take several WRs at that time, because they were representing good value (don't worry, I certainly hit them up real soon).But here's the thing--if EVERYONE is taking QBs, there's no need to take a WR. Pretty much the same guy will be available when you pick next.
Bass-for starters, I want to say you did an excellent job reviewing the draft. I've been impressed with your insight on a few key issues. However, I still have to defend myself here.I'll defend myself with the simple "WWBnBD?" argument:The Bulger pick:ZERO RBs and TEs went between my 5.07 and 6.06 picks. 10 QBs went. Two WRs. I don't think there's any argument as to who the best pick there would be. Had I NOT drafted Bulger there, I think my whole draft would have been ruined. I'd have to play with Brad Johnson and Vick, and a very slight uptick at WR.The Brunell pick:As I made this pick, I didn't like it. Not because I was unsure, but because I WAS sure this was the best pick. I would have been screwed at QB3 (instead of having an excellent one). As boring as it was, the best value pick was QB. Let's say you made me not pick a QB here--I would have grabbed the same player that I took in the seventh, that I did in the sixth. Then I would have grabbed either the player I took in the eight in the seventh, or a lesser QB than Brunell. The thing is, because of the QB run, my 7/8/9/10 picks were all tremendous value IMO. They were the guys I was targetting in the 6/7/8/9 slots.QB3 isn't real important normally, but it IS when you have Vick. Bulger/Brunell is actually a pretty good QB1/2 combo. I would say that's at least average in a 12 team league, maybe a tick higher. You could then say "so why the heck did you draft Vick, and not a stud WR?" The goal here was to grab 3 starting QBs, and if I had not done that by 7.06, I would have been in an UGLY way. In a perfect world for me, I never need to start Brunell because of how well Vick/Bulger play. I also think he does provide a level of stability with my top pick Portis. I could be saved from an ugly week if the Skins get into a shootout with Portis not contributing much.
right on the money greg.I agree that it will be interesting to see the QB squeeze effect on the season. The effect on the draft actually hurt the staff in my opinion. Chase probably had a near perfect first four rounds only to hurt his team in the next two rounds. And as you will see, you can apply pressure on a few of the MB teams at the QB position, but some of these guys are really impressive drafters. They didn’t panic and ended up with some really good teams despite the pressure.I want to thank Bassnbrew as well for taking the time to provide well thought out analysis. Everyone may not agree with him, but he clearly took a lot of time thinking and writing about this draft. It is good, well thought out commentary whether you agree with it or not.My draft so far:J. LewisD. DavisC. GarnerH. WardT. GreenJ. GarciaI’m very pleased at this point. I have work to do at WR, but my RB’s and QB’s are solid. Sandbagger’s warning to the MB team about QB runs had me going into the draft planning on having two on my team by the 6th round. It worked out well.Like I said, there are a lot of talented drafters in League One. I like that the staff took a shot at an unusual team strategy, but I still doubt its effectiveness. Some of these guys are too good to let it hurt them. And when value continues to fall in peoples laps the next couple of rounds the MB teams get even better.
Actually, your math is off. True, there are still 14 NFL QB JOBS left at this point. Even though you pointed out Oakland and NYGiants, you failed to point out the uncertainty (in varying degrees) in Miami, San Fran, Dallas, and Pittsburgh. So, there are actually 8 true "starters" left to choose from. Of that group, 5 have never posted useful stats (Grossman, Harrington, Carr, Boller, McCown). While we hope/expect they'll improve, there is no guarantee and I'm sure glad none of those guys is going to be my QB2.In fact, the only remaining 2 that can be considered "solid" are Drew Bledsoe and Jake Delhomme. Tommy Maddox is borderline.
Jason, this is exactly why I don't like Boldin this year. Jeff Blake made a "point per reception league" star out of Travis Friggin' Taylor. While Boldin could be a good one, I don't think its a given that he'll be catching a lot of balls.Colin
The math is fine, I said NFL team QBs. That's the same as NFL QB jobs.But the point that needs to be focused on is you only really need 2 QBs in Survivor unless there are question marks in terms of job safety or performance.
Seriously, would you be comfortable with David Carr or Jay Fiedler as your ONLY option behind a Manning/Vick/McNabb bye week?Colin
Colin,Boldin was the 10th WR off the board. I had him tiered with Joe Horn and Santana Moss (I'm down on E. Moulds this year in a big way) but both of them had week 3 byes, something to avoid in general but very important for me given CMartin as my RB2.
