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.
I would be comfortable with Carr, yes. Fielder, I would draft Feeley as well to avert risk.That doesn't mean I wouldn't probably go for a backup QB earlier than Carr, but he's still in the list of guys I'd be comfortable with. Especially if it meant I picked up a WR2 and WR3 that I shouldn't have had a shot at, because others went for QBs there.
Would you feel comfortable with a weak QB with a Monday night home game against KC as your bye week starter?CarrFeidler
Not a chance. We talked about the importance of getting three QBs and that ADP data said the good starters would normally be gone by round 10. In a survivr format that likely would be round 9 as you usually won't draft backups that would be available to QBs that get injured.So we decided that we should try and all have three by the end of round 8. Without telling who I picked, I stayed true to my plan and got three by round 8 too.Bass N Brew's study on three QBs is flawed in my opinion:- Survivor 1 was a 10 team draft so it doesn't even count.- Survivor II used 6 points for all TDs making a natural run on QBs without it being a strategy.Here is how I see this. Some of the MB teams will survive this because they took a stud (Manning, Culpepper early). Those that did not went "value" at WR. And then when they blinked they see nothing but crap at QB because of the continued run. Teams with 2 bad QBs will die in this league I believe as bad weeks will get the best of them. Teams with 1 super stud like Peyton and crap could be vulnerable with an off week. It may not happen, but it could.In Survivor QBs are worth more than usual because they can have HUGE games and you don't have to guess which week. This is simply another supply and demand situation.RBs are in short supply as everybody wants about 4 good ones to cover off weeks, bye weeks and possible injuries.Ideally everybody would like 3 QBs in a survivor league (I admit they want them cheaply). We made sure our teams got three making all of the MB teams overpay for the waste that was left. It is my contention that some of the MB teams will crumble because they continued to not draft QBs. Time will tell.
Let's say a second year QB who is uncontested for his starting job and has an improved and healthier receiving corps.
I keep on hearing this from staff members, maybe because you guys are so excited about your super secret strategy. I still haven't seen any backup for it. In fact, the only person who provided stats showed that a third QB didn't help that much, and it's still uncontested.I understand the bye week issues. I understand the injury concerns. Now, can you show me the scoring value of three QBs, or are you just going to continue with the assumption that a third QB makes you score more?
WTF
I think you are missing the point. The value add to our strategy is not our team scoring MORE, it's your side scoring LESS.In theory, we have hoarded the better QBs and left the MB crew with inferior QB in lousy situations. By doing so, again in theory, this will LOWER your scoring while keeping our scoring pretty much the same or marginally better.THAT'S what we are banking on. We'll have to wait and see if this pans out or not.
You're answering a question I didn't ask. Dodds very clearly said that everyone would want three QBs, and pointed out the value of having three QBs in a survivor league. I counter that there is not much value to that third QB. You're arguing that the run weakened teams' QB1 and QB2, which I don't disagree with. I'm not sure who came out with the strongest QBs, but I think the run put the clamps on everyone. I'm just countering the idea that "everybody would like 3 QBs in a survivor league".
Thanks Chase. I could very well be all wet with my analysis, but I tried to stay objective as I possible could. I'm enjoying reading the commentaries of those drafting and the various topics that have popped up.What would I have done...I would not have drafted Brunell. Bulger was a good pick and I agree with you concern about Vick's health. If Bulger and Vick even come close to meet expectations, Brunell may improve your scoring by 5% max. You could have drafted a WR that would have been a virtual lock to be a difference maker. Sure not many drop off the board from your pick to the 7th round, but that's even better...you add a another quality WR the 7th and now have 2 WR1s. I would have loaded up on the WR talent and taken a shot at a 3rd QB later, specifically targetting Rattay, a Miami QB, or an Oakland QB in the second half of the draft. Now we may differ here, but I would assume that most of us do have a favorite in those QB derbies. Fall back plan would have been the NY or SD derbies. Any way, that's what I would have done. I also think you had a great draft coming out of the first four rounds and gave up some of the advantage that you obtained. It's still early and there's plenty of time for things to improve or deteriorate in the later rounds.
I'll take two QBs and reap the benefits at the other positions and give myself a great chance at winning this thing. I can already tell you that my team rankings are going to reward the teams that did this...given their two QBs are solid, not spectacutlar...just solid.
I think that your individual team analysis will fail to consider the overall TEAM element of this competition. While each individual would like to win, our goal was to try to knock out several of the MB teams to better our chances of having the highest TEAM point total.I don't know if there is a way for you to incorporate that into your overall assessment of things.Back to the 3 QBs issue...I'm usually a staunch supporter of going 3 QBs, but with the early run on QB by the Staff...no thanks.
Thanks Jason and Joe T.Joe T...Loved the barb about washing Bryant's boats. Good smack.
You're right, my analysis will not take that into consideration. I am admittedly more interested in looking at the draft from an individual perspective since that is what applies to most survivor leagues out there and is what applies to my interests personally since this is the only team survivor draft I've ever come across. That being said, once I look at the teams and rank/rate them individually one team will probably stand out as stronger than the other.That would be pretty cool to form ff teams though, kind of like the professional video gamers do...hmmm. I'd take the Survivor II guys against anybody who wanted to step up.I think that your individual team analysis will fail to consider the overall TEAM element of this competition. While each individual would like to win, our goal was to try to knock out several of the MB teams to better our chances of having the highest TEAM point total.I don't know if there is a way for you to incorporate that into your overall assessment of things.Back to the 3 QBs issue...I'm usually a staunch supporter of going 3 QBs, but with the early run on QB by the Staff...no thanks.
I guess it's how you look at it. And I don't have the answer, there are too many variables to throw together.If you weaken your opponent's teams, you lower the chance those teams make the merger.But you also strengthened some of your opponent's teams, which increases the chances that those particular teams make the merger, and increase the chances that if they do reach it, they will do better in the eliminations that contribute to Team Points.Does the chance of getting an extra team to the merger outweigh the detriment of possibly having to face stronger teams once get there? I'm not sure how to weight them in comparison to how much you managed to weaken or strengthen any given team.
What you are not taking to account are(a) injuries at the QB positionand(b) surprise ineffectiveness at the position.With us having three QB's strong, we are in a good position to overcome problems at the QB slot. However...If a team has only two solid QB (say D.Bledsoe and C. Pennington - using last year's results), there is a good chance of disruption destroying their chances to do well, PERIOD!A Survivor league is not your typical fantasy league and I still think some of you are missing the boat on this. DEPTH is huge in this league as it covers bad weeks, injuries and the like.You can say all ya want that you'll give the better grade to a team with only two solid quarterbacks but ya know what... Grades are fun to read but mean very little in June. Players are going to get hurt and players are going to struggle. We are in a much better position to overcome those problems than the other teams and I believe at the end of the day, our receiver and tight end selections don't hurt us as much as you believe. Now I'm off my soapbox :rotflmao:Back to the 3 QBs issue...I'm usually a staunch supporter of going 3 QBs, but with the early run on QB by the Staff...no thanks.
the part left out of this isIF you're late round steal plays. If he doesn't, you burned a roster spot on a player not even seeing the field. That is where the risk comes in.
That's true enough so point taken.I agree that there were a few message boarders who really missed the boat on this and were caught unawares.the part left out of this isIF you're late round steal plays. If he doesn't, you burned a roster spot on a player not even seeing the field. That is where the risk comes in.
Instead of looking at just your roster. Answer me this... If your team is golden because of your GREAT late pickup (which I am not arguing with), how is Grouse looking with his 3rd QB.
Chris, let's say you have an opportunity to hurt a couple of MB teams and weaken them, but by doing so you realize that you're also going to strengthen other MB teams. It only takes 4 teams in the merger for both sides to be even. And stronger teams of course have more of a chance of making the merger, as well as more of a chance of going far after the merger. Even if one side puts 3 teams in the finals, they can still beat the 5 teams they are against by taking several combinations of 3 of the top 4 places.the part left out of this is
IF you're late round steal plays. If he doesn't, you burned a roster spot on a player not even seeing the field. That is where the risk comes in.
Instead of looking at just your roster. Answer me this... If your team is golden because of your GREAT late pickup (which I am not arguing with), how is Grouse looking with his 3rd QB.
My rebuttle is this, which is what I said originally, I prefer to have 3 QBs in this format, but not at the expense that it comes with this particular draft. My opinion is that the value gained at upgrading your other positions outweighs the advantages of having 3 QBs.And I'm pretty sure I'm familiar with the format since I outplaced all four of the members who are currently competing in this contest, one other person providing commentary on the draft, and another staff member...so thanks for the heads up on the format.What you are not taking to account are(a) injuries at the QB positionand(b) surprise ineffectiveness at the position.With us having three QB's strong, we are in a good position to overcome problems at the QB slot. However...If a team has only two solid QB (say D.Bledsoe and C. Pennington - using last year's results), there is a good chance of disruption destroying their chances to do well, PERIOD!A Survivor league is not your typical fantasy league and I still think some of you are missing the boat on this. DEPTH is huge in this league as it covers bad weeks, injuries and the like.You can say all ya want that you'll give the better grade to a team with only two solid quarterbacks but ya know what... Grades are fun to read but mean very little in June. Players are going to get hurt and players are going to struggle. We are in a much better position to overcome those problems than the other teams and I believe at the end of the day, our receiver and tight end selections don't hurt us as much as you believe. Now I'm off my soapbox :rotflmao:Back to the 3 QBs issue...I'm usually a staunch supporter of going 3 QBs, but with the early run on QB by the Staff...no thanks.
LHUCKS Booted Off Week 14BostonFred Booted Off Week 12aaronr28 Booted Off Week 10sandbagger Booted Off Week 4smlevin Booted Off Week 3BassNBrew Booted Off Week 2Not bragging, just verifying I understand the format.
Sorry, but I wasn't picking three QB only to weaken MB teams. I believe it strengthens my roster in the long run and had already planned on doing so even before our Staff strategy talk began. I wasn't expecting to take two quarterbacks in round four / five but the receivers I had on my board at that point could wait another couple of rounds so I decided to go ahead and solidify the quarterback position.I believe one of the biggest keys to a survivor league is that you can take receivers late because you don't need to pick three to start each week. Get a couple of solid week-to-week guys and then load up on players capable of big weeks. If you have four players capable of 150 receiving yards 1-2 touchdown games and you combine them with consistent receivers (such as my Jimmy Smith in round six), you will notice very little, if any difference in week to week scoring.Chris, let's say you have an opportunity to hurt a couple of MB teams and weaken them, but by doing so you realize that you're also going to strengthen other MB teams. It only takes 4 teams in the merger for both sides to be even. And stronger teams of course have more of a chance of making the merger, as well as more of a chance of going far after the merger. Even if one side puts 3 teams in the finals, they can still beat the 5 teams they are against by taking several combinations of 3 of the top 4 places.the part left out of this is
IF you're late round steal plays. If he doesn't, you burned a roster spot on a player not even seeing the field. That is where the risk comes in.
Instead of looking at just your roster. Answer me this... If your team is golden because of your GREAT late pickup (which I am not arguing with), how is Grouse looking with his 3rd QB.
So taking that all into account, would you choose to weaken and strengthen the other teams, or would you leave them as is?
Good call and I understand what your saying. However...Not everybody's cheat sheet is the same or this would be boring. Sure I could have went receiver in the fourth round but I saw value emerging late in the draft so why take a receiver there when I felt I could do just as well by waiting on the WR position until later.Jimmy Smith equals a top ten pick in my opinion this season. I was able to land two excellent quarterbacks and still get a guy like Smith. I believe in the group of receivers taken in rounds three to five, some of them are going to bust as it happens every year with that position.I think it is really tough to guage how each team did (staff wise and MB wise) until around 12 rounds are unveiled.Great commentary though. This is what the Survivor drafts are all about. Great conversation.
Edited to show only the people involved in this contest
Nobody is arguing that you should not take 3 QBs, but rather how early all 3 you took them.You can't have a chicken little philosophy of thinking that both your good QBs will be hurt or on a bye. I want two solid QBs with a third as an "emergency backup".Injuries happen, and while you can work to mitigate them, you are just as cooked with injuries to RBs, WRs, or TEs than you are with QBs.
I've said this before, but that dataset is way too small. So it is clear where I stand...1) In most survivor drafts I support going 3 QBs...for the reasons previously mentioned by the staff.2) In this messed up draft, I think it is wise to go 2 QBs ...for value reasons, but it does depend some on how reliable your 2 QBs are, but you dictate that so there are no excuses.I look forward to providing commentary on the complete rosters.
nothe only thing we talked about was making sure we had our 3 quality QBs by the end of round 8. we knew teams in the middle would be able to see what was going on and adjust their strategy accordingly. it was clear that a team at an end who wasn't paying close attention to the pattern of the picks could wind up falling asleep at the wheel and end up with junk. I think elminating 1 or 2 teams on draft day was a viable strategy to ensure the overall success of our team.honestly, there are a couple teams that likely have no chance of making it to the merger, IMO.
In league 1, they're not necessarily messageboard teams, but that will come in due time.By the way, I ended up setting final odds based on surviving to the merger. I didn't take it any further becuase I didn't have access to the teams in the other league so I didn't know what the four in league one would be matching up against. You figure by straight chance, every team will have a 1/3 chance of making it. The quality of draft will raise or lower those odds from there. Interestingly enough, a team built for surviving may not be the best raw pt team in the last few weeks. I think the "staff" strategy may yield more of an advantage in the later weeks.
I believe our main team goal was to simply get as many staff teams to the merger as possible. If we can wind up with 6 out of the 8 teams, then the only way we can possibly lose the team comp is if the 2 MB teams finish #1 and #2 (which I believe would cause a tie). If we really did make a couple MB teams stronger, that could end up hurting us in the end if we don't achieve our initial goal. I think a lot of luck comes into play by that point though, so I'm not too worried and I gave no consideration to late season matchups whatsoever when drafting. All I wanted was to make it to the merger and give my team a fighting chance to win it all.
doesn't seem that unusual actually.Last year, it happened in Baltimore (Wright), Oakland (Mirer), Chicago (Grossman), Denver (Kannell), Atlanta (Kittner), and Houston (Ragone). That's almost 20% of all NFL teams.
A fact which would be more relevant if he were talking about NFL teams.
He means survivor QBs. In most cases, your QB1 will be playing, in some cases, your QB2, and rarely, your QB3. He's suggesting that Fiedler/Feely is more valuable and available later than, say, Harrington or McClown because, as a QB2/3 combo, they are better at injury proofing your team, and they are in a better situation than Harrington. It's the uncertainty that knocks them down, but that uncertainty doesn't matter in a survivor format if you have both of them. Unlike RBBC, a team with 2 QBs rarely (maybe 1-2 games in a season) will see two QBs take snaps in the same game.
There is no "good" way to evaluate this, as every combination of WR will yield different results.For example, when I did my breif comparison between Sinrman's WR and my WRs weekly totals from last year (Don't remember which thread this was in), it turned out that in one week his 3 best WR all had MONSTER weeks. In that individual week, he outscored my 3 WR 105-28. Basically, he wasted essentially best-of-year receiving totals IN THE SAME WEEK.As others have mentioned, this is not a total points league, the trick from week to week is to not be the lowest scoring team.Although I have no way of proving it, I would suggest that the team(s) that scored the most points on the season (total points for a year) would not have won the title. I have no rationale for this other than some fluke weeks with low scoring could really muck up the system.
If you have a way to evaluate what strategy might provide more value in assessing roster composition without looking at actual stats, I'd be glad to hear it. That's preety much what the discussion has focused on--is there a way to illustrtae if there's advantages to different strategies.Always living in the past, eh David?
