What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Official Staff/Messageboard Survivor Thread (1 Viewer)

I like [steve Smith] much better than a player he is normally compared to - Santana Moss - because Smith is much more physical and can fight for jump balls, etc. while Santana is slighter in build and more of a finesse/speed WR.
I wouldn't say Santana Moss has a slighter build than Steve Smith; he is built like a real football player and will out-muscle people for the ball in traffic. Both of those guys play bigger than their true size.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
perhaps...but the decline of Moss's productivity late last year AFTER he emerged as the go-to WR left me with serious concerns about his abilty to be a true #1 WR who can consistently beat press coverage and/or double teams. I don't have those same concerns about Steve Smith or Laveranues Coles.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree that S.Moss is a risk based on where he is being drafted. I like him in traditional leagues better than in a Survivor format.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
perhaps...but the decline of Moss's productivity late last year AFTER he emerged as the go-to WR left me with serious concerns about his abilty to be a true #1 WR who can consistently beat press coverage and/or double teams. I don't have those same concerns about Steve Smith or Laveranues Coles.
I side with Aaron on this one...his late-season slide is a concern. I like Smith and Coles more than Moss as well.
 
I know this is a "team" event, but I really hope people that get eliminated early don't use their bragging rights because "the team" may have won. It might happen, and it will really be sad if it does.So for all the early exiters, just take it like a man and let the real man, the winner of the league, do all the smack talking for "the team". That will make this contest a lot better. ;)

 
Re Culcasi's team, from the original survivor draft thread:He has 3 risky running backs. Two guys are first year starters and one has a history of injury problems. When is the last time Faulk finished 16 games in a season? Barlow could be solid, but on that offense with the hits they've taken to the skill positions and the offensive lines what is Barlow's upside? The Lions are a young team, who knows what they will do.Those three guys could all be top 20 running backs. The problem I have is that of the top 20-25 running backs they are 3 of the most risky picks. Combining them on one team is a problem.Call it personal preference if you will, but IMO it is a drafting error.

 
Well, I originally posted this in response to KKrew in the original thread, but it got locked while I was typing, so I'll just post it here. KKrew's question was why Gonzalez lasted when his VBD number suggested he was worth a first rounder in this league. Here's my response:---------You can't go off straight VBD in this league because of the best starter format. For example, I like Culpepper a lot, and he's projected at 361 fantasy points, easily the #1 QB. But two QBs projected at 280 points, say Trent Green and Jeff Garcia, may score more than Culpepper would on his own, because of the best starter format. Similarly, Gonzalez is projected to score 261 points. Heap is projected to score 224, Shockey 223, Winslow 195, Crumpler 177, Boo Williams 168, McMichael 152, Gates 142, and it continues to drop off from there. If someone could put together a TEBC of Crumpler and Boo Williams, for example, it could be almost as valuable as Gonzalez on his own. Maybe even more so, because althought the combination might not score as much as Gonzalez in a best starter format, their scoring would be smoother than Gonzalez alone because of the high variability of TE scoring. They might average a point less per week, but they'll make up for it by not getting 3 point weeks as often. Of course, not many people will get a team of Crumpler and Boo Williams, because not many people are willing to spend two fairly early picks at TE. Which means Gonzalez alone does still have a significant VBD advantage over the 2 TEs most other people will have. It's just not the points(player A) - points (player B) model that we usually use to determine value. As a thumb rule (I have no numbers to back it up) I imagine the value of a second player at a single starter starting position as being about 1/3 of that player's actual value - so if I take Crumpler and Boo, I get 177 + (1/3 x 168 = 56) = 233 points from the combo. If I take Culpepper at 361, and someone else takes Trent Green (286) and Jeff Garcia (1/3 x 279 = 03) they get 379 points. Any backup at all would increase Culpepper's value over those two, but only barely. The same is true about kickers and Ds, but not RB and WR. Because you can start 2 RBs, the addition of a third RB is probably worth 1/2 of their points, and a fourth is worth maybe a third. Keeping in mind that these are very rough numbers, of course. With three receivers, I'd almost say that fourth receiver is worth almost his entire set of points, and a fifth an even half of their points. Those extra players will score throughout the season, and you're throwing away points if you don't take them. Probably the easiest way to add points to your team is to add more receivers to the roster because no matter how good they end up being, the variability at WR combined with the number of starters at the position means that each one will score fairly often. That's my .02 on how VBD is effected by the Survivor format.

 
Sandbagger: BHard to argue with any of his top three selections. I'm just not high on Shockey. Had a WR been selected instead of Shockey this team would be an A. I would like to see a McGahee handcuff, but could be tricky given his ADP. Hopefully for bagger he slides.
Thanks for taking the time to analyze this.Obviously this comes down to drafting differences, but what I can score with Shockey versus another WR makes that choice a no-brainer to me. According to my DVBD calculation taking a TE was a 30 point advantage over taking a WR from round 4 to round 5.Grabbing Ward in round 3 I thought I could platoon some guys in the middle rounds as that is where I have a lot of confidence in my drafts in getting value there.Just a fundamental disagreement in drafting philosophy I guess.I was tempted to take a TE in round 3 but figured that 1 of the big 3 would most likely be around still, so I waited around and still got my top choice.
 
According to my DVBD calculation taking a TE was a 30 point advantage over taking a WR from round 4 to round 5.Grabbing Ward in round 3 I thought I could platoon some guys in the middle rounds as that is where I have a lot of confidence in my drafts in getting value there.Just a fundamental disagreement in drafting philosophy I guess.
Definitely a difference in philosophy.I like to reserve the middle rounds for WRs and QBs...taking the hit or miss RB-Platoon-Types is a very expensive strategy IMO. One I don't like.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
League 2 seems to be the more interesting draft so far.After 48 picks we have 6 QB, 30 RB, 9 WR, & 3 TE's.The # of QB's seems a little high and the number of WR's a little low. However, this makes sense given the FBG team drafting philosophy.An interesting fact is that 5 out of 6 of the FBG teams have 3 RB in 4 rounds and only 1 MB team has 3 RB. Also all 3 TE have gone to MB team members. It seems that the MB team believes more in VBD than the FBG guys themselves who have all sold us on VBD. Maybe they are selling us some snake oil? I don't really believe this but find this clear difference in the 2 groups very interesting.Maybe the final results will shed some light on the relative value of a 3rd RB over a starter at WR or TE.Personally I'll take my chances that my starters stay healthy & that I can get some decent coverage during bye weeks later in the draft and go for the value pick at TE or WR.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
League 2 seems to be the more interesting draft so far.After 48 picks we have 6 QB, 30 RB, 9 WR, & 3 TE's.The # of QB's seems a little high and the number of WR's a little low. However, this makes sense given the FBG team drafting philosophy.An interesting fact is that 5 out of 6 of the FBG teams have 3 RB in 4 rounds and only 1 MB team has 3 RB. Also all 3 TE have gone to MB team members. It seems that the MB team believes more in VBD than the FBG guys themselves who have all sold us on VBD. Maybe they are selling us some snake oil? I don't really believe this but find this clear difference in the 2 groups very interesting.Maybe the final results will shed some light on the relative value of a 3rd RB over a starter at WR or TE.Personally I'll take my chances that my starters stay healthy & that I can get some decent coverage during bye weeks later in the draft stay and go for the value pick at TE or WR.
It was very clear that none of the staff wanted the top TEs in this format and felt comfortable platooning them.I wanted to draft 3 RBs with my first 3 picks but there was still a run on them by the end of the 3rd round that the value of the remaining WRs was just too valuable.The staff in league 2 drafted like a bunch of autobots doing the exact same thing. That was...interesting.
 
League 2 seems to be the more interesting draft so far.After 48 picks we have 6 QB, 30 RB, 9 WR, & 3 TE's.The # of QB's seems a little high and the number of WR's a little low. However, this makes sense given the FBG team drafting philosophy.An interesting fact is that 5 out of 6 of the FBG teams have 3 RB in 4 rounds and only 1 MB team has 3 RB. Also all 3 TE have gone to MB team members. It seems that the MB team believes more in VBD than the FBG guys themselves who have all sold us on VBD. Maybe they are selling us some snake oil? I don't really believe this but find this clear difference in the 2 groups very interesting.Maybe the final results will shed some light on the relative value of a 3rd RB over a starter at WR or TE.Personally I'll take my chances that my starters stay healthy & that I can get some decent coverage during bye weeks later in the draft stay and go for the value pick at TE or WR.
I don't like either the staff's or the MB's strategy.I don't like the staffs early run on QBs idea. I also don't like the MBs emphasis on VBD principle. VBD should NOT be used in the survivor format. You're trying to never score the least, not score the most....which is what VBD is based on...fundamental FLAW.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
League 2 seems to be the more interesting draft so far.After 48 picks we have 6 QB, 30 RB, 9 WR, & 3 TE's.The # of QB's seems a little high and the number of WR's a little low.  However, this makes sense given the FBG team drafting philosophy.An interesting fact is that 5 out of 6 of the FBG teams have 3 RB in 4 rounds and only 1 MB team has 3 RB. Also all 3 TE have gone to MB team members.  It seems that the MB team believes more in VBD than the FBG guys themselves who have all sold us on VBD.  Maybe they are selling us some snake oil?  I don't really believe this but find this clear difference in the 2 groups very interesting.Maybe the final results will shed some light on the relative value of a 3rd RB over a starter at WR or TE.Personally I'll take my chances that my starters stay healthy & that I can get some decent coverage during bye weeks later in the draft stay and go for the value pick at TE or WR.
I don't like either the staff's or the MB's strategy.I don't like the staffs early run on QBs idea. I also don't like the MBs emphasis on VBD principle. VBD should NOT be used in the survivor format. You're trying to never score the least, not score the most....which is what VBD is based on...fundamental FLAW.
I can always count on LHucks to disagree with me.Anyway if you are not using VBD for survivor drafts then what are you using. Obviously stud RB but when does the value of the other positions catch up to the remainin RBs? Are you going with your gut or just satisfied once you have 3 or 4 RBs?
 
League 2 seems to be the more interesting draft so far.After 48 picks we have 6 QB, 30 RB, 9 WR, & 3 TE's.The # of QB's seems a little high and the number of WR's a little low.  However, this makes sense given the FBG team drafting philosophy.An interesting fact is that 5 out of 6 of the FBG teams have 3 RB in 4 rounds and only 1 MB team has 3 RB. Also all 3 TE have gone to MB team members.  It seems that the MB team believes more in VBD than the FBG guys themselves who have all sold us on VBD.  Maybe they are selling us some snake oil?  I don't really believe this but find this clear difference in the 2 groups very interesting.Maybe the final results will shed some light on the relative value of a 3rd RB over a starter at WR or TE.Personally I'll take my chances that my starters stay healthy & that I can get some decent coverage during bye weeks later in the draft stay and go for the value pick at TE or WR.
I don't like either the staff's or the MB's strategy.I don't like the staffs early run on QBs idea. I also don't like the MBs emphasis on VBD principle. VBD should NOT be used in the survivor format. You're trying to never score the least, not score the most....which is what VBD is based on...fundamental FLAW.
Disagree that it's a fundamental flaw. By trying to score the most you are in effect trying to not score the least. I do agree that VBD is much more useful in leagues where you have to pick your starter (as it implies that big weeks by poor players will not hurt you since they won't be started against you most likely).However, drafting for value in conjunction with ADP, diversifying bye weeks, and taking into account you can't trade or hit the waiver wire is prudent.How else do you draft other than for value to maximize your points?I think you make more exceptions to VBD in Survivor than you would in a normal H2H league, but the fundamentals are still applicable.
 
I don't like the staffs early run on QBs idea.
What don't you like about it? It might hurt someone who isn't prepared and allows them to possibly dictate a couple rounds if everyone else is following.I am ambivalent about it. This is why DVBD is so critical...you can see the runs, and analyze how many of each position is going to be taken in between picks so you can figure out if you need to take someone in that run or can wait.
 
I think you make more exceptions to VBD in Survivor than you would in a normal H2H league, but the fundamentals are still applicable.
That's the point I'm trying to make and somebody running off the Dominator would get owned if they didn't know when and where to make those exceptions.
 
I think you make more exceptions to VBD in Survivor than you would in a normal H2H league, but the fundamentals are still applicable.
That's the point I'm trying to make and somebody running off the Dominator would get owned if they didn't know when and where to make those exceptions.
Does the dominator do DVBD, or is it off a static baseline?I have my own app that I use so I've never played around with it.
 
I can always count on LHucks to disagree with me.Anyway if you are not using VBD for survivor drafts then what are you using. Obviously stud RB but when does the value of the other positions catch up to the remainin RBs? Are you going with your gut or just satisfied once you have 3 or 4 RBs?
There is a method to my madness. I'll let my signature jusfify the method.
 
I don't like the staffs early run on QBs idea.
What don't you like about it? It might hurt someone who isn't prepared and allows them to possibly dictate a couple rounds if everyone else is following.I am ambivalent about it. This is why DVBD is so critical...you can see the runs, and analyze how many of each position is going to be taken in between picks so you can figure out if you need to take someone in that run or can wait.
I think you can put up consistent QB scoring without going QB early. The key is getting three. (or 2 with a Manning or Culpepper). This will be hotly debated after we see which squads went with what theories, but I'm pretty sold that after the top two QBs are selected QB should be waited on. I would be fine with Grossman, Harrington and Brunnell as my QBs, because I would have insane TE and WR value.
 
I can always count on LHucks to disagree with me.Anyway if you are not using VBD for survivor drafts then what are you using. Obviously stud RB but when does the value of the other positions catch up to the remainin RBs? Are you going with your gut or just satisfied once you have 3 or 4 RBs?
There is a method to my madness. I'll let my signature jusfify the method.
Now you really hit on one of my pet peeves.I really hate when people put all that stuff in their signature. Your signature means nothing to me and to most of us. What is a Delta Beta league anyway? Is that a college fraternity league or something?Try to impress me with logic and not your signature. Or just admit you draft from the gut or if you would prefer you can call it experience.Nothing wrong with that. :D
 
I don't like the staffs early run on QBs idea.
What don't you like about it? It might hurt someone who isn't prepared and allows them to possibly dictate a couple rounds if everyone else is following.I am ambivalent about it. This is why DVBD is so critical...you can see the runs, and analyze how many of each position is going to be taken in between picks so you can figure out if you need to take someone in that run or can wait.
I think you can put up consistent QB scoring without going QB early. The key is getting three. (or 2 with a Manning or Culpepper). This will be hotly debated after we see which squads went with what theories, but I'm pretty sold that after the top two QBs are selected QB should be waited on. I would be fine with Grossman, Harrington and Brunnell as my QBs, because I would have insane TE and WR value.
I won't comment until more of the draft is released, but the play was executed, IMO, with mixed results. We will have to wait and see whether the play works out better in action than on paper after the draft.What is nice is that it was a coordinated effort - we'll have to see if the coordinated effort takes the MB V Staff game or the overall individual title, or both. That was one (among many) of the points of this exercise - to see if "team play" could work in survivor formats.
 
Well, I originally posted this in response to KKrew in the original thread, but it got locked while I was typing, so I'll just post it here. KKrew's question was why Gonzalez lasted when his VBD number suggested he was worth a first rounder in this league. Here's my response:....Similarly, Gonzalez is projected to score 261 points. Heap is projected to score 224, Shockey 223, Winslow 195, Crumpler 177, Boo Williams 168, McMichael 152, Gates 142, and it continues to drop off from there. ....
BF - good point.Obviously projections will play a part. For instance, I have Gonzo at 279, Heap at 235, Shockey at 205, Crumpler at 177 ..... Winslow to Witten (with 4 in between) appear about equal, near 160 and then the slide continues. For TEs, I'd be hard pressed to identify a viable TEBC without investing a couple mid-round picks. Although, I guess ADP data isn't a good barometer for this type of drafting ....
 
perhaps...but the decline of Moss's productivity late last year AFTER he emerged as the go-to WR left me with serious concerns about his abilty to be a true #1 WR who can consistently beat press coverage and/or double teams. I don't have those same concerns about Steve Smith or Laveranues Coles.
I side with Aaron on this one...his late-season slide is a concern. I like Smith and Coles more than Moss as well.
He is the classic definition of a "too much on too little" receiver that I hat eto draft.I have more confidence in a Troy Brown/Marty Booker/Hines Ward type (lots of targets, lots of catches, but often has low productivity overall) on a week to week basis than a Koren Robinson/Quincy Morgan/Todd Pinkston type who had a knack for making a lot happen on fewer touches.If SMoss gets bumped in the Jets game from 7.3 targets/game in 2003 to over 8 targets a game in 2004, he becomes a much more dependable weekly starter.For comparison, 2003 targets:Coles: 10.3Smith: 8.9Boldin: 10.7I'd rather rely on one o fthose guys than a 7.03 targets a game receiver - that goes heavily into the "opportunity" portion of the famous formula of Opp + Talent + Production = FF worth.
 
I can always count on LHucks to disagree with me.Anyway if you are not using VBD for survivor drafts then what are you using. Obviously stud RB but when does the value of the other positions catch up to the remainin RBs? Are you going with your gut or just satisfied once you have 3 or 4 RBs?
There is a method to my madness. I'll let my signature jusfify the method.
Now you really hit on one of my pet peeves.I really hate when people put all that stuff in their signature. Your signature means nothing to me and to most of us. What is a Delta Beta league anyway? Is that a college fraternity league or something?Try to impress me with logic and not your signature. Or just admit you draft from the gut or if you would prefer you can call it experience.Nothing wrong with that. :D
Most people who are drafting in this challenge are familiar with and respect the first two leagues. Secondly, I do not draft with my "gut" which implies I have no strategy or that I don't use other advanced drafting mechanisms. I actually use a form of DVBD for redrafts, and for Survivors I use a hybrid of what I call Positional Risk Management and VBD principles. After I outsurvive you in EBF, you'll be listening. :ph34r:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
An interesting fact is that 5 out of 6 of the FBG teams have 3 RB in 4 rounds and only 1 MB team has 3 RB.
Yeah - I counted up the WR situation after the 5/6 rounds, too and found some interesting numbers.
Also all 3 TE have gone to MB team members. It seems that the MB team believes more in VBD than the FBG guys themselves who have all sold us on VBD. Maybe they are selling us some snake oil? I don't really believe this but find this clear difference in the 2 groups very interesting.
I have stated clearly why I believe the 2pts/TE reception is a trap to entice you to take the top-TE early - it IS the VBD/DVBD move, but those philosphioes can not be followed exclusively in this start-3 WR who get 1pt/rec., best starter, survival format.'Bagger pointed out the 30 point DVBD difference (not even 2pts/game on average, BTW) in taking the top-TE versus the WR, but DVBD fails to consider a couple important things in deciding just between whether the top TE or the 7th WR is better: the impact on your two other starters at WR in a survivor/no starter format AND the "Murphy's Law" factor - what happens if you lose the TE for two or three weeks versus what happens if you lose the WR for two or three weeks. DVBD is an excellent tool for drafting in H2H, Point, or in any league where you can choose how to compensate for X-factors that may emerge. In a survivor league like this where oyu draft and that's it fo ryour involvement, DVBD can not be the ONLY consideration - roster redundancies are.That is why my mantra in survivor leagues is not "value" as much as "redundancy - I will "reach" for a player in order to have an "almost as good" backup - or I will choose a spot that must be abandoned early and pray for a platoon I would never otherwise count on to work for me. LHUCKS' three defense option - other teams platoon at RB2 - these are things you won't normally do in a league where you can manipulate your roster after the draft or choose your starters.
Maybe the final results will shed some light on the relative value of a 3rd RB over a starter at WR or TE.
I found it very interssting how many teams, on both sides, clearly went RBX3 blindly and then each branched off to different positions for the fourth player - one went QB, one went top-TE, one went WR, etc.
 
I have stated clearly why I believe the 2pts/TE reception is a trap to entice you to take the top-TE early - it IS the VBD/DVBD move, but those philosphioes can not be followed exclusively in this start-3 WR who get 1pt/rec., best starter, survival format.'Bagger pointed out the 30 point DVBD difference (not even 2pts/game on average, BTW) in taking the top-TE versus the WR, but DVBD fails to consider a couple important things in deciding just between whether the top TE or the 7th WR is better: the impact on your two other starters at WR in a survivor/no starter format AND the "Murphy's Law" factor - what happens if you lose the TE for two or three weeks versus what happens if you lose the WR for two or three weeks. DVBD is an excellent tool for drafting in H2H, Point, or in any league where you can choose how to compensate for X-factors that may emerge. In a survivor league like this where oyu draft and that's it fo ryour involvement, DVBD can not be the ONLY consideration - roster redundancies are.That is why my mantra in survivor leagues is not "value" as much as "redundancy - I will "reach" for a player in order to have an "almost as good" backup - or I will choose a spot that must be abandoned early and pray for a platoon I would never otherwise count on to work for me. LHUCKS' three defense option - other teams platoon at RB2 - these are things you won't normally do in a league where you can manipulate your roster after the draft or choose your starters.
Excellent post. What you call "Murphy's Law" factor, I call my position risk management strategy. This is the first time I've seen it stated on these boards...Fred has hinted at it. Many of you need to reread Marc's post, because it captures what many people are missing with regards to their Survivor strategies.Finally.
 
I don't like the staffs early run on QBs idea.
I think you can put up consistent QB scoring without going QB early. The key is getting three.
How can you get 3 QBs if you don't start drafting them early? They'll all be gone by the 8th round, so that means the longest you can hold off on drafting your first is the 6th round -- and even that means your QB3 will be a Kyle Boller type. If you want three decent QBs, you pretty much have to take them in rounds 5, 6, and 7 at the latest.We knew this ahead of time based on doing some mocks.

 
If SMoss gets bumped in the Jets game from 7.3 targets/game in 2003 to over 8 targets a game in 2004, he becomes a much more dependable weekly starter.For comparison, 2003 targets:Coles: 10.3Smith: 8.9Boldin: 10.7
Curtis Conway went into the season as the Jets' #1 WR (in theory). It took a little while for Moss to step into the limelight.I don't know the answer, but it'd be interesting to see how many targets/game S.Moss averaged over the second half of the season.
 
I don't like the staffs early run on QBs idea.
What don't you like about it? It might hurt someone who isn't prepared and allows them to possibly dictate a couple rounds if everyone else is following.I am ambivalent about it. This is why DVBD is so critical...you can see the runs, and analyze how many of each position is going to be taken in between picks so you can figure out if you need to take someone in that run or can wait.
I think you can put up consistent QB scoring without going QB early. The key is getting three. (or 2 with a Manning or Culpepper). This will be hotly debated after we see which squads went with what theories, but I'm pretty sold that after the top two QBs are selected QB should be waited on. I would be fine with Grossman, Harrington and Brunnell as my QBs, because I would have insane TE and WR value.
Manning by himself was enough last year. Oh, wait, 2nd place. Well, almost enough.

 
I don't like the staffs early run on QBs idea.
I think you can put up consistent QB scoring without going QB early. The key is getting three.
How can you get 3 QBs if you don't start drafting them early? They'll all be gone by the 8th round, so that means the longest you can hold off on drafting your first is the 6th round -- and even that means your QB3 will be a Kyle Boller type. If you want three decent QBs, you pretty much have to take them in rounds 5, 6, and 7 at the latest.We knew this ahead of time based on doing some mocks.
It's all relative I suppose...yes if people are making a run on the #4 to #25 QBs in rounds 5-8, your hand is somewhat forced. If that occurred I would go with two QBs most likely in rounds 7/8 and reap the benefits at WR in rounds 5/6/9/10. With that WR strength I would then go 3 TE and possibly 3 Defense. It totally throws everything out of whack. I'll need to take a look at this, but I can't believe all of the solid QBs would go by round 8. That is a full three rounds earlier than Survivor II.

I don't like it at all. Those teams are usually going to get punished at WR/TE.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Manning by himself was enough last year.
Yeah, but that's hindsight.Last year, weren't the top five QBs at this time of year Culpepper, Vick, McNabb, Manning, and Gannon?Three out of five were certainly not enough by themselves. If you get lucky, fine, but it's best to have some depth as insurance.
 
If SMoss gets bumped in the Jets game from 7.3 targets/game in 2003 to over 8 targets a game in 2004, he becomes a much more dependable weekly starter.For comparison, 2003 targets:Coles: 10.3Smith: 8.9Boldin: 10.7
Curtis Conway went into the season as the Jets' #1 WR (in theory). It took a little while for Moss to step into the limelight.I don't know the answer, but it'd be interesting to see how many targets/game S.Moss averaged over the second half of the season.
Good point- he averaged 9.375 targets/game over the second half of 2003, and he compiled 5.75 receptions/game, 80.75 yards/game and got a total of 6 TDs over the last 8 games - but note that he had no TDs for weeks 13-17 (your FF championship run), and he had steadily declining yardage production over that time frame.
 
Manning by himself was enough last year.
Yeah, but that's hindsight.Last year, weren't the top five QBs at this time of year Culpepper, Vick, McNabb, Manning, and Gannon?Three out of five were certainly not enough by themselves. If you get lucky, fine, but it's best to have some depth as insurance.
Yep, hindsight is 20/20. No need to take a garbage #5 RB, a shot in the dark #7 WR or a #3 TE when you can have some QB insurance.
 
Manning by himself was enough last year.
Yeah, but that's hindsight.Last year, weren't the top five QBs at this time of year Culpepper, Vick, McNabb, Manning, and Gannon?Three out of five were certainly not enough by themselves. If you get lucky, fine, but it's best to have some depth as insurance.
Not just insurance sgainst injury as each QB had different problems - in McNabb's case it was to weather a slow start until he came around, in Gannon's it was to whether a slow start, then injury, then end of his season, and in Vick's case it was outright replacement until late in the year.I think my C-Pepp/McNair (or Garcia, or some other top-15 QB) doesn't look toally stupid in a survivor format.Couting on that guy every week who can not be replaced by anyone else on your roster is a huge risk. Even a stufd RB can be compensated for on down/injured/bye weeks - that's why you get a good RB2, and a strong RB3.
 
Manning by himself was enough last year.
Yeah, but that's hindsight.Last year, weren't the top five QBs at this time of year Culpepper, Vick, McNabb, Manning, and Gannon?Three out of five were certainly not enough by themselves. If you get lucky, fine, but it's best to have some depth as insurance.
I wasn't actually endorsing a 1 QB strategy, it was more of an inside joke for the Survivor II guys. The backup QB run last year came a round earlier than I thought, and I got caught out of position having to wait most of 2 rounds for it to get back to me after the run started. Luckily I'd taken Peyton in the third.
 
Manning by himself was enough last year.
Yeah, but that's hindsight.Last year, weren't the top five QBs at this time of year Culpepper, Vick, McNabb, Manning, and Gannon?Three out of five were certainly not enough by themselves. If you get lucky, fine, but it's best to have some depth as insurance.
I wasn't actually endorsing a 1 QB strategy, it was more of an inside joke for the Survivor II guys. The backup QB run last year came a round earlier than I thought, and I got caught out of position having to wait most of 2 rounds for it to get back to me after the run started. Luckily I'd taken Peyton in the third.
You and I both my friend. I drafted at the end as well and watched 15 out of 20 picks before me(something like that) go to QBs. Sure enough...Gannon out for the year and Plummer missed a crucial two game stint.
 
I have stated clearly why I believe the 2pts/TE reception is a trap to entice you to take the top-TE early - it IS the VBD/DVBD move, but those philosphioes can not be followed exclusively in this start-3 WR who get 1pt/rec., best starter, survival format.'Bagger pointed out the 30 point DVBD difference (not even 2pts/game on average, BTW) in taking the top-TE versus the WR, but DVBD fails to consider a couple important things in deciding just between whether the top TE or the 7th WR is better: the impact on your two other starters at WR in a survivor/no starter format AND the "Murphy's Law" factor - what happens if you lose the TE for two or three weeks versus what happens if you lose the WR for two or three weeks. DVBD is an excellent tool for drafting in H2H, Point, or in any league where you can choose how to compensate for X-factors that may emerge. In a survivor league like this where oyu draft and that's it fo ryour involvement, DVBD can not be the ONLY consideration - roster redundancies are.That is why my mantra in survivor leagues is not "value" as much as "redundancy - I will "reach" for a player in order to have an "almost as good" backup - or I will choose a spot that must be abandoned early and pray for a platoon I would never otherwise count on to work for me. LHUCKS' three defense option - other teams platoon at RB2 - these are things you won't normally do in a league where you can manipulate your roster after the draft or choose your starters.
Marc,I understand your point about the VBD trap of taking a TE early. But doesn't the Murphy's law also apply to WR's and in fact all positions? I suppose you feel that inconsistency at WR can be covered by taking several late round WR's and trying to get even performace out of all 3 WR's that way. Isn't that just another reason to wait on WR and get 1 of the few dependable TE if you can?I think the reason you take Gonzalez is for his consistency. Who else can you expect to get consitent TE production from? If he has a bad week then you hope for the best with your TE2. Isn't it possible that your late round TE2 can even out the scoring at that position also? Maybe a 3rd TE would help but that seems like a waste of a roster spot to me. It's more likely that you will get more consistent & higher TE scoring by getting one of the studs and pairing him up with a late round TE rather than trying to get 2 mid level TE's. Whether you subscribe to the positional risk management theory or Murphy's law theory I think is just a matter of outlook. I would rather be optimistic that my top players will remain healthy for most of the season rather than hope that everyone else's team will suffer some problems with injuries.
 
I understand your point about the VBD trap of taking a TE early. But doesn't the Murphy's law also apply to WR's and in fact all positions? I suppose you feel that inconsistency at WR can be covered by taking several late round WR's and trying to get even performace out of all 3 WR's that way.
Nope - you missed it -though the analogy works for top-QB early too.Taking a WR over the top-TE means your WR2 will be better, your W3 will be better, your WR4 will be better, etc. If you lose a piece, others step up. I gave the clearest analogy with why some folks take three RBs to openb up - they can lose their RB1 for several weeks and still potentially SURVIVE until that player's return - which is the name of the game.Lose your top TE for a few weeks and you lose not only HIS points, but th epotential points you gave up on by passing on a better WR1. Who replaces Gonzo gone for those few weeks? Unless you took Shock or Heap, noone. Who replaces a lost WR1 for a few weeks? The WR2 you hopefully picked not too far behind that WR1.It's not that taking the top-TEs is a bad idea, but the 2pts/rec. sets the trap at TE by bumping them even more (as was pointed out by KKrew - they static VBD out to the first round!). You are enticed to grab the top-3 TE basaedon the VBD advantage - but those guys are (now using a non-VBD analysis) irrelplaceable. You have passed on a way to bump other spots with a risk. In B-Fred's situation he did it twice - took C-Ppep and Gonzo - loss of either for a few weeks is irreplaceable on the roster and less likely compensated at other spots b/c he passed on good WRs to get those guys - lose either and he is behind in two areas, not trying to make up ground in one.
 
I understand your point about the VBD trap of taking a TE early.  But doesn't the Murphy's law also apply to WR's and in fact all positions?  I suppose you feel that  inconsistency at WR can be covered by taking several late round WR's and trying to get even performace out of all 3 WR's that way.
Nope - you missed it -though the analogy works for top-QB early too.Taking a WR over the top-TE means your WR2 will be better, your W3 will be better, your WR4 will be better, etc. If you lose a piece, others step up. I gave the clearest analogy with why some folks take three RBs to openb up - they can lose their RB1 for several weeks and still potentially SURVIVE until that player's return - which is the name of the game.Lose your top TE for a few weeks and you lose not only HIS points, but th epotential points you gave up on by passing on a better WR1. Who replaces Gonzo gone for those few weeks? Unless you took Shock or Heap, noone. Who replaces a lost WR1 for a few weeks? The WR2 you hopefully picked not too far behind that WR1.It's not that taking the top-TEs is a bad idea, but the 2pts/rec. sets the trap at TE by bumping them even more (as was pointed out by KKrew - they static VBD out to the first round!). You are enticed to grab the top-3 TE basaedon the VBD advantage - but those guys are (now using a non-VBD analysis) irrelplaceable. You have passed on a way to bump other spots with a risk. In B-Fred's situation he did it twice - took C-Ppep and Gonzo - loss of either for a few weeks is irreplaceable on the roster and less likely compensated at other spots b/c he passed on good WRs to get those guys - lose either and he is behind in two areas, not trying to make up ground in one.
If your WR1 goes down you are not replacing him with your WR2. You are replacing him with your WR4. WR2 & WR3 remain the same.I don't think you can count on WR1 production from a WR4. You have just as good a chance as getting TE1 production from a TE2 and I don't mean Shockey or Heap. In either case with an injury to one of your top players you will have to get a break from an unexpected source. In fact I would argue if you get Gonzalez in round 4 and he goes down that is better than taking Holt in round 2 and have him go down. At least in the first scenario you still have your top 3 picks going for you compared to picks 1 3 & 4.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I understand your point about the VBD trap of taking a TE early. But doesn't the Murphy's law also apply to WR's and in fact all positions? I suppose you feel that inconsistency at WR can be covered by taking several late round WR's and trying to get even performace out of all 3 WR's that way.
Nope - you missed it -though the analogy works for top-QB early too.Taking a WR over the top-TE means your WR2 will be better, your W3 will be better, your WR4 will be better, etc. If you lose a piece, others step up. I gave the clearest analogy with why some folks take three RBs to openb up - they can lose their RB1 for several weeks and still potentially SURVIVE until that player's return - which is the name of the game.Lose your top TE for a few weeks and you lose not only HIS points, but th epotential points you gave up on by passing on a better WR1. Who replaces Gonzo gone for those few weeks? Unless you took Shock or Heap, noone. Who replaces a lost WR1 for a few weeks? The WR2 you hopefully picked not too far behind that WR1.It's not that taking the top-TEs is a bad idea, but the 2pts/rec. sets the trap at TE by bumping them even more (as was pointed out by KKrew - they static VBD out to the first round!). You are enticed to grab the top-3 TE basaedon the VBD advantage - but those guys are (now using a non-VBD analysis) irrelplaceable. You have passed on a way to bump other spots with a risk. In B-Fred's situation he did it twice - took C-Ppep and Gonzo - loss of either for a few weeks is irreplaceable on the roster and less likely compensated at other spots b/c he passed on good WRs to get those guys - lose either and he is behind in two areas, not trying to make up ground in one.
In essence it seems that you are advocating never to try to build a team that can win immunity, but rather just plod along in the middle of the pack. You want to build a "safe" team that platoons at all positions...just the strength of the platoon varies by where you draft them.This does make some sense in a format that is not head to head.I don't know if this just keeps you alive for a while and doesn't allow you to win the whole thing as you'll eventually need to go heads up against someone.bfred (and me last year) is going for the win by drafting studs at each position. I still think you can make up for your lack of WR production in the middle rounds while others are grabbing other positions.When he grabs a WR1 when you are grabbing WR2 and he grabs a WR2 when you grab a WR3, and he grabs a WR3 when you grab WR4, etc. I think the incremental differences between those WRs are not as significant as you are making it out to be.Last year my mediocre WR corps did much better than people thought week in and week out. It was my complete lack of production from CPep, Portis, Gonzo, and A Brooks at the beginning of the year that booted me.I never did pay attention to how I would have done the rest of the year (i.e. total points) so I don't know how high up I was.I think when you draft like BostonFred did you do have less margin for error. I screwed up last year by drafting Smith and Zereuoe in the 4th and 5th rounds and that is what killed me, not the lack of WR production.But I think if you are confident in your drafting ability you can do this and be successful in Survivor.
 
bfred (and me last year) is going for the win by drafting studs at each position. I still think you can make up for your lack of WR production in the middle rounds while others are grabbing other positions.
Yes, but you cannot makeup for QB or RB after 11 rounds or so.
 
In B-Fred's situation he did it twice - took C-Ppep and Gonzo - loss of either for a few weeks is irreplaceable on the roster and less likely compensated at other spots b/c he passed on good WRs to get those guys - lose either and he is behind in two areas, not trying to make up ground in one.
I can't wait till the whole draft is posted so I can explain why I disagree on almost all counts. I don't think my draft is a good one to make this point about. There's other areas you can point out, but this isn't one of them IMO.
 
bfred (and me last year) is going for the win by drafting studs at each position. I still think you can make up for your lack of WR production in the middle rounds while others are grabbing other positions.
Yes, but you cannot makeup for QB or RB after 11 rounds or so.
Sure you can. There's always something.
 
I understand your point about the VBD trap of taking a TE early. But doesn't the Murphy's law also apply to WR's and in fact all positions? I suppose you feel that inconsistency at WR can be covered by taking several late round WR's and trying to get even performace out of all 3 WR's that way.
Nope - you missed it -though the analogy works for top-QB early too.Taking a WR over the top-TE means your WR2 will be better, your W3 will be better, your WR4 will be better, etc. If you lose a piece, others step up. I gave the clearest analogy with why some folks take three RBs to openb up - they can lose their RB1 for several weeks and still potentially SURVIVE until that player's return - which is the name of the game.Lose your top TE for a few weeks and you lose not only HIS points, but th epotential points you gave up on by passing on a better WR1. Who replaces Gonzo gone for those few weeks? Unless you took Shock or Heap, noone. Who replaces a lost WR1 for a few weeks? The WR2 you hopefully picked not too far behind that WR1.It's not that taking the top-TEs is a bad idea, but the 2pts/rec. sets the trap at TE by bumping them even more (as was pointed out by KKrew - they static VBD out to the first round!). You are enticed to grab the top-3 TE basaedon the VBD advantage - but those guys are (now using a non-VBD analysis) irrelplaceable. You have passed on a way to bump other spots with a risk. In B-Fred's situation he did it twice - took C-Ppep and Gonzo - loss of either for a few weeks is irreplaceable on the roster and less likely compensated at other spots b/c he passed on good WRs to get those guys - lose either and he is behind in two areas, not trying to make up ground in one.
Marc, I agree with you in concept, but I think you're pushing it further than it warrants.VBD already takes into account that you use 3 WRs instead of 1. So while yes, there is additional value because of that, and maybe in this format there's a little more than what VBD says, it's still a small difference over what's already being shown in VBD. I get the impression you're neglecting that this effect should already have been accounted for from your input from VBD.The other thing is just because you take a WR1 now doesn't necessarily make your WR2 better. It may or it may not, depending on the circumstances. For example, I have a choice of WR1 or TE1 now. If my two drafts depending on that choice would look like:4th: WR1 ...... TE15th: QB1 ...... QB16th: WR2 ...... WR17th: WR3 ...... WR28th: TE1 ....... WR3 Then yes, taking WR1 made my WR2 and WR3 better. But what if I went: 4th: WR1 ..... TE15th: QB1 ..... WR16th: WR2 ...... WR27th: WR3 ...... WR38th: TE1 ...... QB1 I think you can see what I'm getting at. If you take TE1 now, you still might end up with the same exact guy at WR2 depending on how the draft goes. Or you might not. So yes, you can take it into account that taking WR1 might make your other WRs better, but I think it's worth realizing that may not be the case, so I don't know that I'd give it a huge weighting in my decision making unless I felt that was indeed the case for my specific circumstance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think when you draft like BostonFred did you do have less margin for error.
Yes and no. He drafted value no doubt about it. At the same time he has made his team susceptible to RB injury, RB down/anomaly weeks and RB bye weeks. Fred may very well cover his risk with some middle/late round finds at RB...they will be risky though and probably somewhat expensive.Fred is trying to hit the homerun just based on his first four rounds. Marc is advocating my approach which is more like a Tony Gwynn...hitting for average. Mathematically I like the Gwynn approach. It's a balancing act. Given we are drafting in June and given the amount of injuries and overall positional volatility in the NFL...I'll take mine and Marc's strategy every time.People have such a hard time with this strategy because it is nearly the opposite approach to how most of us approach our Re-Draft leagues...counterintuitive if you will. In most Re-drafts everything is upside and DVBD...not completely the case in Survivor IMHO.All of that being said, I gave B-Fred the highest grade of an A+, his value exceeded his risk in this specific instance. His only risk is really RB injury, which to an extent everybody faces...he faces it a little more than many not having a solid #3 yet. Because he has top QB he has the luxury of only taking two going forward and because he has Gonzo he can wait until late to take a sleeper TE. He will be deep at Defense and WR, maybe RB.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't like the staffs early run on QBs idea.
What don't you like about it? It might hurt someone who isn't prepared and allows them to possibly dictate a couple rounds if everyone else is following.I am ambivalent about it. This is why DVBD is so critical...you can see the runs, and analyze how many of each position is going to be taken in between picks so you can figure out if you need to take someone in that run or can wait.
I think you can put up consistent QB scoring without going QB early. The key is getting three. (or 2 with a Manning or Culpepper). This will be hotly debated after we see which squads went with what theories, but I'm pretty sold that after the top two QBs are selected QB should be waited on. I would be fine with Grossman, Harrington and Brunnell as my QBs, because I would have insane TE and WR value.
I won't comment until more of the draft is released, but the play was executed, IMO, with mixed results. We will have to wait and see whether the play works out better in action than on paper after the draft.What is nice is that it was a coordinated effort - we'll have to see if the coordinated effort takes the MB V Staff game or the overall individual title, or both. That was one (among many) of the points of this exercise - to see if "team play" could work in survivor formats.
it didn't work IMO. But hopefully we will get to discuss more today as the rounds come out.
 
bfred (and me last year) is going for the win by drafting studs at each position. I still think you can make up for your lack of WR production in the middle rounds while others are grabbing other positions.
Yes, but you cannot makeup for QB or RB after 11 rounds or so.
Sure you can. There's always something.
At the very least you're taking a risk that they will be there. They being uncontested starting QBs and RBs that will contribute when you need them to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't like the staffs early run on QBs idea.
I think you can put up consistent QB scoring without going QB early.  The key is getting three.
How can you get 3 QBs if you don't start drafting them early? They'll all be gone by the 8th round, so that means the longest you can hold off on drafting your first is the 6th round -- and even that means your QB3 will be a Kyle Boller type. If you want three decent QBs, you pretty much have to take them in rounds 5, 6, and 7 at the latest.We knew this ahead of time based on doing some mocks.
It's all relative I suppose...yes if people are making a run on the #4 to #25 QBs in rounds 5-8, your hand is somewhat forced. If that occurred I would go with two QBs most likely in rounds 7/8 and reap the benefits at WR in rounds 5/6/9/10. With that WR strength I would then go 3 TE and possibly 3 Defense. It totally throws everything out of whack. I'll need to take a look at this, but I can't believe all of the solid QBs would go by round 8. That is a full three rounds earlier than Survivor II.

I don't like it at all. Those teams are usually going to get punished at WR/TE.
:thumbup: :yes: you are getting way ahead of us... but you are right.

 
bfred (and me last year) is going for the win by drafting studs at each position.  I still think you can make up for your lack of WR production in the middle rounds while others are grabbing other positions.
Yes, but you cannot makeup for QB or RB after 11 rounds or so.
Sure you can. There's always something.
At the very least you're taking a risk that they will be there. They being uncontested starting QBs and RBs that will contribute when you need them to.
I think your definition of that is different from mine. Out of curiosity, have you seen the complete final draft, or just seen details from it?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top