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)

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?
Uh...no comment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My .02:I think an understanding of all of the approaches detailed in this thread is important to survivor drafting, as well as general drafting in everyones regular redrafts. But I think strict adherence to any system or strategy is a disaster. You have to be flexible, and willing to adjust your approach when the draft falls in unexpected ways - i.e. B-Fred finding C-Pepp in his lap at 3.07.Amongst all of the differing theories being discussed, I think there's a real possibility that someone keeping it simple (drafting BPA using VBD while also paying special attention to position depth, bye weeks, and gut) has an opportunity to steal this thing.What stood out to me after perusing several of the early survivor drafts in the mock forum was the WR value to be had in the middle rounds (5-10). In survivor formats, where you don't have to name your starters, that places extra value on getting RBs and QBs early, even if you have to reach a bit. I guess that's what led HERD and a couple others to some of their shoulder separations in the 3rd and 4th.

 
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.
I still don't buy into your approach as I feel it only keeps you alive for the 1st half of the contest but doesn't allow you to win it.You are giving up value to be "safe" and while that will keep you alive while a few risk takers are eliminated by a fluke early, you will eventually be beat by someone who did hit the homerun.Either that, or you are only against other "safe" teams and you hope you have a less crappy week than your opponent.
 
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.
You and I agree so much. I think you're going to be surprised with the way this works out.
 
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.
Well, that is the idea behind "redundancy" - if your WR 2 and WR1 are comparable talents, and your WR 3 and WR 4 are compearable talents, which is what you are goign for, you have lost less than if your WR 1 is far superior to your WR 2 and your WR 3, etc.
 
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.
Maybe - but that is not what I am advocating - I am not saying avoid either top-QB or top-TE, but you play with fire taking BOTH and passing at BOTH spots on the beginning of a more competitive WR crew - the WR crew is able to adjust to Murphy's law, the loss of Gonzo or C-Pepp does not.DO NOT keep taking this as "don't take those guys" - but it should be undertaken with an idea of managing the risk having those guys possesses. Lik ei keep saying - the very fact that those guys are irreplaceable from a VBD standpoint makes the risk of taking them instead of postions where you can create redundancies very risky in this type of league.Look, you do not want to play it "safe" as you call it if you can adjust to losses on the fly, but you DO want to play it "safe" as you call it when th ename of the game is SURVIVAL.It is not a "dominator" league, it is a "survivor" league.
 
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.
Well, actually, he'll likely be grabbing a WR2 when SOME other teams are grabbing a WR4, but that is probably beside the point when the idea is building a deep pool at the position.Look at it this way - I take two WRs where BFred took his two studs and then I take two or three QBs in the rounds 5-8. Even if he grabs two WRs there, we have ewqual cocompeteition with each other for WR 3/4, or I zig and take a couple TEs of the TE 4-10 range. IMO, I am better prepared for Murphy's law and I have NOT sacrificed anything from my starting lineup.My three QB platoon likely competes "well enough" versus his stud QB, my WRs are significantly better, and his TE is 4-6 points better "most, not all" weeks.Would I play it in a non-best starter league like that - CLEARLY not, but we are arguing survivor - again, SURVIVOR. Yeah, I guess I am saying the idea is to manage a team that is not outstanding, but just keeps getting by. That's all you want that team to do - and you want it to hit a nice lucky streak - like any other team H2h, points or other - near the end of the year to take the championship.LHUCKS' team was definitely NOT the best team afte the draft (on paper) in our SII League - but he survived long enough to get lucky the last few weeks.
 
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.
Acvtually, B-Fred, I COMPLETELY agree with you regarding how YOU drafted. I know the rest of your draft and if you are able to weather that week 7/8 without your top-2 RBs, deppsite what I already know is your pool of players that will be trying to do it, you are likely to go very deep into the league. One or two things break differently that week and you coul dhave a good ***** of 1s and 2s in your lineup that will be really tough to overcome.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I still don't buy into your approach as I feel it only keeps you alive for the 1st half of the contest but doesn't allow you to win it.You are giving up value to be "safe" and while that will keep you alive while a few risk takers are eliminated by a fluke early, you will eventually be beat by someone who did hit the homerun.Either that, or you are only against other "safe" teams and you hope you have a less crappy week than your opponent.
Whose to say somebody is going to hit the homerun? Whose to say I'm not going to hit the homerun? I would have drafted the exact same as Fred given his draft positions and players that slid to him. You need to weigh the risk vs. value constantly. From what I have seen many persons have not done that in this draft...you take what the draft gives you.Usually you don't get value like Gonzo and C-Pep though and the three starting RB angle is the more standard approach. The best drafters are quick thinkers and adjust on the fly to the draft...in that respect it was clever of the FBGs to throw a twist with their idea of going QBs early and often, they may have anticipated the static strategy of the MB team...it would have backfired against a team full of LHUCKS though :football:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
I agree here - the value exceeded the risk. That said, I predict that as the draft unfolds, B-Fred will dip to a low of a B/B+ and will then finsh up back at an A+ ranking again once his whole team is laid out.In the round 8-16 commentary I am working on, I have quite a few Guiness Guys commentary on B-Fred's moves: :banned: BRILLIANT!! :banned:
 
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.
Maybe - but that is not what I am advocating - I am not saying avoid either top-QB or top-TE, but you play with fire taking BOTH and passing at BOTH spots on the beginning of a more competitive WR crew - the WR crew is able to adjust to Murphy's law, the loss of Gonzo or C-Pepp does not.DO NOT keep taking this as "don't take those guys" - but it should be undertaken with an idea of managing the risk having those guys possesses. Lik ei keep saying - the very fact that those guys are irreplaceable from a VBD standpoint makes the risk of taking them instead of postions where you can create redundancies very risky in this type of league.Look, you do not want to play it "safe" as you call it if you can adjust to losses on the fly, but you DO want to play it "safe" as you call it when th ename of the game is SURVIVAL.It is not a "dominator" league, it is a "survivor" league.
You're reading my mind Marc. :goodposting:
 
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.
Maybe - but that is not what I am advocating - I am not saying avoid either top-QB or top-TE, but you play with fire taking BOTH and passing at BOTH spots on the beginning of a more competitive WR crew - the WR crew is able to adjust to Murphy's law, the loss of Gonzo or C-Pepp does not.DO NOT keep taking this as "don't take those guys" - but it should be undertaken with an idea of managing the risk having those guys possesses. Lik ei keep saying - the very fact that those guys are irreplaceable from a VBD standpoint makes the risk of taking them instead of postions where you can create redundancies very risky in this type of league.Look, you do not want to play it "safe" as you call it if you can adjust to losses on the fly, but you DO want to play it "safe" as you call it when th ename of the game is SURVIVAL.It is not a "dominator" league, it is a "survivor" league.
You're reading my mind Marc. :goodposting:
Where are you drafting in SOSII again? I'd like to make sure you are on the other end if possible. ;)
 
can we get back to talking about how great my team is? :hophead: TIA
Your squad just isn't very controversial ...pretty standard strategy with 3 RBs. I thought you got great value with Coles sliding.
 
can we get back to talking about how great my team is?  :hophead: TIA
Your squad just isn't very controversial ...pretty standard strategy with 3 RBs. I thought you got great value with Coles sliding.
I think for anyone picking in the early part of the draft (top-3 picks or so), going RB-RB-RB is the best possible strategy to take. Unlike most years, there are still quality RBs available at the beginning of the 3rd round this year. I wasn't expecting to wind up with a WR1 as good as Coles...that will just end up making my team even stronger.I understand passing on a 3rd RB if the value in round 3 just isn't there. If I was picking in a mid or late part of the draft, I likely would have employed a different strategy. At that point, going RB3 will end up hurting you compared to the other teams that already locked up a strong RB3, so you need to make up for that disadvantage by building an advantage at other positions. That's where going stud QB, stud WR, or stud TE begins to make sense.seriously though, my team is awesome, and anything less than an A+ grade in the future will not be tolerated. :rant: We demand our props!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Well, that is the idea behind "redundancy" - if your WR 2 and WR1 are comparable talents, and your WR 3 and WR 4 are compearable talents, which is what you are goign for, you have lost less than if your WR 1 is far superior to your WR 2 and your WR 3, etc.
You can get redundancy at WR precisely because there are so many of them with similar value. You can not get redundancy at TE because there are so few with consistent value.I do not see how anyone could argue that Gonzalez is not consistent. Last year in this scoring system his lowest scoring weeks were week 1 & 2 because he was coming off an injury. If we disregard those 1st 2 weeks he never scored less than 11.2 points. His highest scoring week was 33.3 - that is RB1 production from your TE. I know you will say you can not disregard the first 2 weeks because you may not survive and that is the point of redundancy, but I would counter that that is what a TE2 is for.For example if you pair 2 midlevel TE's like Mili & Pollard their combined scoring last season is 219 points vs Gonzalez who scored 293 by himself. I chose Pollard & Mili randomly but they were the #6 & #10 TEs in this scoring system last year so they are an above average pairing.Last year when I won the FBG $15K I paired Gonzalez with Becht and ended up with a total of 322 points at TE. That was more points than I got from RB2 or WR2. Gonzalez was the higher scoring TE 13 out of 16 weeks. Gonzalez is the only TE I would argue this point about. He is the total package when it comes to receptions, yards & TDs. He is the top receiving redzone threat of one of the most high powered offense in the league. He is in a class by himself and most defintely worth a 4th round pick. The other top 2 TE's do not compare to him.
 
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.
Well, that is the idea behind "redundancy" - if your WR 2 and WR1 are comparable talents, and your WR 3 and WR 4 are compearable talents, which is what you are goign for, you have lost less than if your WR 1 is far superior to your WR 2 and your WR 3, etc.
You can get redundancy at WR precisely because there are so many of them with similar value. You can not get redundancy at TE because there are so few with consistent value.I do not see how anyone could argue that Gonzalez is not consistent. Last year in this scoring system his lowest scoring weeks were week 1 & 2 because he was coming off an injury. If we disregard those 1st 2 weeks he never scored less than 11.2 points. His highest scoring week was 33.3 - that is RB1 production from your TE. I know you will say you can not disregard the first 2 weeks because you may not survive and that is the point of redundancy, but I would counter that that is what a TE2 is for.For example if you pair 2 midlevel TE's like Mili & Pollard their combined scoring last season is 219 points vs Gonzalez who scored 293 by himself. I chose Pollard & Mili randomly but they were the #6 & #10 TEs in this scoring system last year so they are an above average pairing.Last year when I won the FBG $15K I paired Gonzalez with Becht and ended up with a total of 322 points at TE. That was more points than I got from RB2 or WR2. Gonzalez was the higher scoring TE 13 out of 16 weeks. Gonzalez is the only TE I would argue this point about. He is the total package when it comes to receptions, yards & TDs. He is the top receiving redzone threat of one of the most high powered offense in the league. He is in a class by himself and most defintely worth a 4th round pick. The other top 2 TE's do not compare to him.
Who's arguing with Gonzo being consistent or not consistent? Gonzo is IRREPLACEABLE not INCONSISTENT. You can't GET redundancy w/Gonzo unless you also take Shock and/or Heap. You do not get redundancy by getting a platoon of lower tier players - you get redundancy by getting more than one comparably valued player at the same position.Just answer me this and I'll stop: 1) do you understand my point that the irreplaceable nature of Gonzo makes him both more valuable and more risky in this survivor format?2) if you understand that, do you understand WHY passing on th emore valuable player sometimes is the "better" move in this format?I understand that your 15K play was a good one for you last year, but that format is not similar enought to this survivor format to take lessons from it - I would be glad to debate why in another forum, but suffice it to say for these purposes that you could have bad early weeks from Gonzo in THAT format and still survive - you get bad early weeks from Gonzo in THIS format and his team could easily be doomed.
 
1) do you understand my point that the irreplaceable nature of Gonzo makes him both more valuable and more risky in this survivor format?2) if you understand that, do you understand WHY passing on th emore valuable player sometimes is the "better" move in this format?
Yes I understand that Gonzalez is irreplacable. I thought part of your position was that you need redundancy because of week to week inconsistency in positional scoring in addition to covering yourself on byes or possible injuries? I feel you do not need redundancy if you have consistent scoring from 1 player at a position. If I misunderstood your point then I was wrong.I'm not sure why being irreplacable makes Gonzalez more risky. All of the top positional players are irreplacable in this sense. That is why they are at the top. What WR4 is going to replace Moss or Harrison? Let's say for argument sake that Gonzalez is more risky than drafting at another position. The more interesting question is at what point does the potential greater reward outweigh the risk. So I agree with your second point. Sometimes it is a better move to pass on the more valuable player in a survivor format. At some point though it is not.All players have risk and reward. At some point the reward outweighs the risk.I think Gonzalez at 4.5 is well worth the risk.Good discussion. Can't wait to read your analysis of the draft.
 
Good commentary Marc.The back-to-back quarterback selections was done for a few reasons...1. To ensure two good quarterbacks with different bye weeks2. I didn't want to go TE that early (once Gonzalez was off the board) and I already had three solid RB options.3.. I saw a lot of later value at the receiver positions. For example, I had Jimmy Smith as the top remaining receiver since round four (he is ranked 10th now on my cheat sheet). I knew I had an outstanding chance of picking him in round six, thus beginning my quest for value at the receiver position so I waited on him and was rewarded.* In a survivor draft, I believe wholeheartedly that drafting six receivers later in the draft can help you to score high. The key is to target players later in the draft that can rack up a few big weeks during the season. Those types of players will help your team survive week to week.I love my squad as it develops throughout the draft and feel I got unbelievable value at the receiver position. Stay tuned.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
what I want to know is, what did you do with your $15k? :confused:
I said after I won the $15K that I wanted to take my wife & 3 boys to DisneyWorld. My wife was against that so we did something practical - had the house sided.Not very exciting but it saves me some work around the house which means more time for Fantasy Football.
 
what I want to know is, what did you do with your $15k? :confused:
I said after I won the $15K that I wanted to take my wife & 3 boys to DisneyWorld. My wife was against that so we did something practical - had the house sided.Not very exciting but it saves me some work around the house which means more time for Fantasy Football.
HAHA that reminds me of that one commerical with the guy and his Harley, and the other guy admiring it, and saying to the guy he had the money to get a Harley, but he used it to buy some fine China or something.. :rotflmao:
 
what I want to know is, what did you do with your $15k?  :confused:
I said after I won the $15K that I wanted to take my wife & 3 boys to DisneyWorld. My wife was against that so we did something practical - had the house sided.Not very exciting but it saves me some work around the house which means more time for Fantasy Football.
HAHA that reminds me of that one commerical with the guy and his Harley, and the other guy admiring it, and saying to the guy he had the money to get a Harley, but he used it to buy some fine China or something.. :rotflmao:
:rotflmao: Ahh.. the joys of marriage ;)
 
what I want to know is, what did you do with your $15k? :confused:
I said after I won the $15K that I wanted to take my wife & 3 boys to DisneyWorld. My wife was against that so we did something practical - had the house sided.Not very exciting but it saves me some work around the house which means more time for Fantasy Football.
I wish I'd never read this. Seriously, I won't sleep well tonight.So anyways, after round six, I picked up Eric Moulds and Tatum Bell.I've said for quite a while that Moulds is my WR4 overall. If I went WR in the third, it would have been Moulds over Coles or Ward. To this day, I don't understand why people look at Bledsoe joining Moulds, and both of them doing super well, then Moulds getting hurt, and Bledsoe falling off the charts, and say clearly, Bledsoe is done. I think Moulds is going to be a bona fide stud this year.But to get him in the fifth? I mean, I feel like every guy I got slipped, from Portis who slipped a couple picks, to Davis who slipped almost half a round, to Culpepper, Gonzo and Moulds who each slipped a round. How could you pass on any of them at this spot? My sixth pick, Bell, actually slipped a little compared to ADP at the time, too, but he wasn't the huge value pick. Instead, he's my pick to make my team stronger by my week 7 bye issues. I didn't get an average running back for the whole year. I got a top running back who I feel will be solid, if not a stud, by week 7. That makes the week 7/8 combined bye week look a lot better for me, and means that I don't have to spend a lot of upcoming picks on RBs, although I'd like to add more depth at the position. At this point, the draft was as good as I could have hoped. I feel I have one of the best pairs of RBs (neither being the best on their own, but each being better than anyone else's two RBs), the best TE, the best QB and a top 4 WR on my roster. Would anyone have done anything differently at this point?
 
At this point, the draft was as good as I could have hoped. I feel I have one of the best pairs of RBs (neither being the best on their own, but each being better than anyone else's two RBs), the best TE, the best QB and a top 4 WR on my roster. Would anyone have done anything differently at this point?
Moulds was a great value for you in the 5th. If I could have waited on QB, I would likely have taken Moulds at 5.02. But, that would have meant I'd be relying on Carson Palmer as my QB1 right now instead of as my QB2. If Coles was gone, I probably would have taken Moulds as high as 4.11.I think Deshaun Foster would have been a better choice than Bell in the 6th but hard to say for sure. Bell is a huge boom or bust guy this year, which scares me in a survivor draft. Foster is projected to get a lot of work so he should score more consistently even if he doesn't start.Also, I think Holmes and Dillon will outscore your top 2 RBs. :boxing:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moulds was a great value for you in the 5th. If I could have waited on QB, I would likely have taken Moulds at 5.02. But, that would have meant I'd be relying on Carson Palmer as my QB1 right now instead of as my QB2. If Coles was gone, I probably would have taken Moulds as high as 4.11.
Thank you.
I think Deshaun Foster would have been a better choice than Bell in the 6th but hard to say for sure. Bell is a huge boom or bust guy this year, which scares me in a survivor draft. Foster is projected to get a lot of work so he should score more consistently even if he doesn't start.
I think Bell's chances of being valuable on week 7 of this year are greater than Foster's. I'm also not a huge fan of Carolina to repeat their good year last year.
Also, I think Holmes and Dillon will outscore your top 2 RBs. :boxing:
Actually, I had originally written "the best pair of RBs", but after thinking of Priest/Dillon I changed it to "one of the best". I think that was a sick combo - I'm surprised that people are waiting on Dillon this year, considering he traditionally went in the early second or late first when he was on the Bengals, and everyone wondered what would happen if he ever joined a "real" team. On a price-per-pick basis, those two are great. Since you used the boxing gloves, though, I'll point out that I think Duce was a terrible pick. Even if you like him this year (I don't), he won't add much scoring to your team on a weekly basis because Priest and Dillon will both score enough to start most weeks. You were getting a ton of team scoring from your first two picks, but now you're getting a lot less, on average, spread across your first three picks.
 
Since you used the boxing gloves, though, I'll point out that I think Duce was a terrible pick. Even if you like him this year (I don't), he won't add much scoring to your team on a weekly basis because Priest and Dillon will both score enough to start most weeks. You were getting a ton of team scoring from your first two picks, but now you're getting a lot less, on average, spread across your first three picks.
that's fine. I can understand that argument and if I was picking later in the 3rd, I could have seen going a different direction.BUT, I know RBs are scarce in any league but especially in a survivor league. Through a season, RBs often get injured or have a bad game or two. Having 3 non-RBBC guys with different bye weeks was important to me, and the only way for me to really do that was to go RB-RB-RB to start the draft. I really don't see anybody out there who was a better value than Staley at the 3.02 spot.My pre-draft plan was to go:RB-RB-RB-WR-QB-QB-QB-then take best value the rest of the way. That assured me of having the 2 most important positions locked up with 3 solid starters, plus I knew I'd have one top-10 WR to anchor my team as well. I feel the TE group is as deep this year as it has been in awhile and was not interested in grabbing a stud TE unless the value was too good to pass up. But, picking where I was at 3.02 and then not again until 4.11, I was pretty sure I wouldn't have a chance at any of the big TEs this year.I would have been willing to adjust if anything surprising happened and someone unexpected slipped to me. For example, Holt would have been a definite temptation were he to fall and Dillon wasn't there. But, with Dillon having a week 3 bye and Holmes having a week 5 bye, I felt it was important to add a 3rd RB who could contribute during those weeks and provide insurance throughout the season. Having 3 RBs on the roster after 3 rounds allows you to draft value the rest of the way instead of being forced to reach on players that may amount to very little. I didn't feel comfortable passing on Staley and waiting until 4.11 or later to grab my RB3. I tried that last year and got burned when I relied heavily on William Green as my RB2...but ended up getting more points from Buckhalter and Betts who I drafted much later.I don't really see Staley as much of a risk at all. As I've said, my draft plan for the first 4 rounds worked out perfectly and I wouldn't change a thing right now. I would, however, have been forced into making some picks I wasn't crazy about if Dillon had gone earlier. My team would look much different now if that had happened.I understand the idea of trying to maximize points and taking a "backup" in round 3 seems like a waste to some, but the flexibility it gives you for later rounds is very underrated, IMO. I've been in both types of drafts and I almost always end up doing better when I am not forced into guessing which RBs will do something in the 5th - 8th rounds or so. Those are picks that are much better spent on sure things at QB and WR. Meanwhile, some of those "stud" WRs that go in the 3rd and 4th round sometimes disappoint big time (i.e., Moulds, Plaxico, KRob last year) and leave your team in shambles before too long.In one draft last year, I thought I made great value picks, but I only had 1 RB on my roster after 4 rounds. I went Shawn Alexander in the 1st, then Randy Moss in the 2nd, then Michael Vick in the 3rd, then Todd Heap in the 4th. I was maximizing my scoring at each of the 4 positions, but in the 5th my best opportunity for a RB2 was Onterrio Smith, who didn't do much unil late in the year. Then, I also ended up chasing him with guys like Jerome Bettis and Correll Buckhalter, instead of taking advantage of the wealth of WR and QB and even TE talent available later on.In survivor, I think flexibility is key. You spread your bye weeks out as much as possible and try to keep your options open. I think grabbing 3 solid RBs in a row did that for me. Just curious, but who do you think would have been a better selection for me at 3.02? Sure, you may not think much of Staley, but truth be told, if Dillon was gone I likely would have taken Staley at 2.11 as my RB2 and then grabbed Kevin Jones at 3.02 as my RB3. I also noticed that you used FBG projections a lot earlier when discussing the worth of Gonzo, Culpepper, etc. Well, did you take a look at their projections for Staley? Top-20 back in normal leagues plus 48 receptions, which puts him nearly on par with your boy DDavis. If I end up with 3 solid top-20 RBs, the rest of my team won't need to do as much to keep me from being eliminated. Being able to rely on consistent RB production each week is a big advantage, and I expect that my 3 QBs and 6 or 7 WRs will score enough as a group to carry me a long way.
 
In survivor, I think flexibility is key. You spread your bye weeks out as much as possible and try to keep your options open. I think grabbing 3 solid RBs in a row did that for me. Just curious, but who do you think would have been a better selection for me at 3.02? Sure, you may not think much of Staley, but truth be told, if Dillon was gone I likely would have taken Staley at 2.11 as my RB2 and then grabbed Kevin Jones at 3.02 as my RB3. I also noticed that you used FBG projections a lot earlier when discussing the worth of Gonzo, Culpepper, etc. Well, did you take a look at their projections for Staley? Top-20 back in normal leagues plus 48 receptions, which puts him nearly on par with your boy DDavis. If I end up with 3 solid top-20 RBs, the rest of my team won't need to do as much to keep me from being eliminated. Being able to rely on consistent RB production each week is a big advantage, and I expect that my 3 QBs and 6 or 7 WRs will score enough as a group to carry me a long way.
I can't tell if the flexibility argument is a good one, or if you're justifying going RB-RB-RB no matter what your first three picks, and QB-QB-QB later, and using the word flexibility to hide the fact that you wouldn't have wavered from it unless a top 3 WR fell to you at 2.11. Personally, I think I would have taken Culpepper there. I already explained why when I took him. In fact, if we were in a league with this scoring system that allowed trades, and you offered me Duce for Culpepper right now, I'd say no. I don't think most people would say yes. As of week 6, I expect my starters at QB, RB1, RB2, WR, and TE to score about 1300 points. You expect yours at QB, RB1, RB2, WR to start about 1100. Your strategy puts you back a couple hundred points at the same positions with just TE left to go. You definitely have the benefit of smoothing out your RB and QB scoring, which is nice, and you're more injury proof and bust proof, but taking Duce there was an unnecessary luxury IMO.
 
Moulds was a great value for you in the 5th. If I could have waited on QB, I would likely have taken Moulds at 5.02. But, that would have meant I'd be relying on Carson Palmer as my QB1 right now instead of as my QB2. If Coles was gone, I probably would have taken Moulds as high as 4.11.I think Deshaun Foster would have been a better choice than Bell in the 6th but hard to say for sure. Bell is a huge boom or bust guy this year, which scares me in a survivor draft. Foster is projected to get a lot of work so he should score more consistently even if he doesn't start.
Let me ask you a different question to put it in perspective. Do you think:PriestDillonCulpepperColesMouldsFoster would have been better than your current draft?
 
Let me ask you a different question to put it in perspective. Do you think:PriestDillonCulpepperColesMouldsFoster would have been better than your current draft?
not sure. I'm not really a big Culpepper guy generally...he's perfectly capable of putting up some stinker games which makes him less valuable in this format than he would be elsewhere.comparing the 2 teamsRB1 is equalRB2 is equalRB3 is worseQB1 is betterQB2 is worseWR1 is sameWR2 is betterI'm not sure the Culpepper advantage is enough to offset having 2 quality starters (assuming Palmer becomes one this year) at QB. And I'm not sure adding Moulds is that much better than the combination of my WR4 and WR5 who I can get much later.
 
You definitely have the benefit of smoothing out your RB and QB scoring, which is nice, and you're more injury proof and bust proof, but taking Duce there was an unnecessary luxury IMO.
that's basically my main goal in a survivor league. Above all else, I want to prevent my team from having that 1 bad week. Having depth at QB, RB, WR, and TE is the best way to go about doing that, IMO. And the best way to get depth at QB and RB without sacrificing valuable roster spots is to spend early picks on them.I have a couple minor concerns about my team as a whole, but I think it's a serious contender to stick around awhile.I agree completely with the strategy you and Unlucky are advocating in a H2H league. But, in Survivor, you actually are starting ALL your players and only benching the ones who score the least. Thus, I don't view a 3rd RB as a backup. I view that player as a critical component of a successful team who will likely count towards my total at least 33% of the year. While a Culpepper might count 66% of the year, I'm more comfortable relying equally on 3 QBs each week and hoping that one goes off instead of counting on Culpepper to go off each and every week for consistently good QB scoring.
 
Thus, I don't view a 3rd RB as a backup. I view that player as a critical component of a successful team who will likely count towards my total at least 33% of the year. While a Culpepper might count 66% of the year, I'm more comfortable relying equally on 3 QBs each week and hoping that one goes off instead of counting on Culpepper to go off each and every week for consistently good QB scoring.
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement and have employed that strategy with much success in all the survivor leagues I've participated in. Yes, a 3rd RB might ride the pine a lot in H2H leagues because you just don't play him. But, if you go back and look at the stats, that 3rd one steps up and outplays your number 2 and sometimes your number 1 quite frequently. Throw in the possibility of byes and injury at the riskiest position, and 3 RBs very early is the way I like to go.
 
Just a theory type statement to add: I think the only way to prevent a "stinker" week is to draft the best overall team you can. Draft the best players and throw consistency out the window. Even if your team is full of "inconsistent" players, (which you can't predict) it's still random that they'll all have bad weeks the same week. I think many overrate the "consistency" factor in these drafts.Note: Consistency from year to year is good. Players like Moss, Harrison, Culpepper, and Manning that put up stud numbers every year are good. Trying to predict weekly is a waste of time. You're hurting your team if you draft a supposedly more consistent player over a higher scoring one.

 
I agree that you cannot predict weekly consistency. If anyone could, they'd own Vegas. However, the best way that I have found to mitigate erractic scoring in a survivor format is to have a lot of strong RBs because they tend to be much more consistent than other positions since they are usually more likely to get the touches necessary to at least put up medicore performances. Yeah, you can pass on the depth and build a better overall starting team ( and that's what I'd do if it was one week and done or an H2H league), but I think it hurts your chances in this format. I also disagree with backloading bye weeks into the double weeks. If you can space the bye weeks out appropriately without sacrificing too much value, I like to have a number of guys with early bye weeks so that I have extra depth later on in the competition. I generally draft a fairly conservative team of players with relatively early bye weeks.

 
not sure. I'm not really a big Culpepper guy generally...he's perfectly capable of putting up some stinker games which makes him less valuable in this format than he would be elsewhere.
Culpepper's stinker games...Week 3 - 19 ptWeek 12 - 13 ptWeek 15 - 16 ptEvery other game he played he posted 20 on more pts. Manning averaged around 21 ppg last year.
 
not sure. I'm not really a big Culpepper guy generally...he's perfectly capable of putting up some stinker games which makes him less valuable in this format than he would be elsewhere.
Culpepper's stinker games...Week 3 - 19 ptWeek 12 - 13 ptWeek 15 - 16 ptEvery other game he played he posted 20 on more pts. Manning averaged around 21 ppg last year.
he sure didn't help Sandbagger much last year in SII :mellow:
 
not sure. I'm not really a big Culpepper guy generally...he's perfectly capable of putting up some stinker games which makes him less valuable in this format than he would be elsewhere.
Culpepper's stinker games...Week 3 - 19 ptWeek 12 - 13 ptWeek 15 - 16 ptEvery other game he played he posted 20 on more pts. Manning averaged around 21 ppg last year.
he sure didn't help Sandbagger much last year in SII :mellow:
But that's the rub with Survivor format. As Chase pointed out, the team with Priest Holmes and Jamal Lewis was eliminated in Week 1 last season, you just never know if you're safe. Priest/JLew was THE dream combination last season in redrafts, it was almost impossible not to make the playoffs with those two on board, yet he was the first guy out.
 
On a side note -- are we planning on keeping the total points scored by each team, each week? Even those knocked out each week?I think this would be kinda nice, because you can see certain things, such as an owner who has a star-studded lineup who gets knocked out one week due to a crappy week overall, and how they would have done the rest of the way if they hadn't had that one bad week.

 
On a side note -- are we planning on keeping the total points scored by each team, each week? Even those knocked out each week?I think this would be kinda nice, because you can see certain things, such as an owner who has a star-studded lineup who gets knocked out one week due to a crappy week overall, and how they would have done the rest of the way if they hadn't had that one bad week.
I hope we do.... :thumbup:
 
not sure. I'm not really a big Culpepper guy generally...he's perfectly capable of putting up some stinker games which makes him less valuable in this format than he would be elsewhere.
Culpepper's stinker games...Week 3 - 19 ptWeek 12 - 13 ptWeek 15 - 16 ptEvery other game he played he posted 20 on more pts. Manning averaged around 21 ppg last year.
he sure didn't help Sandbagger much last year in SII :mellow:
Thereby further explaining the lack of importance of the QBs.
 
On a side note -- are we planning on keeping the total points scored by each team, each week? Even those knocked out each week?I think this would be kinda nice, because you can see certain things, such as an owner who has a star-studded lineup who gets knocked out one week due to a crappy week overall, and how they would have done the rest of the way if they hadn't had that one bad week.
All they have to do is put the Potential Points category in the standings on MFL (assuming they set up the scoring system and starting line up requirements in the league), and it'll reflect your max possible fantasy points for your optimum starting lineup each week, which is the same as total points in a Survivor league.Also, if they do this, all they have to do is check the Weekly Summary page and it'll tell you how many points the best lineup for that team would have scored that week.
 
not sure. I'm not really a big Culpepper guy generally...he's perfectly capable of putting up some stinker games which makes him less valuable in this format than he would be elsewhere.
Culpepper's stinker games...Week 3 - 19 ptWeek 12 - 13 ptWeek 15 - 16 ptEvery other game he played he posted 20 on more pts. Manning averaged around 21 ppg last year.
he sure didn't help Sandbagger much last year in SII :mellow:
By the way...my point was that Culpepper threw up fewer stinkers then Manning did.
 
Having three quarterbacks on a fantasy roster.

I just compiled the fantasy points produced by my three quarterbacks from a year ago. Now this is hardly an exact science and a lot more data would have to be included to be a true study. The results however are still interesting...

* note - the 0 points scored in week nine come from both Trent Green and Steve McNair having the same bye week in 2003.

* note - I didn't write in the name of my third quarterback. You may be able to figure it out by looking at the numbers but please don't post his name until the next two rounds are posted.

* note - the numbers may not be exactly accurate as I banged this out in a hurry...

Week McNair Green ? (TBA)

1 18.9 15 14.2

2 9 7 13.4

3 18.7 12.6 9

4 18.5 10.4 19.8

5 26.8 13 0

6 28 28.7 18

7 20 13.6 7.6

8 11 18.7 6

9 0 0 0

10 14 26 14

11 11 20 0

12 11.9 14 0

13 16 12 3

14 25 25 0

15 0 26.4 0

16 18.5 6 16

17 0 9.9 3

As expected, both my top two quarterbacks had the most top weeks. However my third string guy (whom I expect to be way better in 2004 had the top score in two of the first four weeks of the season). Having that third quarterback last year would have helped to maximize my points and this year as I said earlier, he should be much stronger and could have 3-5 weeks as my top guy. Getting a 3rd quarterback in Survivor leagues can be huge.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Having three quarterbacks on a fantasy roster.

I just compiled the fantasy points produced by my three quarterbacks from a year ago. Now this is hardly an exact science and a lot more data would have to be included to be a true study. The results however are still interesting...

* note - the 0 points scored in week nine come from both Trent Green and Steve McNair having the same bye week in 2003.

* note - I didn't write in the name of my third quarterback. You may be able to figure it out by looking at the numbers but please don't post his name until the next two rounds are posted.

* note - the numbers may not be exactly accurate as I banged this out in a hurry...

Week McNair Green ? (TBA)

1 18.9 15 14.2

2 9 7 13.4

3 18.7 12.6 9

4 18.5 10.4 19.8

5 26.8 13 0

6 28 28.7 18

7 20 13.6 7.6

8 11 18.7 6

9 0 0 0

10 14 26 14

11 11 20 0

12 11.9 14 0

13 16 12 3

14 25 25 0

15 0 26.4 0

16 18.5 6 16

17 0 9.9 3

As expected, both my top two quarterbacks had the most top weeks. However my third string guy (whom I expect to be way better in 2004 had the top score in two of the first four weeks of the season). Having that third quarterback last year would have helped to maximize my points and this year as I said earlier, he should be much stronger and could have 3-5 weeks as my top guy. Getting a 3rd quarterback in Survivor leagues can be huge.
So you think that roster spot is worth gaining an extra 4.4 (his 13.4 minus McNair's 9) points on the season over what you'd have had without 3 QBs?
 
Also, I think Holmes and Dillon will outscore your top 2 RBs.
Why are some of you so high on Corey Dillon?1) Dillon has scored 7 or less TD's in 5 of the last 6 seasons.2) The Patriots have scored 8 or less TOTAL TEAM RUSHING TD'S in 3 out of the last 4 seasons.3) Behind virtually the same OL, in limited starts, Rudi Johnson came within 1 rushing TD of matching Corey Dillon's career best.4) Dillon's on the wrong side of 30.5) Dillon is coming off of an injury plagued season, and even when healthy he looked very average with a YPC of 3.9 despite Rudi being able to run at a 4.5 clip behind the same OL.6) The Patriots primary ball carriers over the last 4 seasons have collectively averaged a 3.6 YPC.I think Dillon disappoints many fantasy owners this season. He won't score 10+ TD's, he is likely to miss a few games and New England will be RBBC for most of the season. And despite limited carries and another sub-1000 yard campaign, New England will continue to win games and Corey Dillon will finally have a smile on his face.In Rudnicki's case, he is fortunate to have Priest who should help make up for Dillon's lack of production. Staley will count as his RB2 as often if not more so than Dillon.
 
I agree about Dillon. With Faulk still around taking some 3rd down carries & receptions, Dillon doesn't rush for 1,000 yards nor does he score very many TDs.He is currently overpriced for what he will do in 2004.

 
So you think that roster spot is worth gaining an extra 4.4 (his 13.4 minus McNair's 9) points on the season over what you'd have had without 3 QBs?
No, that minimal scoring difference is not the real value here. The value of having 3 QB comes from ALL 6 of the Staff teams having that many--and taking them early.That limited the options of the MB teams and for some teams created some pretty major issues. Does having a 3 QB that might not be used much in this scoring system "help" in OUR scoring? Probably not.

Does having all these extra QB help in limiting the MB's QB scoring? Very likely.

 
I agree about Dillon. With Faulk still around taking some 3rd down carries & receptions, Dillon doesn't rush for 1,000 yards nor does he score very many TDs.He is currently overpriced for what he will do in 2004.
Dillon WILL be a Top 10 RB this year.
 
I agree about Dillon. With Faulk still around taking some 3rd down carries & receptions, Dillon doesn't rush for 1,000 yards nor does he score very many TDs.He is currently overpriced for what he will do in 2004.
Dillon WILL be a Top 10 RB this year.
Interesting. I have Dillon as the #28 RB this year.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top