Thinking out loud a theory that I think worked for me (1 Viewer)

[Carter_Can_Fly]

So in my intitial start up dynasty 3 years ago I was laughed at when I selected J. Peppers and J. Allen as some of the first defensive guys taken. I actually selected Peppers as the first defensive guy taken in the whole draft. I then selected J. Allen after everybody was again selecting LB's. I was laughed at and told that LB's score all the points and that I should have drafted LB's.

Now, I specifically told the guys that DE's are much tougher to find. You can always find scoring LB's but it is so difficult to find those DE's that can get you points and win you weeks. I said that every given year I would do extremely well with my theory of adding my LB points and DE points together in comparison to anyone else in the league. I have yet to finish out of the top teams in that scoring and this year sit in first place scoring.

LB's are much easier to find, and rookie LB's can come in and automatically contribute to your team. There also a lot more LB's that score points. Therefore I think my theory has been highly successful and yet still people in my league dispute this theory. What do you guys think? And has anyone done something similar??

 

[Jene Bramel]

It's a very solid strategy.

Finding the sweetspots in your lineup based on relative advantage, tiers and positional scarcity should be the primary focus of any strong draft strategy. It won't always be the defensive line -- this season it was as we detailed in our 08 year in review podcast and preseason tiering articles -- but there's almost always an angle worth attacking in an IDP draft (redraft or dynasty).

 

[fridayfrenzy]

So in my intitial start up dynasty 3 years ago I was laughed at when I selected J. Peppers and J. Allen as some of the first defensive guys taken. I actually selected Peppers as the first defensive guy taken in the whole draft. I then selected J. Allen after everybody was again selecting LB's. I was laughed at and told that LB's score all the points and that I should have drafted LB's.Now, I specifically told the guys that DE's are much tougher to find. You can always find scoring LB's but it is so difficult to find those DE's that can get you points and win you weeks. I said that every given year I would do extremely well with my theory of adding my LB points and DE points together in comparison to anyone else in the league. I have yet to finish out of the top teams in that scoring and this year sit in first place scoring.LB's are much easier to find, and rookie LB's can come in and automatically contribute to your team. There also a lot more LB's that score points. Therefore I think my theory has been highly successful and yet still people in my league dispute this theory. What do you guys think? And has anyone done something similar??

How did your theory hold up in years 1 & 2?In 2008, your LBs and DE scoring combined to be 4th. In 2007, your LB and DE scoring combined to be 6th.In 2007 and 2008, the team who had the highest scoring starting LBs finished 1st when combining the DE and LB scoring. That basically disproves your theory.Your timing of waiting three years for this theory to come to fruition is probably just coincidence that it just so happened to be the year when Jared Allen is outscoring all other DEs by a large margin. Pretty sure that Jared Allen outscoring his competition like this is not normal.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

So in my intitial start up dynasty 3 years ago I was laughed at when I selected J. Peppers and J. Allen as some of the first defensive guys taken. I actually selected Peppers as the first defensive guy taken in the whole draft. I then selected J. Allen after everybody was again selecting LB's. I was laughed at and told that LB's score all the points and that I should have drafted LB's.Now, I specifically told the guys that DE's are much tougher to find. You can always find scoring LB's but it is so difficult to find those DE's that can get you points and win you weeks. I said that every given year I would do extremely well with my theory of adding my LB points and DE points together in comparison to anyone else in the league. I have yet to finish out of the top teams in that scoring and this year sit in first place scoring.LB's are much easier to find, and rookie LB's can come in and automatically contribute to your team. There also a lot more LB's that score points. Therefore I think my theory has been highly successful and yet still people in my league dispute this theory. What do you guys think? And has anyone done something similar??

How did your theory hold up in years 1 & 2?In 2008, your LBs and DE scoring combined to be 4th. In 2007, your LB and DE scoring combined to be 6th.In 2007 and 2008, the team who had the highest scoring starting LBs finished 1st when combining the DE and LB scoring. That basically disproves your theory.Your timing of waiting three years for this theory to come to fruition is probably just coincidence that it just so happened to be the year when Jared Allen is outscoring all other DEs by a large margin. Pretty sure that Jared Allen outscoring his competition like this is not normal.

Narrow minded thinking. I love it!The problem with my srategy was I missed badly on the LB's I selected in the initial start up draft. Taking a guy like Cato June one pick before Morrison and other factors helped play a part in the slower start. However, fast forward from that inital draft and look at how many LB's have been selected not only by my team but by other teams as well during the rookie draft... Willis, Beason, Greenway, Posluzny, Lauriniatis, Cushing, Curry, Matthews, Durant just to name some. I have strenthed my LB's through the draft which as I mentioned is someting you can do. Getting guys like Durant, Cushing, via draft have strengethend my unit.Therefore you were short seighted as I clearly stated that you can find LB's to strenghthen your team much more than DE's. IN this case it appears to be working quite well.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

So in my intitial start up dynasty 3 years ago I was laughed at when I selected J. Peppers and J. Allen as some of the first defensive guys taken. I actually selected Peppers as the first defensive guy taken in the whole draft. I then selected J. Allen after everybody was again selecting LB's. I was laughed at and told that LB's score all the points and that I should have drafted LB's.

Now, I specifically told the guys that DE's are much tougher to find. You can always find scoring LB's but it is so difficult to find those DE's that can get you points and win you weeks. I said that every given year I would do extremely well with my theory of adding my LB points and DE points together in comparison to anyone else in the league. I have yet to finish out of the top teams in that scoring and this year sit in first place scoring.

LB's are much easier to find, and rookie LB's can come in and automatically contribute to your team. There also a lot more LB's that score points. Therefore I think my theory has been highly successful and yet still people in my league dispute this theory. What do you guys think? And has anyone done something similar??

I think this is a "look at me, world!!!" post, and if everybody started a thread about their team this board wouldn't be very useful.

 

[KellysHeroes]

its a good idea if you can get 2 top 5 guys... but after the top 5 DEs I would pass and load up on LB and attempt to trade later.

But If I had to choose between DE1 - 3 or LB 3 - 10, I would take the DE because I know the struggles of finding a playable DE.

The problem I have is that you usually have to spend a 5th rounder on those top guys...

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

So in my intitial start up dynasty 3 years ago I was laughed at when I selected J. Peppers and J. Allen as some of the first defensive guys taken. I actually selected Peppers as the first defensive guy taken in the whole draft. I then selected J. Allen after everybody was again selecting LB's. I was laughed at and told that LB's score all the points and that I should have drafted LB's.

Now, I specifically told the guys that DE's are much tougher to find. You can always find scoring LB's but it is so difficult to find those DE's that can get you points and win you weeks. I said that every given year I would do extremely well with my theory of adding my LB points and DE points together in comparison to anyone else in the league. I have yet to finish out of the top teams in that scoring and this year sit in first place scoring.

LB's are much easier to find, and rookie LB's can come in and automatically contribute to your team. There also a lot more LB's that score points. Therefore I think my theory has been highly successful and yet still people in my league dispute this theory. What do you guys think? And has anyone done something similar??

I think this is a "look at me, world!!!" post, and if everybody started a thread about their team this board wouldn't be very useful.

It definitely may be that to some extent, but I have offered up a strategy and offered insight into something practical and it is something that can be used in a draft. This is something that is fantasy relevant. If you don't like the post move along to all of the people spending plenty of time posting relevant and worthwhile information in the IDP forum.

 

[John 14:6]

I went with a similar strategy when we had our initial draft for an IDP dynasty league years ago, except instead of focusing on DEs over LBs I focused on IDPs over offensive players. I didn't have any previous IDP experience so I took players like Jason Taylor, Ray Lewis, and Ronde Barber earlier than they would normally go thinking I'd be able to put together offense later on.

It worked pretty well. These three players were dominating their position for a few seasons (I still have Lewis) and I lead the league in scoring and went deep into the playoffs quite a few times.

 

[Maroney=Sped]

So in my intitial start up dynasty 3 years ago I was laughed at when I selected J. Peppers and J. Allen as some of the first defensive guys taken. I actually selected Peppers as the first defensive guy taken in the whole draft. I then selected J. Allen after everybody was again selecting LB's. I was laughed at and told that LB's score all the points and that I should have drafted LB's.Now, I specifically told the guys that DE's are much tougher to find. You can always find scoring LB's but it is so difficult to find those DE's that can get you points and win you weeks. I said that every given year I would do extremely well with my theory of adding my LB points and DE points together in comparison to anyone else in the league. I have yet to finish out of the top teams in that scoring and this year sit in first place scoring.LB's are much easier to find, and rookie LB's can come in and automatically contribute to your team. There also a lot more LB's that score points. Therefore I think my theory has been highly successful and yet still people in my league dispute this theory. What do you guys think? And has anyone done something similar??

I did the same sort of thing in a deep (16-team; 45-player; start-11 IDP) dynasty league, drafting Peppers 5.13 (77) and Suggs 6.16 (96). Amazingly, both Demeco Ryans and Merriman were selected before Peppers, but I've never regretted that combo of guys.

 

[MDPapi]

I have not studied the numbers, nor do I have time to, but with more teams switching to, or experimenting with, a 3-4, it seems there are fewer stat-producing DEs and more stat-producing LBs. That's not a surprise, since the 3-4 tends to be unfriendly to the stats of most DEs.

The eyeball test also tells me that once you get past the top 10-15 LBs, there is a huge group who are very close to each other, making it easier to pick up productive LBs on the waiver wire. But all this stuff is cyclical. Three years from now we will all be on here writing about how (fill in the blank position) is more valuable because everybody is copying whatever defense becomes all the rage. For the moment, good, consistent DEs sure seem scarce.

 

[bucsbaby]

If I could redo my IDP draft, I would for sure draft DL, DL and maybe DL, DL, DL with my first picks. We start 2 DL, 2 DB, and 2 LB with 1 DL/DB/LB Flex. DB is always a crapshoot it seems. LB is quite deep. DL seems to be the position to target.

 

[Maroney=Sped]

If I could redo my IDP draft, I would for sure draft DL, DL and maybe DL, DL, DL with my first picks. We start 2 DL, 2 DB, and 2 LB with 1 DL/DB/LB Flex. DB is always a crapshoot it seems. LB is quite deep. DL seems to be the position to target.

DT's and CB's are a waste of time to draft unless you've got a rookie draft that goes 5 or more rounds in which case grabbing a rookie CB might make some sense. Even still, you always can get a good, starting caliber CB off of the waiver wire the way that they come and go. The problem with DT's is that they are hugely dependent upon the system they go into, and they rarely seem to be productive even under the best of circumstances in their first year or two. Moreover, it's even more rare for the top DT's to remain among the top DT's for more than a year or two; they seem to come and go as a group year to year. As with CB's you tend to be able to grab hot guys off of the waiver wire that will put up adequate numbers. Moreover, most IDP starting lineups tend to start only 1DT in favor of a 4th LB, so you don't need a lot of depth there. I just try to get guys who are adequate, meaning falling within the top 14-16 guys in any given year and allow my other positions to win their matchups. My policy with IDP drafting is that I will always draft at least 1 LB even if I'm already deep. I usually carry around 8 LB's, not including my taxi squads, so that's a position that can be developed, and it's also a position that seems to use its depth the most given the combination of injuries and bye weeks in the middle of the season. I try to do the same thing with DE's though that's harder to do when I usually only carry 4 on my active roster - they have a long shelf life so often I just don't have room for another DE. Safeties fall somewhere in between CB's and LB's in terms of their relative strategy, but I've found more and more that unless I've got a highly drafted guy who is virtually guaranteed to start at a SS position, I can probably make do mixing and matching with waiver wire guys or guys who are add-ons to trades involving offensive players. For example, my starting safeties in one league - Darren Sharper and Daniel Manning - were both waiver wire pickups within the last 12 months and they rank 1-2 in my league. That's not necessarily a typical outcome, but the point is that it's certainly possible to find waiver gems at the safety position much more so than at LB or DE.On that last point, there's no reason why you couldn't go from having a completely sucky LB corps to a solid one within two seasons if you know how to draft and you know how to work trades to include them as add-ons with offensive players. When offensive players are involved LB's tend to get undervalued.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

If I could redo my IDP draft, I would for sure draft DL, DL and maybe DL, DL, DL with my first picks. We start 2 DL, 2 DB, and 2 LB with 1 DL/DB/LB Flex. DB is always a crapshoot it seems. LB is quite deep. DL seems to be the position to target.

DT's and CB's are a waste of time to draft unless you've got a rookie draft that goes 5 or more rounds in which case grabbing a rookie CB might make some sense. Even still, you always can get a good, starting caliber CB off of the waiver wire the way that they come and go. The problem with DT's is that they are hugely dependent upon the system they go into, and they rarely seem to be productive even under the best of circumstances in their first year or two. Moreover, it's even more rare for the top DT's to remain among the top DT's for more than a year or two; they seem to come and go as a group year to year. As with CB's you tend to be able to grab hot guys off of the waiver wire that will put up adequate numbers. Moreover, most IDP starting lineups tend to start only 1DT in favor of a 4th LB, so you don't need a lot of depth there. I just try to get guys who are adequate, meaning falling within the top 14-16 guys in any given year and allow my other positions to win their matchups. My policy with IDP drafting is that I will always draft at least 1 LB even if I'm already deep. I usually carry around 8 LB's, not including my taxi squads, so that's a position that can be developed, and it's also a position that seems to use its depth the most given the combination of injuries and bye weeks in the middle of the season. I try to do the same thing with DE's though that's harder to do when I usually only carry 4 on my active roster - they have a long shelf life so often I just don't have room for another DE. Safeties fall somewhere in between CB's and LB's in terms of their relative strategy, but I've found more and more that unless I've got a highly drafted guy who is virtually guaranteed to start at a SS position, I can probably make do mixing and matching with waiver wire guys or guys who are add-ons to trades involving offensive players. For example, my starting safeties in one league - Darren Sharper and Daniel Manning - were both waiver wire pickups within the last 12 months and they rank 1-2 in my league. That's not necessarily a typical outcome, but the point is that it's certainly possible to find waiver gems at the safety position much more so than at LB or DE.On that last point, there's no reason why you couldn't go from having a completely sucky LB corps to a solid one within two seasons if you know how to draft and you know how to work trades to include them as add-ons with offensive players. When offensive players are involved LB's tend to get undervalued.

Very well thought out post. thanks for the input

 

[trader jake]

Isn't this just the IDP equivalent of selecting running backs instead of higher scoring quarterbacks?

 

[burgundy and gold]

I totally disagree with this method. It may be beacause of the depth of the leagues that I'm in (55-60 man rosters, start 3-5 DL, 3-5 LB, 3-5DB)(basically you start 3 of each and get 2 flex). I keep only 3 DL and 3 DB on my roster at any given time. If a guy has a bye I just drop him for somebody on the wire unless he's a real stud. Good LB are consistent Good DL are sporadic. They'll win some games for you but not on a week in week out basis. I don't think Jared Allen is fair to include because he's totally abnormal. I research the hell out of LB and always pursue them heavily in the drafts and waivers and my hard work pays off. With DL they always tend to disappoint. There's so few of them that produce in a big way regularly that you miss more than you hit and when you have huge rosters there's not much room for mistakes because you have limited options on the wire so you have to pretty much beat guys to the punch. I usually keep so few at those pos. cuz I'm one who'd rather stash sleeper offensive guys and just have a real steady group of LB who carry my D and score for me week in and week out (reliable for the most part).

With that said, in redraft this year (60 man rosters) I took the approach of taking stud DL as my first def. guys and got burned. I had back to back picks and was gonna take Allen and Mario but the guy before me took Allen. I still took Mario and then just grabbed my TE (Dallas Clark). Well I sure as hell wish I wouldn't have listened to FBG on that one because I was gonna take Ruud or Harrison (Willis and Beason already gone).

In my redraft the top DL are in the 100-110 pt range (excluding Allen) and the group of guys with scoring that puts them at rank 45-50 are in the 50-55 pt range. Now for LB it's 135-140 for the top group (excluding Willis) and 80-85 for the guys at rank 45-50. Now just do the math ... if you take 5 LB that are in the top 15 or so and ignore the DL until later,in my league you'd have, let's say, 125 • 5 = 625 (from LBs) + 50 • 3 = 150 == 775 from LB+DL . Now if you do the opposite you'd have, let's say, 90 or even 95 (to be more than fair) • 5 = 475 (from DL) + 80 • 3 = 240 == 715 from DL+LB. (Now let's compare 2 guys who I would consider as 2nd overall selections at their position in a draft and have both underperformed so far this season.)

(Beason in my league 114 - Mario 66 == 48 ... 48 + Beasons 1 wk average to account for bye = 62 pts I missed)

775 - 715 = 60 ( I should have just gone LB with my first Def. guy )

Now who wouldn't want at least 60 more point scored (7-8 more points per game so far). I sure would cuz I lost a couple of games by less than 7 pts already this fantasy season!

 

[burgundy and gold]

Now when it comes to top overall defensive player I'd be intersted in how many would go for Willis and how many for Allen!

In my league Willis has Allen by 10 pts when you add on his weekly average to account for bye.

 

[Maroney=Sped]

If 2/11 of your starters are flex, then that changes things significantly given the margins you're talking about, b&g. Most leagues don't have that, and standard 11-man IDP usually has one flex, which tends to line up as 2DE; 1DT; 4LB; 2CB; 2S - in other words the 2nd DT is swapped for a 4th LB. Adding a second flex player is a pretty big difference.

 

[burgundy and gold]

If 2/11 of your starters are flex, then that changes things significantly given the margins you're talking about, b&g. Most leagues don't have that, and standard 11-man IDP usually has one flex, which tends to line up as 2DE; 1DT; 4LB; 2CB; 2S - in other words the 2nd DT is swapped for a 4th LB. Adding a second flex player is a pretty big difference.

My league scoring:tackle=2pt. sack=6pt. int.=3pt. assist=1pt. sack yds.=1 for every 5 int. yds.=1 for every 10Julius Peppers(#2 LB) 114(pts. scored so far) - Kyle Williams 52(pts. scored so far)James Harrison(#2 DL) 140(pts. scored so far/ adj. to acct. for bye) - Jarret Johnson 90(pts. so far/ adj. to acct. for bye)114-52= 62/4=15.5140-90= 50/4=12.5 (140 - 12.5 = 127.5 • 4= 510) + (52 + 15.5 = 67.5 • 3 = 202.5) = 712.5(114 - 15.5 = 98.5 • 3= 295.5) + (90 + 12.5 = 102.5 • 4 = 410) = 705.5 You get a slight edge by going after the LB pos. pretty hard and waiting til last to pick your DL (in your league of 4LB/3DL) (maybe 15 pts over a season, really nothing at all)(if you got Jared Allen then all bets are off, you win)But in my league (with the 2 flexs) it's imperative to go LB intensive cuz I usually end up with like 80 more pts. over the course of a season!

 

[lyon812]

I think it's a sound strategy. I've always built around LB, but this year have specifically targeted DE because of urgings from the podcasts that LB was deep and DL was thin. It's worked very well so far and has changed the dynamics of my dynasty teams. I'm finding that having a Tuck, Cole, or Allen is a tremendous advantage from week to week, while having a Lofton/Durant merely matches the output of numerous opposing LBs.

It took FBG to really make the light click on, though. Now that I'm reaping the benefits, it seems obvious.

 

[Jene Bramel]

I totally disagree with this method. It may be beacause of the depth of the leagues that I'm in (55-60 man rosters, start 3-5 DL, 3-5 LB, 3-5DB)(basically you start 3 of each and get 2 flex). I keep only 3 DL and 3 DB on my roster at any given time. If a guy has a bye I just drop him for somebody on the wire unless he's a real stud. Good LB are consistent Good DL are sporadic. They'll win some games for you but not on a week in week out basis. I don't think Jared Allen is fair to include because he's totally abnormal. I research the hell out of LB and always pursue them heavily in the drafts and waivers and my hard work pays off. With DL they always tend to disappoint. There's so few of them that produce in a big way regularly that you miss more than you hit and when you have huge rosters there's not much room for mistakes because you have limited options on the wire so you have to pretty much beat guys to the punch. I usually keep so few at those pos. cuz I'm one who'd rather stash sleeper offensive guys and just have a real steady group of LB who carry my D and score for me week in and week out (reliable for the most part).With that said, in redraft this year (60 man rosters) I took the approach of taking stud DL as my first def. guys and got burned. I had back to back picks and was gonna take Allen and Mario but the guy before me took Allen. I still took Mario and then just grabbed my TE (Dallas Clark). Well I sure as hell wish I wouldn't have listened to FBG on that one because I was gonna take Ruud or Harrison (Willis and Beason already gone). In my redraft the top DL are in the 100-110 pt range (excluding Allen) and the group of guys with scoring that puts them at rank 45-50 are in the 50-55 pt range. Now for LB it's 135-140 for the top group (excluding Willis) and 80-85 for the guys at rank 45-50. Now just do the math ... if you take 5 LB that are in the top 15 or so and ignore the DL until later,in my league you'd have, let's say, 125 • 5 = 625 (from LBs) + 50 • 3 = 150 == 775 from LB+DL . Now if you do the opposite you'd have, let's say, 90 or even 95 (to be more than fair) • 5 = 475 (from DL) + 80 • 3 = 240 == 715 from DL+LB. (Now let's compare 2 guys who I would consider as 2nd overall selections at their position in a draft and have both underperformed so far this season.)(Beason in my league 114 - Mario 66 == 48 ... 48 + Beasons 1 wk average to account for bye = 62 pts I missed)775 - 715 = 60 ( I should have just gone LB with my first Def. guy )Now who wouldn't want at least 60 more point scored (7-8 more points per game so far). I sure would cuz I lost a couple of games by less than 7 pts already this fantasy season!

Raw total points scored doesn't matter. What matters is the relative advantage you have at each point in your lineup. The reasoning behind the "grab the stud DL" philosophy many of us argued for this offseason was that the pool of potential stud DL was much smaller than the pool of potential stud LBs. If you constantly rotate replacement level defensive linemen, you've gained no advantage against an opponent in most weeks. That puts pressure on your other lineup positions to be full of studs and for your earlier picks to hit. You gain relative advantage by pulling players from the top tiers before your opponents (and then having them play to expectation) and forcing your opponents to play or cycle replacement level talent later.Our recommendation this year was to target at least one of the top 8-10 defensive linemen this year, while paying much less for guys like Curtis Lofton, EJ Henderson, London Fletcher and Justin Durant than opponents paid for Willis, Beason, Ruud, etc. Within reason, of course. You're not going to pass the stud LBs if you've already got a stud DL rostered or if your leaguemates are ignoring them in favor of backup offensive talent.Those that drafted Mario Williams or Justin Tuck still should've held their own with the right players from the second group this year. Those who got Allen, Suggs, Cole, Peppers, along with the second group should have a dominant defense to go with an extra offensive player in those rounds. Those that got Williams and hold him until playoff time look like they could be very generously rewarded if he gets healthy going into that matchup stretch.It also bears mentioning one more time that it won't always be the defensive line that drives this strategy. There may well be seasons in the future where another position takes precedence within tiers or that all positions are deep enough that you can go another direction entirely.