Those who draft Calvin 1st overall (1 Viewer)

[BallsySmurf]

I've found myself drawing picks 6-7 a lot in my drafts this year. Seems like the consensus pick at 6 or 7 is Calvin (which I have no problem with). He's obviously the clear cut WR and in PPR a top 10 guy. But, I've found that when people take him with their first pick, they neglect the WR spot until rounds 5/6. I understand that WR is "very deep" this year, but I think if you wait, you basically burned your first overall choice. Yes, WR is deep, but it's deep with WRs in the 230-250 range (PPR). If you grab Calvin (let's project him at 310 pts), then wait and get a S. Johnson, M Colston, etc (WR in the 230 range) that gives you 540 pts at the position. Someone who takes say a Fitzgerald (280) and a J Nelson (240), in rounds 2 and 3 isn't far behind you. Even though WR is considered deep, I feel that if you take Calvin, you have to take a top 12 WR earlier to keep your advantage at the position. If you go Calvin and then turn around in round 2 and take Fitzgerald, Welker, Andre etc...it may seem wrong, but if you can get 580-590 pts at the position, you have a huge advantage on someone waiting on WR and grabbing a 240 and 230 pt guy. One strategy that seems to be working very well for me (all based on my projections of course), is to take Calvin 1, then Mathews in round 2. In round three I can almost always get AJ Green or Nicks (both I project to be top 12 guys). Then round 4 I usually get a D Martin or F Jackson for my RB2. I think that Calvin is a great option, but don't get sucked into the "WR is deep" frame of mind. It's deep if you wait. If you go WR early, you have to stay with the position early to keep your advantage...

 

[-jb-]

I don't think I follow. Those that "neglect" WR are merely gaining points at other positions. Unless you're in a league that assigns wins to specific positions, all you're doing by drafting another WR is neglecting another position.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

Clearly the owners taking Calvin then waiting until rounds 5/6 to take their WR2 believe they are making up the assumed point difference at the other positions they are drafting.

You don't need an advantage at one "position". Taking Calvin gives you an advantage at WR1. Mitigating a potential deficit at other positions by waiting on your WR2 is perfectly reasonable.

 

[bostonfred]

I don't like having three stud wrs in a start 3 wr, no flex league, because you can't get value from the late round/hot hand receivers that come up every year. It handcuffs you in free agency/waivers, and mimimizes the value you get late in the draft. Id rather take an extra starting back, use them for matchups, then trade the back and a hot wr for a stud wr close to the playoffs.

 

[BallsySmurf]

I don't think I follow. Those that "neglect" WR are merely gaining points at other positions. Unless you're in a league that assigns wins to specific positions, all you're doing by drafting another WR is neglecting another position.

I agree that your gaining at other positions, but I feel that if you treat it as one position, rather than WR1 WR2 you can gain just as much of an advantage as say the QB position when someone takes a top 3 guy. If you get 2 of the top 3 WRs (with Calvin) the advantage is greater than trying to stay "par with the course" at every other position.

 

[-jb-]

I don't think I follow. Those that "neglect" WR are merely gaining points at other positions. Unless you're in a league that assigns wins to specific positions, all you're doing by drafting another WR is neglecting another position.

I agree that your gaining at other positions, but I feel that if you treat it as one position, rather than WR1 WR2 you can gain just as much of an advantage as say the QB position when someone takes a top 3 guy. If you get 2 of the top 3 WRs (with Calvin) the advantage is greater than trying to stay "par with the course" at every other position.

Depends on how you project the numbers. If you see a more significant drop-off at the WR position after Calvin than you do at others, then yes. I don't think most do, though. To me, after Calvin, it is the flattest curve this year.

 

[BallsySmurf]

I don't think I follow. Those that "neglect" WR are merely gaining points at other positions. Unless you're in a league that assigns wins to specific positions, all you're doing by drafting another WR is neglecting another position.

I agree that your gaining at other positions, but I feel that if you treat it as one position, rather than WR1 WR2 you can gain just as much of an advantage as say the QB position when someone takes a top 3 guy. If you get 2 of the top 3 WRs (with Calvin) the advantage is greater than trying to stay "par with the course" at every other position.

Depends on how you project the numbers. If you see a more significant drop-off at the WR position after Calvin than you do at others, then yes. I don't think most do, though. To me, after Calvin, it is the flattest curve this year.

Not seeing a huge drop off either, but it seems to me that guys are usually going RB/RB if they are at 8-12. By the time it comes back to the Calvin owner your looking at maybe T Richardson, Charles (sometimes Lynch and Mathews) as the options at RB. What I'm saying is what if you get Fitz or Welker with your second pick. Then grab 2 from SJax/D Martin/F Jackson/Gore to man your RB spots in rounds 3-4. I think the advantage you gain there at WR will far exceed what you passed on with RB...

 

[Run It Up]

In the few ppr drafts ive done this year where ive gone WR first and taken either Megatron or Welker (6 or 12 seat) I find it almost silly to not wait till the fifth where ive reliably been able to get Stevie Johnson/Brandon Lloyd (who I value much higher than a 5th round this year). In one league Stevie even slipped into the 6th. Sometimes ill grab Nicks in the 4th.

WRs ive been targetting that IMO should be ranked higher than their ADP:

Stevie Johnson

Brandon Lloyd

Vincent Jackson

-

Lance Moore

TB Mike Williams (can get him in the late late)

-

Davone Bess

Danny Amendola

 

[flc735]

i dont agree with the motive for this. if you go wr, wr, wr, then your weaker at other positions. whether you go wr, wr, wr or wr, rb, rb doesn't really matter except for the fact that you are loosing the opportunity to pick up those late wr's, which most of us agree are good value picks.

BUT, i do agree with the idea of investing the least amount of value in the rb position, since they get hurt the most. so ya, i think calvin, qb/wr/te, qb/wr is a solid strategy. i just dont think specifically going wr, wr in the 2nd and 3rd after calvin is a good one.

 

[BallsySmurf]

i dont agree with the motive for this. if you go wr, wr, wr, then your weaker at other positions. whether you go wr, wr, wr or wr, rb, rb doesn't really matter except for the fact that you are loosing the opportunity to pick up those late wr's, which most of us agree are good value picks.BUT, i do agree with the idea of investing the least amount of value in the rb position, since they get hurt the most. so ya, i think calvin, qb/wr/te, qb/wr is a solid strategy. i just dont think specifically going wr, wr in the 2nd and 3rd after calvin is a good one.

Yeah, I must have mistyped what I was trying to say. I meant to say you can usually get AJ or Nicks in round three, not to draft AJ and Nicks both. My point was to take Calvin and another WR in either round 2 or 3. I think if you wait and take the "value" WRs later (rounds 4-6) then your depleting your overall positional strength that you invested in early on...

 

[flc735]

i dont agree with the motive for this. if you go wr, wr, wr, then your weaker at other positions. whether you go wr, wr, wr or wr, rb, rb doesn't really matter except for the fact that you are loosing the opportunity to pick up those late wr's, which most of us agree are good value picks.BUT, i do agree with the idea of investing the least amount of value in the rb position, since they get hurt the most. so ya, i think calvin, qb/wr/te, qb/wr is a solid strategy. i just dont think specifically going wr, wr in the 2nd and 3rd after calvin is a good one.

Yeah, I must have mistyped what I was trying to say. I meant to say you can usually get AJ or Nicks in round three, not to draft AJ and Nicks both. My point was to take Calvin and another WR in either round 2 or 3. I think if you wait and take the "value" WRs later (rounds 4-6) then your depleting your overall positional strength that you invested in early on...

ok then ya, this is a fine strategy. i like it because your not investing high value for an equivalent, but more risky rb. i always use this strategy for my dyno drafts