Upside Down Drafting (1 Viewer)

[Macdaddy_2004]

I wanted to start some conversation on upside down drafting and how others are applying it to their league. Looking at the data it seems to be a good strategy. We start (all TD's 6 pts)

2QB

3WR

2RB

1WR/RB

1TE

1K

1DEF

Looking at my lineup requirements I only need to start 2 RB - or less than 25% of my overall scoring is geared toward the RB position. I was wondering how others are looking to apply the upside down drafting method.

Personally for me I may look at going

QB

QB

WR

WR

At that point I am not sure if I will be looking to grab my first RB or grab Gates as the #1TE. Since TE is only around 10% of my scoring I could even skip it and address later in the draft and take my 3rd WR off the board.With my league data by the end of Round4 14RBs will be off the board. At the end of Round5 17RBs will be off the board.

If I waited till round6 to grab my first RB probably looking at DeAngelo, Mark Ingram, Daniel Thomas territory.

Of course upside down drafting does not factor in the potential of grabbing a good late round WR (last year Brandon Lloyd finished top5 and did not even have an ADP, Austin Collie was a force before the concussion, DeWayne Bowe, Stevie Johnson).

My league gives 0.5 pt per return yard and 1pt per receiving yard. So guys like Jacoby Ford, Percy Harvin and Danny Amendola had significant value last year - giving me less of an incentive to target WR's early.

I'm looking for a draft strategy and upside down drafting looked very interesting but not sure if its right for me.

Hoping Matt will chime in here.

 

[death of the cool]

From mid to late pick in the 1st, I have had success drafting WR's or QB's early, but you have to find and hit on those mid range RB's....Last year Foster was a homerun for me, but that hasn't always happened.

I am considering going Vick then the top WR left in rounds 1 and 2 this year from the 8 spot. (say Vick-Fitzgerald). I have to get a top 6 WR because I just do not like the depth of the position this year. I then will take the best WR/RB I have left in round 3.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Perhaps you should define "upside down drafting" first. I tried reading the Waldman article but the introduction was painfully long.

 

[Macdaddy_2004]

it is paid content so I am not going to re-hash the article other than saying basically you forgo the RB position and load up on other starting positions in your league. For the complete details read the article...........

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2011/11waldman_gutcheck226.php

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

OK, so I read through most of the article. It's not a bad strategy, but the author didn't do a great job justifying it.

For example, the year-to-year turnover at each position is irrelevant if it's accurately anticipated by ADP (which it may or may not be). A far more useful analysis would correlate ADP to actual production/value. It still might be the case that there's more risk drafting RBs early than at other positions, but year-to-year turnover isn't the way to prove it.

Furthermore, a lot of the analysis is based on his assumption that he can accurately predict which late-round RBs will be useful. A comment like, "Remember, history shows that these players and their low ADPs will be bargains by year's end" isn't accurate. A more accurate comment would be, "Remember, history shows that some players and their low ADPs will be bargains by year's end." The trick is that we don't know yet which late-round RBs will be steals, just like we don't know yet which early-round RBs will be busts.

Regarding the OP, if you're in a league that starts 2 QB and 3 WR, I imagine you and your leaguemates are already targeting QBs and WRs earlier than more "standard" leagues. If you're not, then yes, you probably should be.

 

[HooQuaker]

I posted under Matt's article, but I believe the idea has merit, particularly if you are drafting out of 8 or later spot. Matt's article does specifically address a standard scoring, no flex lineup requirement, therefore you'd have to think a little harder to apply it to your particular league requirements. Nevertheless, I think the fundamental issue remains: do you trust the rounds 5-10 RBs to get it done for your team? In this particular drafting year, I personally do. Matt's article spelled out exactly who you'll likely see, but I think that if you have studs at the other positions - and you will, because of the RB runs having taken place - then you have to be ready to roll with guys from the group of: Ingram, Stewart, Benson, Grant, Lynch, F. Jones, F. Jackson, Addai, etc. IMO, Jackson and Lynch are enough to get it done.

Remember, you're not relying on these guys. They just have to keep close enough with your opponent's RB1/2 so that your QB, WR/WR, and TE can blow them out. This year, I think the ADPs fall in such a way that you can get decent RBs in the mid rounds. With all of the mocks that I've done, my best teams seem to be where I go WR/WR first, then pick the best QB/TE off of the board in rounds 3 and 4. I'm confident that Ingram, Benson, Lynch, and F. Jackson can approach what Blount, Moreno, Best and Greene might put up, and given the ADPs these are the rounds where you are getting your top 7 QB (usually Romo from what I've seen, but that's good enough, and sometimes one of the other top 6 does fall in round 3) and one of the top 4 TE(usually your pick of the litter besides Gates if you didn't get Gates in round 3), and most importantly let's not forget you probably are starting two of the top 6 WRs. This obviously changes a bit if you take a QB with your first two picks. I don't, because after numerous mocks, I have been happier with two stud WRs + Romo than I have been with one of the other QBs and the WR2 I get from rounds 3 or 4, but this will depend upon how you personally project the players (i.e. maybe you like Bowe or Lloyd (equivalent) enough to take Rodgers/Vick/Brady).

My only issue with this strategy is that you have to look carefully for your WR3. Because you are gambling on RBs, you will have to load up in the mid rounds to hedge your bets. Be on the lookout for your WR3 if value emerges.

 

[Matt Waldman]

The fact that you can start equal RBs to WRs and you start 2 QBs doesn't really make this strategy a great approach here. This echoes what I mentioned early in the piece.

As far as the criticism about the turnover analysis and ADP, most ADP doesn't do a great job of anticipating turnover, either. Plus I think Ignoratio's point seems to reflect that he's still attached to RBs. The point of the article isn't as dependent on getting two great RBs later. The fact that you'll find quality backs later in most drafts every year is helpful. But a big part of the approach is filling the rest of the positions because if you build a strength at all positions but RB2, you're likely to have a highly competitive team.

This of course is in leagues with standard lineups QB, 2 RB, 3-4 WR, 1 TE

 

[Matt Waldman]

I posted under Matt's article, but I believe the idea has merit, particularly if you are drafting out of 8 or later spot. Matt's article does specifically address a standard scoring, no flex lineup requirement, therefore you'd have to think a little harder to apply it to your particular league requirements. Nevertheless, I think the fundamental issue remains: do you trust the rounds 5-10 RBs to get it done for your team? In this particular drafting year, I personally do. Matt's article spelled out exactly who you'll likely see, but I think that if you have studs at the other positions - and you will, because of the RB runs having taken place - then you have to be ready to roll with guys from the group of: Ingram, Stewart, Benson, Grant, Lynch, F. Jones, F. Jackson, Addai, etc. IMO, Jackson and Lynch are enough to get it done. Remember, you're not relying on these guys. They just have to keep close enough with your opponent's RB1/2 so that your QB, WR/WR, and TE can blow them out. This year, I think the ADPs fall in such a way that you can get decent RBs in the mid rounds. With all of the mocks that I've done, my best teams seem to be where I go WR/WR first, then pick the best QB/TE off of the board in rounds 3 and 4. I'm confident that Ingram, Benson, Lynch, and F. Jackson can approach what Blount, Moreno, Best and Greene might put up, and given the ADPs these are the rounds where you are getting your top 7 QB (usually Romo from what I've seen, but that's good enough, and sometimes one of the other top 6 does fall in round 3) and one of the top 4 TE(usually your pick of the litter besides Gates if you didn't get Gates in round 3), and most importantly let's not forget you probably are starting two of the top 6 WRs. This obviously changes a bit if you take a QB with your first two picks. I don't, because after numerous mocks, I have been happier with two stud WRs + Romo than I have been with one of the other QBs and the WR2 I get from rounds 3 or 4, but this will depend upon how you personally project the players (i.e. maybe you like Bowe or Lloyd (equivalent) enough to take Rodgers/Vick/Brady). My only issue with this strategy is that you have to look carefully for your WR3. Because you are gambling on RBs, you will have to load up in the mid rounds to hedge your bets. Be on the lookout for your WR3 if value emerges.

Excellent points.

 

[Rick James]

Can't do it. 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1RB/WR flex, non-ppr. interesting strategy, but for my league I have to load up on RBs

 

[sn0mm1s]

OK, so I read through most of the article. It's not a bad strategy, but the author didn't do a great job justifying it.

For example, the year-to-year turnover at each position is irrelevant if it's accurately anticipated by ADP (which it may or may not be). A far more useful analysis would correlate ADP to actual production/value. It still might be the case that there's more risk drafting RBs early than at other positions, but year-to-year turnover isn't the way to prove it.

Furthermore, a lot of the analysis is based on his assumption that he can accurately predict which late-round RBs will be useful. A comment like, "Remember, history shows that these players and their low ADPs will be bargains by year's end" isn't accurate. A more accurate comment would be, "Remember, history shows that some players and their low ADPs will be bargains by year's end." The trick is that we don't know yet which late-round RBs will be steals, just like we don't know yet which early-round RBs will be busts.

Regarding the OP, if you're in a league that starts 2 QB and 3 WR, I imagine you and your leaguemates are already targeting QBs and WRs earlier than more "standard" leagues. If you're not, then yes, you probably should be.

This exactly. Most of the leagues I played in were won by guys that lucked into Foster, McFadden, Hillis, Vick, and Lloyd. It didn't matter what their strategy was. If they got 1st round production out of a late round pick or waiver wire pickup their team was dominant. Not to mention, last year was pretty brutal on 1st and 2nd round picks. I would say most didn't live up to their ADP.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

As far as the criticism about the turnover analysis and ADP, most ADP doesn't do a great job of anticipating turnover, either.

It probably doesn't, but that's what you'd want to look at with your data. Just posting annual turnover rates doesn't make the case that early-round RBs are riskier propositions than early-round WRs or QBs.

But a big part of the approach is filling the rest of the positions because if you build a strength at all positions but RB2, you're likely to have a highly competitive team.

This flies in the face of traditional VBD concepts, and while I understand that's pretty much the point of the article, I think you need to show that this is the case more quantitatively. The reason people traditionally take RBs early and wait on QBs, for example, is because your first round QB probably isn't going to dominate the QBs that everyone else is getting five rounds later by a wide enough margin to make up the difference. The question is, if you build strength at all positions but RB, will you have a highly competitve team? Maybe, maybe not - I'm inclined to believe you're right, but just saying so doesn't make it so. (The couple of leagues I play in each year don't have "standard" lineup requirements, so perhaps my intuition is off... I've been doing some variation of "upside down drafting" for years, only because it makes sense to do so in leagues where you can flex a QB, etc. - it's been a long time since I've played in a regular old redraft where most people take RBs early and often.)

I'm not flatly disagreeing with the strategy - I think it's always useful to reevaluate the conventional wisdom - I just think a more rigorous analysis should be done before recommending it as a viable approach to a "standard" draft.

 

[dynastyguy1000]

Can't do it. 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1RB/WR flex, non-ppr. interesting strategy, but for my league I have to load up on RBs

Why so? I have the same format and am highly considering going upside down. Only difference is that you have to account for the extra RB (flex) starting position. I'm considering going WR, WR/QB, RB, QB/WR. Waiting on the TE position.

 

[Instinctive]

Can't do it. 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1RB/WR flex, non-ppr. interesting strategy, but for my league I have to load up on RBs

Why so? I have the same format and am highly considering going upside down. Only difference is that you have to account for the extra RB (flex) starting position. I'm considering going WR, WR/QB, RB, QB/WR. Waiting on the TE position.

That's my exact lineup as well - 6pt all TDs and 0.5 ppr thoughI have gone 3 WR and a QB through 5 round 3 straight years, and made title game in all 3. I typically go TE in those rounds, but sometimes a RB I like falls.:RBs get injured all the time. A core value to this strategy is just that: You don't need Hillis all year for this to work. You need Mike Goodson for a couple weeks, Rashad Jennings a week or two, some Marion Barber here or there, maybe a little Brandon Jacobs...I used Maurice Morris 3 games I think last year...Javarris James was useful.You don't need a WW wonder of the year. I didn't have Vick, Foster, or Hillis. I did have three WR1s and a top QB...although he got hurt and I had Grossman and Tebow in playoffs.The point is, all you gotta do is cobble together RB2 production. Start 3 elite wideouts, a solid RB at your first spot, elite TE/QB...and you just need to make the playoffs - where anything can happen.

 

[dynastyguy1000]

The fact that you can start equal RBs to WRs and you start 2 QBs doesn't really make this strategy a great approach here. This echoes what I mentioned early in the piece. As far as the criticism about the turnover analysis and ADP, most ADP doesn't do a great job of anticipating turnover, either. Plus I think Ignoratio's point seems to reflect that he's still attached to RBs. The point of the article isn't as dependent on getting two great RBs later. The fact that you'll find quality backs later in most drafts every year is helpful. But a big part of the approach is filling the rest of the positions because if you build a strength at all positions but RB2, you're likely to have a highly competitive team. This of course is in leagues with standard lineups QB, 2 RB, 3-4 WR, 1 TE

Matt ... how does the strategy change for QB/RB/RB/WR/WR/FLEX/TE/DEF/K ... 6pt all td's non ppr?

 

[_lurker_]

Perhaps you should define "upside down drafting" first. I tried reading the Waldman article but the introduction was painfully long.

+2

 

[Arizona Ron]

George Costanza comes to mind.

 

[Mike]

OK, so I read through most of the article. It's not a bad strategy, but the author didn't do a great job justifying it.

For example, the year-to-year turnover at each position is irrelevant if it's accurately anticipated by ADP (which it may or may not be). A far more useful analysis would correlate ADP to actual production/value. It still might be the case that there's more risk drafting RBs early than at other positions, but year-to-year turnover isn't the way to prove it.

Furthermore, a lot of the analysis is based on his assumption that he can accurately predict which late-round RBs will be useful. A comment like, "Remember, history shows that these players and their low ADPs will be bargains by year's end" isn't accurate. A more accurate comment would be, "Remember, history shows that some players and their low ADPs will be bargains by year's end." The trick is that we don't know yet which late-round RBs will be steals, just like we don't know yet which early-round RBs will be busts.

Regarding the OP, if you're in a league that starts 2 QB and 3 WR, I imagine you and your leaguemates are already targeting QBs and WRs earlier than more "standard" leagues. If you're not, then yes, you probably should be.

This exactly. Most of the leagues I played in were won by guys that lucked into Foster, McFadden, Hillis, Vick, and Lloyd. It didn't matter what their strategy was. If they got 1st round production out of a late round pick or waiver wire pickup their team was dominant. Not to mention, last year was pretty brutal on 1st and 2nd round picks. I would say most didn't live up to their ADP.

Three of those guys are RBs who were drafted in the range Matt is suggesting to focus drafting your RBs. Vick and Lloyd came off the waiver wire in most leagues. I think you're helping his argument.I liked the intro.

 

[Ian F]

I like this approach as viable in the right situation (draft slot, lineup, knowing how rest of leagues draft) but the main question I have from the article is this: do the stats really suggest turnover at the positions is significantly different?

Sure I get how turnover for QBs and TEs is lower than for RBs/WRs but if there is no difference in RB vs WR turnover (i.e. both 60% top 12, 40ish % top 24 etc) then why is this a reason to load up on WRs and wait on RBs (there are other reasons but this evidence doesn't seem to support the argument at all)

BTW I think the nuance to this analysis that helps (which I did roughly last year) is to look at the top guys from each year and whether they fall off a cliff completely the following few years. Since imo its more about which early picks are more likely to kill your team completely rather than underperform. I.e. you can make up for Fitz in a year like he had in 2010 but its hard to recover when Larry Johnson becomes a pumpkin after crushing it

I believe this type of analysis favors WRs over RBs

 

[cutter43]

Matt-

I am picking from the 11th spot this year, so your strategy makes sense.

Questions for you (picking 11th, standard scoring, non-PPR, qb/2rb/3wr/te/3IDP tackle heavy)

A.) WR3 seems to be a key position to address when using the upside down strategy. How do you address when to take one?

B.) It seems that selecting one of the top TE's is paramount to this strategy. How paramount is it? Can one still succeed with a Gronk or Graham? It would seem WR/WR/QB/RB going into the 5th makes for sense. Then TE/WR in the 5th/6th rounds. No?

C.) Also, if one needs to use the 5th-10th rounds say for collecting RB's, when is it best to begin picking IDP players? Would you consider picking them before the 10th?

While doing mocks, I run into the problem of needing to take IDP's in that 7th-8th round range, when I should be takin RB's.

Your thoughts. . .

 

[Rick James]

Can't do it. 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1RB/WR flex, non-ppr. interesting strategy, but for my league I have to load up on RBs

Why so? I have the same format and am highly considering going upside down. Only difference is that you have to account for the extra RB (flex) starting position. I'm considering going WR, WR/QB, RB, QB/WR. Waiting on the TE position.

That's my exact lineup as well - 6pt all TDs and 0.5 ppr thoughI have gone 3 WR and a QB through 5 round 3 straight years, and made title game in all 3. I typically go TE in those rounds, but sometimes a RB I like falls.:RBs get injured all the time. A core value to this strategy is just that: You don't need Hillis all year for this to work. You need Mike Goodson for a couple weeks, Rashad Jennings a week or two, some Marion Barber here or there, maybe a little Brandon Jacobs...I used Maurice Morris 3 games I think last year...Javarris James was useful.You don't need a WW wonder of the year. I didn't have Vick, Foster, or Hillis. I did have three WR1s and a top QB...although he got hurt and I had Grossman and Tebow in playoffs.The point is, all you gotta do is cobble together RB2 production. Start 3 elite wideouts, a solid RB at your first spot, elite TE/QB...and you just need to make the playoffs - where anything can happen.

Where are you getting a solid RB for RB1? If you're drafting "upside down" and going WR/WR/QB/TE/WR, or something...then you're just counting on getting lucky and hitting a solid RB in the midrounds...which is fine, but not really a strategy

 

[Instinctive]

Can't do it. 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1RB/WR flex, non-ppr. interesting strategy, but for my league I have to load up on RBs

Why so? I have the same format and am highly considering going upside down. Only difference is that you have to account for the extra RB (flex) starting position. I'm considering going WR, WR/QB, RB, QB/WR. Waiting on the TE position.

That's my exact lineup as well - 6pt all TDs and 0.5 ppr thoughI have gone 3 WR and a QB through 5 round 3 straight years, and made title game in all 3. I typically go TE in those rounds, but sometimes a RB I like falls.:RBs get injured all the time. A core value to this strategy is just that: You don't need Hillis all year for this to work. You need Mike Goodson for a couple weeks, Rashad Jennings a week or two, some Marion Barber here or there, maybe a little Brandon Jacobs...I used Maurice Morris 3 games I think last year...Javarris James was useful.You don't need a WW wonder of the year. I didn't have Vick, Foster, or Hillis. I did have three WR1s and a top QB...although he got hurt and I had Grossman and Tebow in playoffs.The point is, all you gotta do is cobble together RB2 production. Start 3 elite wideouts, a solid RB at your first spot, elite TE/QB...and you just need to make the playoffs - where anything can happen.

Where are you getting a solid RB for RB1? If you're drafting "upside down" and going WR/WR/QB/TE/WR, or something...then you're just counting on getting lucky and hitting a solid RB in the midrounds...which is fine, but not really a strategy

I think I said I often end up with one RB in the top 5 rounds - but if not, then I get a RB2-3 type in the 6th ish.Every week, I am starting a WR1 as my WR1, WR2, and WR3/Flex. I start the QB1 as my QB1. I start a top 5 TE as my TE.All of that is usually enough to get away with a RB2 as my RB1 and a RB3 as my RB2.ETA: when I say solid, I just mean consistent. Say, Wells or Lynch this year. Not necessarily solid as in RB1 solid.

 

[Matt Waldman]

Matt-

I am picking from the 11th spot this year, so your strategy makes sense.

Questions for you (picking 11th, standard scoring, non-PPR, qb/2rb/3wr/te/3IDP tackle heavy)

A.) WR3 seems to be a key position to address when using the upside down strategy. How do you address when to take one? I mix one in with the RB block between rounds 5-10 usually or I wait until round 6 for RBs, which ever you feel most comfortable doing

B.) It seems that selecting one of the top TE's is paramount to this strategy. How paramount is it? Can one still succeed with a Gronk or Graham? It would seem WR/WR/QB/RB going into the 5th makes for sense. Then TE/WR in the 5th/6th rounds. No? In the past it made more sense to go TE because in recent years the TE situation has been more stable at the top. Things are changing a bit with a number of TEs with high upside coming to the forefront. The problem is figuring out which ones. I'd prefer a safer pick at TE and either wait on the RB or QB (if a guy like Schaub or Romo is falling low enough). You can also succeed with a steady, but not spectacular QB like Ryan if he's still going around the spot he was last year.

C.) Also, if one needs to use the 5th-10th rounds say for collecting RB's, when is it best to begin picking IDP players? Would you consider picking them before the 10th? IDP changes things a lot because you're adding three positions that actually matter and aren't crapshoots like Team DEF and kicker. You'll need to keep mocking and work that out. I'd check your scoring on those IDPs to see where the values drop so you can determine a sound strategy.

While doing mocks, I run into the problem of needing to take IDP's in that 7th-8th round range, when I should be takin RB's.

Your thoughts. . .

 

[Matt Waldman]

Can't do it. 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1RB/WR flex, non-ppr. interesting strategy, but for my league I have to load up on RBs

Why so? I have the same format and am highly considering going upside down. Only difference is that you have to account for the extra RB (flex) starting position. I'm considering going WR, WR/QB, RB, QB/WR. Waiting on the TE position.

That's my exact lineup as well - 6pt all TDs and 0.5 ppr thoughI have gone 3 WR and a QB through 5 round 3 straight years, and made title game in all 3. I typically go TE in those rounds, but sometimes a RB I like falls.:RBs get injured all the time. A core value to this strategy is just that: You don't need Hillis all year for this to work. You need Mike Goodson for a couple weeks, Rashad Jennings a week or two, some Marion Barber here or there, maybe a little Brandon Jacobs...I used Maurice Morris 3 games I think last year...Javarris James was useful.You don't need a WW wonder of the year. I didn't have Vick, Foster, or Hillis. I did have three WR1s and a top QB...although he got hurt and I had Grossman and Tebow in playoffs.The point is, all you gotta do is cobble together RB2 production. Start 3 elite wideouts, a solid RB at your first spot, elite TE/QB...and you just need to make the playoffs - where anything can happen.

Where are you getting a solid RB for RB1? If you're drafting "upside down" and going WR/WR/QB/TE/WR, or something...then you're just counting on getting lucky and hitting a solid RB in the midrounds...which is fine, but not really a strategy

I think I said I often end up with one RB in the top 5 rounds - but if not, then I get a RB2-3 type in the 6th ish.Every week, I am starting a WR1 as my WR1, WR2, and WR3/Flex. I start the QB1 as my QB1. I start a top 5 TE as my TE.All of that is usually enough to get away with a RB2 as my RB1 and a RB3 as my RB2.ETA: when I say solid, I just mean consistent. Say, Wells or Lynch this year. Not necessarily solid as in RB1 solid.

That's it. When I get to use this strategy, I tend to pick 3-4 top 15 WRs and a top TE. I may wind up with a low-end RB starter as my RB1 and bye week filler as my RB2 to begin the year. Usually doesn't matter. I tend to score very well, play the waiver wire, and find a strong RB1 or RB2. Or, I find that I have 4-5 top 24 WRs and a couple of good QBs so I trade for an RB. The nice part about this strategy is when executed well you can often build a surplus at a valuable position. I think there are some points that a number of people are missing about the whole RB/WR turnover thing:1. When I compare RBs and WRs, the traditional league starts more WRs than RBs. When you're drafting in the initial rounds in the middle or the end of the order you have a better pool or WRs to choose from than RBs. Since you have more WRs to play in your lineup, it makes more sense to go WR heavy because you're getting the same pick of the litter as your competition in the top half of the draft who gets the pick of the RBs. 2. Because there are more WRs to start that RBs in a lineup, missing on 1 of 2 RBs isn't as damaging if you have 3 strong WRs. I'd rather shoot the dice on a mid-to-late round RB than 2-3 mid-to-late WRs to fill my lineup. Just a matter of numbers.

 

[Harpua]

Can't do it. 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1RB/WR flex, non-ppr. interesting strategy, but for my league I have to load up on RBs

Why so? I have the same format and am highly considering going upside down. Only difference is that you have to account for the extra RB (flex) starting position. I'm considering going WR, WR/QB, RB, QB/WR. Waiting on the TE position.

That's my exact lineup as well - 6pt all TDs and 0.5 ppr thoughI have gone 3 WR and a QB through 5 round 3 straight years, and made title game in all 3. I typically go TE in those rounds, but sometimes a RB I like falls.:RBs get injured all the time. A core value to this strategy is just that: You don't need Hillis all year for this to work. You need Mike Goodson for a couple weeks, Rashad Jennings a week or two, some Marion Barber here or there, maybe a little Brandon Jacobs...I used Maurice Morris 3 games I think last year...Javarris James was useful.You don't need a WW wonder of the year. I didn't have Vick, Foster, or Hillis. I did have three WR1s and a top QB...although he got hurt and I had Grossman and Tebow in playoffs.The point is, all you gotta do is cobble together RB2 production. Start 3 elite wideouts, a solid RB at your first spot, elite TE/QB...and you just need to make the playoffs - where anything can happen.

Where are you getting a solid RB for RB1? If you're drafting "upside down" and going WR/WR/QB/TE/WR, or something...then you're just counting on getting lucky and hitting a solid RB in the midrounds...which is fine, but not really a strategy

I think I said I often end up with one RB in the top 5 rounds - but if not, then I get a RB2-3 type in the 6th ish.Every week, I am starting a WR1 as my WR1, WR2, and WR3/Flex. I start the QB1 as my QB1. I start a top 5 TE as my TE.All of that is usually enough to get away with a RB2 as my RB1 and a RB3 as my RB2.ETA: when I say solid, I just mean consistent. Say, Wells or Lynch this year. Not necessarily solid as in RB1 solid.

That's it. When I get to use this strategy, I tend to pick 3-4 top 15 WRs and a top TE. I may wind up with a low-end RB starter as my RB1 and bye week filler as my RB2 to begin the year. Usually doesn't matter. I tend to score very well, play the waiver wire, and find a strong RB1 or RB2. Or, I find that I have 4-5 top 24 WRs and a couple of good QBs so I trade for an RB. The nice part about this strategy is when executed well you can often build a surplus at a valuable position. I think there are some points that a number of people are missing about the whole RB/WR turnover thing:1. When I compare RBs and WRs, the traditional league starts more WRs than RBs. When you're drafting in the initial rounds in the middle or the end of the order you have a better pool or WRs to choose from than RBs. Since you have more WRs to play in your lineup, it makes more sense to go WR heavy because you're getting the same pick of the litter as your competition in the top half of the draft who gets the pick of the RBs. 2. Because there are more WRs to start that RBs in a lineup, missing on 1 of 2 RBs isn't as damaging if you have 3 strong WRs. I'd rather shoot the dice on a mid-to-late round RB than 2-3 mid-to-late WRs to fill my lineup. Just a matter of numbers.

I have a 2RB/3WR and Flex with .5ppr. Upside down seems like a viable option... until I look at my DD and it lists 14 RB as the first 14 VBD selections. Now I'm trying to see why these two philosophies are not meshing.

 

[cutter43]

Thanks Matt. Appreciate the reply.

Yeah, the safe TE seems to mock out better anyways. Going WR/WR/QB/WR/TE/RB is very plausible. I think what it all comes down to is realizing that your RB's will be more a leap of faith. If one can accept that they will find some value over the season, then the rest of their squad can carry them. A lot seems to have to do with the valued perception of available RB's. Diamonds in the rough.

As for IDP's, on average rounds 7/8 see the top 10 go, starting off a IDP run lasting into the end of the 11th. Would you place more value on acquiring said RB's or shoring up your IDP base? Or just going both?

Thanks again.

 

[Instinctive]

Can't do it. 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1RB/WR flex, non-ppr. interesting strategy, but for my league I have to load up on RBs

Why so? I have the same format and am highly considering going upside down. Only difference is that you have to account for the extra RB (flex) starting position. I'm considering going WR, WR/QB, RB, QB/WR. Waiting on the TE position.

That's my exact lineup as well - 6pt all TDs and 0.5 ppr thoughI have gone 3 WR and a QB through 5 round 3 straight years, and made title game in all 3. I typically go TE in those rounds, but sometimes a RB I like falls.:RBs get injured all the time. A core value to this strategy is just that: You don't need Hillis all year for this to work. You need Mike Goodson for a couple weeks, Rashad Jennings a week or two, some Marion Barber here or there, maybe a little Brandon Jacobs...I used Maurice Morris 3 games I think last year...Javarris James was useful.You don't need a WW wonder of the year. I didn't have Vick, Foster, or Hillis. I did have three WR1s and a top QB...although he got hurt and I had Grossman and Tebow in playoffs.The point is, all you gotta do is cobble together RB2 production. Start 3 elite wideouts, a solid RB at your first spot, elite TE/QB...and you just need to make the playoffs - where anything can happen.

Where are you getting a solid RB for RB1? If you're drafting "upside down" and going WR/WR/QB/TE/WR, or something...then you're just counting on getting lucky and hitting a solid RB in the midrounds...which is fine, but not really a strategy

I think I said I often end up with one RB in the top 5 rounds - but if not, then I get a RB2-3 type in the 6th ish.Every week, I am starting a WR1 as my WR1, WR2, and WR3/Flex. I start the QB1 as my QB1. I start a top 5 TE as my TE.All of that is usually enough to get away with a RB2 as my RB1 and a RB3 as my RB2.ETA: when I say solid, I just mean consistent. Say, Wells or Lynch this year. Not necessarily solid as in RB1 solid.

That's it. When I get to use this strategy, I tend to pick 3-4 top 15 WRs and a top TE. I may wind up with a low-end RB starter as my RB1 and bye week filler as my RB2 to begin the year. Usually doesn't matter. I tend to score very well, play the waiver wire, and find a strong RB1 or RB2. Or, I find that I have 4-5 top 24 WRs and a couple of good QBs so I trade for an RB. The nice part about this strategy is when executed well you can often build a surplus at a valuable position. I think there are some points that a number of people are missing about the whole RB/WR turnover thing:1. When I compare RBs and WRs, the traditional league starts more WRs than RBs. When you're drafting in the initial rounds in the middle or the end of the order you have a better pool or WRs to choose from than RBs. Since you have more WRs to play in your lineup, it makes more sense to go WR heavy because you're getting the same pick of the litter as your competition in the top half of the draft who gets the pick of the RBs. 2. Because there are more WRs to start that RBs in a lineup, missing on 1 of 2 RBs isn't as damaging if you have 3 strong WRs. I'd rather shoot the dice on a mid-to-late round RB than 2-3 mid-to-late WRs to fill my lineup. Just a matter of numbers.

I have a 2RB/3WR and Flex with .5ppr. Upside down seems like a viable option... until I look at my DD and it lists 14 RB as the first 14 VBD selections. Now I'm trying to see why these two philosophies are not meshing.

What's the likelihood that the first 14 RBs end up with the 14 highest VBD ranks though?I want a 90% shot at 100 VBD from WR1 over a 60% shot at 120 VBD from RB8...don't you?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I have a 2RB/3WR and Flex with .5ppr. Upside down seems like a viable option... until I look at my DD and it lists 14 RB as the first 14 VBD selections. Now I'm trying to see why these two philosophies are not meshing.

This is what I was saying earlier. I get that he's trying to go against the grain, but traditional VBD, while flawed, is at least somewhat tried-and-true in practice and the theory based on a relatively solid quantitative foundation. The "drafting upside down" strategy, on the other hand, appears to be based on the theory that you can grab elite players at the other skill positions early, grab a bunch of mid-to-late round RBs, and your team will be highly competitive. Sounds good, but there's little analysis to really show whether it works as described (i.e. whether drafting upside down will consistently be expected to outperform those drafted by dVBD or some other more traditional method).As far as resolving the apparent contradiction, I'm sure Waldman will point out that VBD is only as accurate as the projections used to create it, and that due to high annual turnover the projections (and therefore VBD) aren't likely to be that accurate. It might be interesting (and it's easy enough) to look at past years' final stats, derive the exact VBD values of each player according to some baseline, and then try different draft strategies to see which results in the better team more often. In other words, if right now we had 100% perfect projections for the upcoming season, would VBD instruct us to draft "upside down" (assuming everyone else drafts by ADP) or would you still find that RBs have more value?

 

[Harpua]

Can't do it. 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1RB/WR flex, non-ppr. interesting strategy, but for my league I have to load up on RBs

Why so? I have the same format and am highly considering going upside down. Only difference is that you have to account for the extra RB (flex) starting position. I'm considering going WR, WR/QB, RB, QB/WR. Waiting on the TE position.

That's my exact lineup as well - 6pt all TDs and 0.5 ppr thoughI have gone 3 WR and a QB through 5 round 3 straight years, and made title game in all 3. I typically go TE in those rounds, but sometimes a RB I like falls.:RBs get injured all the time. A core value to this strategy is just that: You don't need Hillis all year for this to work. You need Mike Goodson for a couple weeks, Rashad Jennings a week or two, some Marion Barber here or there, maybe a little Brandon Jacobs...I used Maurice Morris 3 games I think last year...Javarris James was useful.You don't need a WW wonder of the year. I didn't have Vick, Foster, or Hillis. I did have three WR1s and a top QB...although he got hurt and I had Grossman and Tebow in playoffs.The point is, all you gotta do is cobble together RB2 production. Start 3 elite wideouts, a solid RB at your first spot, elite TE/QB...and you just need to make the playoffs - where anything can happen.

Where are you getting a solid RB for RB1? If you're drafting "upside down" and going WR/WR/QB/TE/WR, or something...then you're just counting on getting lucky and hitting a solid RB in the midrounds...which is fine, but not really a strategy

I think I said I often end up with one RB in the top 5 rounds - but if not, then I get a RB2-3 type in the 6th ish.Every week, I am starting a WR1 as my WR1, WR2, and WR3/Flex. I start the QB1 as my QB1. I start a top 5 TE as my TE.All of that is usually enough to get away with a RB2 as my RB1 and a RB3 as my RB2.ETA: when I say solid, I just mean consistent. Say, Wells or Lynch this year. Not necessarily solid as in RB1 solid.

That's it. When I get to use this strategy, I tend to pick 3-4 top 15 WRs and a top TE. I may wind up with a low-end RB starter as my RB1 and bye week filler as my RB2 to begin the year. Usually doesn't matter. I tend to score very well, play the waiver wire, and find a strong RB1 or RB2. Or, I find that I have 4-5 top 24 WRs and a couple of good QBs so I trade for an RB. The nice part about this strategy is when executed well you can often build a surplus at a valuable position. I think there are some points that a number of people are missing about the whole RB/WR turnover thing:1. When I compare RBs and WRs, the traditional league starts more WRs than RBs. When you're drafting in the initial rounds in the middle or the end of the order you have a better pool or WRs to choose from than RBs. Since you have more WRs to play in your lineup, it makes more sense to go WR heavy because you're getting the same pick of the litter as your competition in the top half of the draft who gets the pick of the RBs. 2. Because there are more WRs to start that RBs in a lineup, missing on 1 of 2 RBs isn't as damaging if you have 3 strong WRs. I'd rather shoot the dice on a mid-to-late round RB than 2-3 mid-to-late WRs to fill my lineup. Just a matter of numbers.

I have a 2RB/3WR and Flex with .5ppr. Upside down seems like a viable option... until I look at my DD and it lists 14 RB as the first 14 VBD selections. Now I'm trying to see why these two philosophies are not meshing.

What's the likelihood that the first 14 RBs end up with the 14 highest VBD ranks though?I want a 90% shot at 100 VBD from WR1 over a 60% shot at 120 VBD from RB8...don't you?

0% chance all 14 will pan out. however, the lack of presence of WR in the top seems to indicate there is not much differentiation between the WR. I would expect to see a less RB heavy DD if the RB value presented by USD drafting was in the DD projections

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I want a 90% shot at 100 VBD from WR1 over a 60% shot at 120 VBD from RB8...don't you?

Is this really the case, though? IIRC the turnover rates for WRs Waldman cited in his article weren't that much lower than the rates for RBs. It's easy to "prove" that drafting upside down works if you accept the premise that you can't possibly miss when choosing elite WRs, QBs, and TEs, but of course that's not the case.To the larger point, you're probably right for the first round. If you have the 8th overall pick, it might make more sense to take WR1 there than RB8. In fact, you see this happen all the time. That doesn't necessarily mean, however, that you should go WR-WR-WR-TE-QB with your first five picks from the 8 spot.

 

[Instinctive]

0% chance all 14 will pan out. however, the lack of presence of WR in the top seems to indicate there is not much differentiation between the WR. I would expect to see a less RB heavy DD if the RB value presented by USD drafting was in the DD projections

Right - but projections (rightly) don't account for injury... I feel like I have more Probable VBD (pVBD from now on) with one or both Johnsons and/or Fitz/Nicks than, say, McFadden and Forte...or Mendy/Forte..or w/e combo. And Mendy/Forte is one of the more reliable combos I can think of!The WRs may be projected for less VBD, but are safer bets to reach what they are projected for year to year. Their pVBD is higher.Like last season - 4 of the top 10 (maybe 5, can't recall where McCoy was going) RBs in VBD were not 1st round picks. But most of the first round was RBs...

 

[Instinctive]

I want a 90% shot at 100 VBD from WR1 over a 60% shot at 120 VBD from RB8...don't you?

Is this really the case, though? IIRC the turnover rates for WRs Waldman cited in his article weren't that much lower than the rates for RBs. It's easy to "prove" that drafting upside down works if you accept the premise that you can't possibly miss when choosing elite WRs, QBs, and TEs, but of course that's not the case.To the larger point, you're probably right for the first round. If you have the 8th overall pick, it might make more sense to take WR1 there than RB8. In fact, you see this happen all the time. That doesn't necessarily mean, however, that you should go WR-WR-WR-TE-QB with your first five picks from the 8 spot.

I'm not willing to, nor do I have the ability to, spend the necessary time to back it up with numbers...but I've been doing it for years and it keeps working RBs come off the wire all the time, and it's much easier to rely on a backup RB play when a starter goes down than a backup WR if a starter goes down. Simply due to the nature of the position.

 

[Sifter]

I want a 90% shot at 100 VBD from WR1 over a 60% shot at 120 VBD from RB8...don't you?

Is this really the case, though? IIRC the turnover rates for WRs Waldman cited in his article weren't that much lower than the rates for RBs. It's easy to "prove" that drafting upside down works if you accept the premise that you can't possibly miss when choosing elite WRs, QBs, and TEs, but of course that's not the case.To the larger point, you're probably right for the first round. If you have the 8th overall pick, it might make more sense to take WR1 there than RB8. In fact, you see this happen all the time. That doesn't necessarily mean, however, that you should go WR-WR-WR-TE-QB with your first five picks from the 8 spot.

I'm not willing to, nor do I have the ability to, spend the necessary time to back it up with numbers...but I've been doing it for years and it keeps working RBs come off the wire all the time, and it's much easier to rely on a backup RB play when a starter goes down than a backup WR if a starter goes down. Simply due to the nature of the position.

I totally agree with this and upside down style drafting in general.Basically, if I don't have the number 1 or number 2 pick then this strat works like a champ and almost to a tee. But, at #1 I am taking Foster (my choice I know some may disagree). On to theorycrafting now...Let's say that your in mid position or even late position snagging top WR talent, Rogers, or (dare I say it...) Vick, while hammering top WRs into a top TE in rounds 1-5 is pure profit. One way to think of it is that while some guy on your league may snag a top 3 RB and 2 other top 22 or so RBs to accompany him, I have a top 3 QB, 3 WRs in the top 15 and a top 3 TE! 3 outstanding positions with a heavy advantage on WR(hopefully you have a WR avg of top 10 on 3 WRs). Hell, if you have a super stud RB you can grab him instead of 1 WR, but IMO loading up on the mid RBs is all you need with these big advantages in general. I am snagging Best, Ingram, Jackson, Lynch, Ryan Williams, Chris Wells and sometimes lucky enough to snag a LeGarrett Blount(but rarely) at super good value in those mid rounds.

 

[FF Ninja]

I like a lot of what Waldman does, but sticking to one system is never a good plan. Must always be fluid. And as stated above, this doesn't work with an early pick. You gotta take Foster #1. This works much better late in the draft. I posted my thoughts in the article comments:

While interesting, there isn't a very strong case for this as WR turnover is just as bad as RB turnover, and drafting a QB early does not pay dividends since a QB taken in round 2 does not net very many more points than a QB in round 5, whereas there is a much steeper drop off at RB/WR. TE depth is similar to QB, so it is hard to make a case for those two positions to be drafted early. With this approach you really just have to dedicate your roster depth to RBs since the hit rate is even lower as you get deeper into a draft. There's nothing wrong with this approach, but it seems silly to go into a draft with that as a game plan. It is always best to just have several game plans up your sleeve. Then take what the draft gives you early and let that dictate which game plan you follow.

 

[-jb-]

I like a lot of what Waldman does, but sticking to one system is never a good plan. Must always be fluid. And as stated above, this doesn't work with an early pick. You gotta take Foster #1. This works much better late in the draft. I posted my thoughts in the article comments:

While interesting, there isn't a very strong case for this as WR turnover is just as bad as RB turnover, and drafting a QB early does not pay dividends since a QB taken in round 2 does not net very many more points than a QB in round 5, whereas there is a much steeper drop off at RB/WR. TE depth is similar to QB, so it is hard to make a case for those two positions to be drafted early. With this approach you really just have to dedicate your roster depth to RBs since the hit rate is even lower as you get deeper into a draft. There's nothing wrong with this approach, but it seems silly to go into a draft with that as a game plan. It is always best to just have several game plans up your sleeve. Then take what the draft gives you early and let that dictate which game plan you follow.

I think you and Matt are saying the same things, just within a different construct. The overlying message is this - in the early rounds, go with the players you are most confident in being in the super elite upper tier. To your point (and Matt's in the article), it makes sense to grab a top flight RB, but beyond that your safe bets diminish quickly. so, why not grab a WR that offers that same safety? By following through with the rest of Matt's strategy (hig level QB & TE), all you are doing is continuing to mitigate risk within your roster to offset the additional risk you are taking on at the RB position.In terms of staying fluid, you also need to be prepared in order to understand what taking a different direction could mean to your draft. It's a safe bet that 4 RBs will be gone in the top half of round 1, so it's a good idea to understand what your options are after that happens. Again, you're saying the same thing for the most part.It's a sound strategy. See also - zig when the zag.

 

[Rick James]

I want a 90% shot at 100 VBD from WR1 over a 60% shot at 120 VBD from RB8...don't you?

Is this really the case, though? IIRC the turnover rates for WRs Waldman cited in his article weren't that much lower than the rates for RBs. It's easy to "prove" that drafting upside down works if you accept the premise that you can't possibly miss when choosing elite WRs, QBs, and TEs, but of course that's not the case.To the larger point, you're probably right for the first round. If you have the 8th overall pick, it might make more sense to take WR1 there than RB8. In fact, you see this happen all the time. That doesn't necessarily mean, however, that you should go WR-WR-WR-TE-QB with your first five picks from the 8 spot.

I'm not willing to, nor do I have the ability to, spend the necessary time to back it up with numbers...but I've been doing it for years and it keeps working RBs come off the wire all the time, and it's much easier to rely on a backup RB play when a starter goes down than a backup WR if a starter goes down. Simply due to the nature of the position.

I totally agree with this and upside down style drafting in general.Basically, if I don't have the number 1 or number 2 pick then this strat works like a champ and almost to a tee. But, at #1 I am taking Foster (my choice I know some may disagree). On to theorycrafting now...Let's say that your in mid position or even late position snagging top WR talent, Rogers, or (dare I say it...) Vick, while hammering top WRs into a top TE in rounds 1-5 is pure profit. One way to think of it is that while some guy on your league may snag a top 3 RB and 2 other top 22 or so RBs to accompany him, I have a top 3 QB, 3 WRs in the top 15 and a top 3 TE! 3 outstanding positions with a heavy advantage on WR(hopefully you have a WR avg of top 10 on 3 WRs). Hell, if you have a super stud RB you can grab him instead of 1 WR, but IMO loading up on the mid RBs is all you need with these big advantages in general. I am snagging Best, Ingram, Jackson, Lynch, Ryan Williams, Chris Wells and sometimes lucky enough to snag a LeGarrett Blount(but rarely) at super good value in those mid rounds.

This theory works great in July, not so much in August. Last year Foster was going 4th-5th in July. By the time we drafted he was gone in the 3rd. Ingram and Best will not be there in the 5th. Those other guys will move up a round, too.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

This theory works great in July, not so much in August. Last year Foster was going 4th-5th in July. By the time we drafted he was gone in the 3rd. Ingram and Best will not be there in the 5th. Those other guys will move up a round, too.

I'm not sure what kind of leagues you guys are playing in - I guess drafting "upside down" probably works well in a league where everyone else drafts nothing but RBs in the first few rounds, and you're the only one who has any idea who the "value" plays are in the later rounds. In reality, that's not how it goes.

One way to think of it is that while some guy on your league may snag a top 3 RB and 2 other top 22 or so RBs to accompany him, I have a top 3 QB, 3 WRs in the top 15 and a top 3 TE!

No, you might have a top 3 QB, 3 WRs in the top 15, and a top 3 TE. Or you might not. As has been pointed out and ignored several times, it's not like there's no risk to taking WRs, TEs, and QBs early. Sure, it's a pretty safe bet that Peyton Manning will be a top-tier QB every year, but he also doesn't represent a huge points advantage over QBs you can get several rounds later. Traditional VBD concepts can't be thrown completely out the window here - even if you do end up with a top 3 QB, is it really worth that much more than the QB7 I can get later?

I am snagging Best, Ingram, Jackson, Lynch, Ryan Williams, Chris Wells and sometimes lucky enough to snag a LeGarrett Blount(but rarely) at super good value in those mid rounds.

Really? You're getting 6-7 of these "value" players in the mid rounds? Of course this system works like a charm if, after supposedly locking up a top 3 QB, 3 top 15 WRs and a top 3 TE, you can then grab all those super good values, but you can't. First of all, it's not like you're the only one out of 12 owners who thinks Ingram might be good this year, or Wells could be poised for a breakout season (if you are the only one, then it's no surprise that you win your league - that says more about your leaguemates than it does about you, though). The reality is that you're going to end up grabbing a couple of these guys, tops, and it's a total crapshoot whether the one or two you happen to grab end up being the one or two that actually turn out to be useful players as opposed to glaring holes in your starting lineup.Again, I'm not saying this strategy can't be useful. I'm just pointing out that there has been very little, if any, real justification presented for it, other than vague notions of grabbing top players at every position and then hitting on value plays later in the draft. If it was that easy, I'd quit my job and play fantasy football for a living. But it's not.

 

[hotboyz]

I'm wondering If this is a strategy I can use in my league 6 pts td under 40 9 pt over 40 we start 1rb 1wr 3 flex. RB/wr its a 12 team league I have the third pick in the first round what makes our draft unique is the fact that we do random every other round.

 

[NeverEnough]

You can go into a draft thinking you'll go WR, WR, QB...or whatever, but what if someone falls & it'd be a bad move NOT to grab them? There goes your plan.

It's fantasy, just draft BPA based on your roster needs at the time for the most part. I'm not saying this is set in stone either. For example, let's say you went Rodgers in round 1 & Vick fell to you in round 3. You almost have to take him. Can always trade him to fill whatever hole you may have.

 

[HooQuaker]

I'm just pointing out that there has been very little, if any, real justification presented for it, other than vague notions of grabbing top players at every position and then hitting on value plays later in the draft.

What kind of justification are you looking for? Strictly quantitative? To convince myself that this was the right strategy for the back end of the draft, I mocked over and over and over using different strategies. I then compared the teams. I was more satisfied with the teams that I got from using this strategy. The ADP and risk fall in such a way this year, that the upside down strategy is worth it. I will say that going WR/RB was fine too; however, just because VBD and the draft dominator tells you that you should pick RB/RB doesn't mean you should, because this number crunching cannot predict the nature of the draft. Only mountains of mocks can give you a feel for that. From my mocks out of the later slots, I feel that some variant of upside down, even a hedged variant where an RB gets taken in the first four rounds, yields the best teams.To the point: The numbers can't tell you everything. I used to draft strictly according to VBD/BPA, but I found that I would see pockets of value at positions that I had already filled. Yes, it's fine to pull the trigger on value even if you have starters, but I think it is much smarter to try and find the optimal flow to draft based on ADP and tendencies. For the back end of the draft this year, I think the upside down variant rides this flow more efficiently and allows you to nail pockets of value at positions of need rather than surplus. In other words, from what I have seen in my mocks, you are better able to transform the pockets of value (mostly at RB in this case) into starters rather than trade fodder if you use this strategy *this year* from the back end. This is why I think any draft spot needs a holistic draft plan rather than just basic VBD principles. Use the plan to maximize those principles.

 

[The Jerk]

Where are you getting a solid RB for RB1? If you're drafting "upside down" and going WR/WR/QB/TE/WR, or something...then you're just counting on getting lucky and hitting a solid RB in the midrounds...which is fine, but not really a strategy

Finding a true gem RB in the mid-to-late rounds of a draft often is lucky. No matter how much someone likes to tout his ability to find sleepers, if he truly knew they'd perform at RB1 level, they would never wait so long to draft them. So I can agree with your premise to some extent. However, choosing to wait on RBs because you know it is possible to cobble together sufficient RB production with at most 1 RB through the first 5-6 rounds can and should be considered a strategy.

This theory works great in July, not so much in August. Last year Foster was going 4th-5th in July. By the time we drafted he was gone in the 3rd. Ingram and Best will not be there in the 5th. Those other guys will move up a round, too.

I'm not sure what kind of leagues you guys are playing in - I guess drafting "upside down" probably works well in a league where everyone else drafts nothing but RBs in the first few rounds, and you're the only one who has any idea who the "value" plays are in the later rounds. In reality, that's not how it goes....

Again, I'm not saying this strategy can't be useful. I'm just pointing out that there has been very little, if any, real justification presented for it, other than vague notions of grabbing top players at every position and then hitting on value plays later in the draft. If it was that easy, I'd quit my job and play fantasy football for a living. But it's not.

I believe a league where each team drafts 3-4 RBs in the first five rounds is not favorable to the upside-down draft. The reason is that in the sixth round and later, you're selecting after at least 30-35 RBs are already gone. Your chances of finding diamonds in the rough are worse than in leagues where 10+ fewer RBs have been taken at that point. Like virtually every other strategy, a lot depends on the league.My longest running league is now in its 22nd year. During the mid-1990s, I was using a VBD-like approach (although it really wasn't called that for years) while my opponents were using just a list of names. Unsurprisingly, I did quite well, but it wasn't VBD alone that enabled my success. It was also important that my opponents had no VBD aspect to their draft preparation. This league has atypical scoring, so it never was a "stud RB" league, but it still had a rigidity to it until other teams either learned more about drafting or mimicked my approach by looking at my drafts. In any case, my success was lessened in the 2000s, particularly early in the decade. I'm guessing a large part of this was that my opponents were now directly or indirectly (through a top 40-50 players listing based on our scoring rules) using VBD. If every team is now using VBD, it's almost like drafting against yourself -- differences in each team's draft list come about mostly due to differences in the source projections.

Starting about five years ago, while I had always used historical draft tendencies to "scout" my opposition, I decided to get more aggressive with utilizing that information. I saw the average number of players drafted at each position in each round for this league, and I noticed which QB/RB/WR/TE I could expect to be drafting in a given round. My goal is always to enter the draft with an idea of which 2nd or 3rd tier players I can get at any of the four main positions, and I am prepared to react to value that presents at any position in the early rounds knowing I have a workable plan to get serviceable players in later rounds. And for this particular league, while there is some variance in the other positions, RBs tend to go fairly early and then dry up after about 24-25 have been taken. When I see players in the high 20s and low 30s at RB that look very close to the RBs in the high teens and low 20s, it's a no-brainer to use upside-down. In this case, both the league tendencies and the positional availability are favorable.

I'm just pointing out that there has been very little, if any, real justification presented for it, other than vague notions of grabbing top players at every position and then hitting on value plays later in the draft.

What kind of justification are you looking for? Strictly quantitative? To convince myself that this was the right strategy for the back end of the draft, I mocked over and over and over using different strategies. I then compared the teams. I was more satisfied with the teams that I got from using this strategy. The ADP and risk fall in such a way this year, that the upside down strategy is worth it. I will say that going WR/RB was fine too; however, just because VBD and the draft dominator tells you that you should pick RB/RB doesn't mean you should, because this number crunching cannot predict the nature of the draft. Only mountains of mocks can give you a feel for that. From my mocks out of the later slots, I feel that some variant of upside down, even a hedged variant where an RB gets taken in the first four rounds, yields the best teams.

To the point: The numbers can't tell you everything. I used to draft strictly according to VBD/BPA, but I found that I would see pockets of value at positions that I had already filled. Yes, it's fine to pull the trigger on value even if you have starters, but I think it is much smarter to try and find the optimal flow to draft based on ADP and tendencies. For the back end of the draft this year, I think the upside down variant rides this flow more efficiently and allows you to nail pockets of value at positions of need rather than surplus. In other words, from what I have seen in my mocks, you are better able to transform the pockets of value (mostly at RB in this case) into starters rather than trade fodder if you use this strategy *this year* from the back end. This is why I think any draft spot needs a holistic draft plan rather than just basic VBD principles. Use the plan to maximize those principles.

I seem to have the same mindset as HooQuaker. As I mentioned in my response to Ignoratio Elenchi, I want to have options. I like the term "optimal flow" and I also use the approach of combining VBD, ADP and league tendencies. Like any strategy, it's got to be executed correctly and is still subject to the vagaries of injuries and other bad luck, but for me, it beats being slave to the numbers.So, I do not go into drafts with 100% determination to do any one strategy, and certainly not the upside-down draft strategy, but I will tell you that it is the strategy I hope to use if the draft breaks my way. I think the main point the article is trying to describe is to be open to the possibility should the opportunity to use the upside-down approach present itself to you on draft day.

Another reason I don't think the upside-down draft is just "draft non-RBs early and hope for luck" and should properly be considered a strategy is that it becomes very difficult to have the patience to pull it off if you're a veteran fantasy football owner who knows the value a strong RB core presents. You must be able to be disciplined and understand that the top 25 RBs as of September 8 on opening night are not the top 25 RBs on November 8 or December 8. Being decisive and passing on RB if -- and ONLY if -- value is present at QB, WR and TE in early rounds is a viable approach. I believe a number of people dismiss the upside-down draft because they don't want to look stupid in the eyes of their leaguemates: "John Doe doesn't know what he's doing -- he only took one RB in the first six rounds! Ha Ha Ha!"

In simple terms, what I like about it the most is that the upside-down draft gives you a chance to have a true juggernaut if you do indeed hit the exacta, so to speak, and find two low RB1/high RB2 players in the middle to late rounds. The upside-down draft, when it's there to be executed, truly is going all in to win.