VBD with kickers (1 Viewer)

[Liquid Tension]

I have been thinking about posting this since last year and never did, but here goes. We have fairly standard kicking rules. 3 points for a kick and everything over 40 we increase by .1 until 60 yards where it is a max of 5 points. So a 50 yard kick is worth 4 points and a 44 yard kick is worth 3.4 points. Xtra points are 1 point and Missing a kick inside of 30 yards and missing and extra point are negative 1 each.

The VBD says that taking the top 2 kickers should happen around the 72nd and 73rd pick or the beginning of the 6th round in a 12 man league. For reference that is around Lendale White, Chris Cooley, Donald Driver and Matt Hasselbeck.

Doesn't this seem too early for most of you and how do you adjust? I mean value is value and if (I know a big if) the projections are right then the value says it is a good pick.

Thoughts?

 

[John Mamula]

That seems wrong.

I haven't really looked at a static VBD model in a long time (more of a proponent of DVBD / gut hybrid).

If you are doing it right that just goes to show that you cannot draft by numbers (aka color by numbers).

The first issue is the randomness of who the top kicker is every year is fairly variable. So just because you take your top kicker, it may not be the top kicker.

The second issue (and really the more important issue to your specific question) is VBD vs ADP. VBD does not tell you when to draft. It tells you the relative value (or at least attempts to) but you then need to cross reference that with a good ADP. If the first kicker isn't going until round 10 in most drafts, there is no need to pull the trigger 4 rounds earlier.

There is more to drafting than just plug and chug and grab what players fall out because you got "value". Because I will argue that no matter how good a player is according to VBD you will not get value if you drafted them too early compared to where you could expect to get them.

 

[Liquid Tension]

That seems wrong.

I haven't really looked at a static VBD model in a long time (more of a proponent of DVBD / gut hybrid).

If you are doing it right that just goes to show that you cannot draft by numbers (aka color by numbers).

The first issue is the randomness of who the top kicker is every year is fairly variable. So just because you take your top kicker, it may not be the top kicker.

The second issue (and really the more important issue to your specific question) is VBD vs ADP. VBD does not tell you when to draft. It tells you the relative value (or at least attempts to) but you then need to cross reference that with a good ADP. If the first kicker isn't going until round 10 in most drafts, there is no need to pull the trigger 4 rounds earlier.

There is more to drafting than just plug and chug and grab what players fall out because you got "value". Because I will argue that no matter how good a player is according to VBD you will not get value if you drafted them too early compared to where you could expect to get them.

Thanks for the response, but I understand the VBD and how it should be used, but every year I can't understand why it is saying that the value pick would be a kicker at that point or a defense at the point it tells you. I understand 100% that taking the value guy without accounting for ADP could be a waste of a pick because you could get him 2 rounds later. But, if the value is there, the projections are correct and you don't think you could get him next round, it is a good pick. I have been playing fantasy for many years, but one of the hardest thing to judge is the value between all the different positions with different scoring methods, VBD helps with this. But, having the VBD tell you when to take kickers and defense seems too early to me.

 

[Lord Lucan]

VBD/the Draft Dominator tells you where a player should go according to the projctions fed into it, but it can't take into account variance. If we could guarantee that kickers were going to pretty much score as they are projected, it would probably be justified to take the top ones where VBD tells us; the reason we don't is that history tells us that kicker projections are notoriously more inaccurate than other positions.

 

[John Mamula]

That seems wrong.

I haven't really looked at a static VBD model in a long time (more of a proponent of DVBD / gut hybrid).

If you are doing it right that just goes to show that you cannot draft by numbers (aka color by numbers).

The first issue is the randomness of who the top kicker is every year is fairly variable. So just because you take your top kicker, it may not be the top kicker.

The second issue (and really the more important issue to your specific question) is VBD vs ADP. VBD does not tell you when to draft. It tells you the relative value (or at least attempts to) but you then need to cross reference that with a good ADP. If the first kicker isn't going until round 10 in most drafts, there is no need to pull the trigger 4 rounds earlier.

There is more to drafting than just plug and chug and grab what players fall out because you got "value". Because I will argue that no matter how good a player is according to VBD you will not get value if you drafted them too early compared to where you could expect to get them.

Thanks for the response, but I understand the VBD and how it should be used, but every year I can't understand why it is saying that the value pick would be a kicker at that point or a defense at the point it tells you. I understand 100% that taking the value guy without accounting for ADP could be a waste of a pick because you could get him 2 rounds later. But, if the value is there, the projections are correct and you don't think you could get him next round, it is a good pick. I have been playing fantasy for many years, but one of the hardest thing to judge is the value between all the different positions with different scoring methods, VBD helps with this. But, having the VBD tell you when to take kickers and defense seems too early to me.

The biggest issue I have with VBD is the question you raise. VBD is a great tool if your projections are perfect. The problem is they won't be. Thus you cannot draft like a robot off the numbers that VBD gives you. You can use it as a rough outline but you need to look at other factors whcih may lead you to believe that someone who has a VBD score of 10 points less be the better pick for you...especially since those 10 points may well be within the margin of error for your projections.

 

[Synthesizer]

As others have said, kicker predictions are far less accurate than other positions. Heck, just look at how the #1 ranked kicker has performed the following year:

In 2001, Wilkins was the #1 kicker. He followed that up next year ranked #22.

In 2002, Feely was the #1 kicker. He followed that up the next year ranked #24.

In 2003, Wilkins was the #1 kicker. He followed that up the next year ranked 24.

In 2004, Vinatieri was the #1 kicker. He followed that up the next year ranked #19.

In 2005, Feely was the #1 kicker. He followed that up the next year ranked #15.

In 2006, Gould was the #1 kicker. He followed that up the next year ranked #7.

The amazing thing is that none of these guys missed time due to injury the following year! Their final ranking was just poor performance. With kickers there just isn't much correlation between year x and year x+1.

 

[CalBear]

Thanks for the response, but I understand the VBD and how it should be used, but every year I can't understand why it is saying that the value pick would be a kicker at that point or a defense at the point it tells you. I understand 100% that taking the value guy without accounting for ADP could be a waste of a pick because you could get him 2 rounds later. But, if the value is there, the projections are correct and you don't think you could get him next round, it is a good pick.

I have been playing fantasy for many years, but one of the hardest thing to judge is the value between all the different positions with different scoring methods, VBD helps with this. But, having the VBD tell you when to take kickers and defense seems too early to me.

As others have noted, one issue is that projections for kickers and defenses, and especially for the top kickers and defenses, are wrong way more often than projections for other positions. I discount the first 3-5 kickers and defenses when they come up on the board; after that it gets a little more reasonable. The other thing to think about is what you're setting your baselines to; it can have a huge effect on the VBD numbers, and I'm not a big fan of the DD default ("Joe's 'Secret' Formula").

 

[John Mamula]

Thanks for the response, but I understand the VBD and how it should be used, but every year I can't understand why it is saying that the value pick would be a kicker at that point or a defense at the point it tells you. I understand 100% that taking the value guy without accounting for ADP could be a waste of a pick because you could get him 2 rounds later. But, if the value is there, the projections are correct and you don't think you could get him next round, it is a good pick.

I have been playing fantasy for many years, but one of the hardest thing to judge is the value between all the different positions with different scoring methods, VBD helps with this. But, having the VBD tell you when to take kickers and defense seems too early to me.

As others have noted, one issue is that projections for kickers and defenses, and especially for the top kickers and defenses, are wrong way more often than projections for other positions. I discount the first 3-5 kickers and defenses when they come up on the board; after that it gets a little more reasonable. The other thing to think about is what you're setting your baselines to; it can have a huge effect on the VBD numbers, and I'm not a big fan of the DD default ("Joe's 'Secret' Formula").

Yeah I'm not a fan of static VBD to begin with.At least if you factor in when players are drafted with DVBD a kicker shouldn't even show up as a draftable player until it is projected at least 1 kicker will be drafted in between round n (your current round you are drafting in) and round n+1.

VBD is a great concept in theory but often works very poorly in its strict application, especially for people trying to draft off the values alone and letting it do the work i your draft for you. Not that this is what the OP is doing.

 

[BroadwayG]

Would you also listen to a GPS system in your car if it tells you to go down a road that you know just started construction yesterday and is down to 1 lane from 4 when you know an alternate route? I mean, the computer system is telling you to.

 

[CalBear]

Would you also listen to a GPS system in your car if it tells you to go down a road that you know just started construction yesterday and is down to 1 lane from 4 when you know an alternate route? I mean, the computer system is telling you to.

If you'd like, you could productively contribute by discussing exactly why VBD principles are or are not accurate when they tell you to take a kicker. Or, you could post snarky comments that miss the point entirely.

 

[BroadwayG]

Would you also listen to a GPS system in your car if it tells you to go down a road that you know just started construction yesterday and is down to 1 lane from 4 when you know an alternate route? I mean, the computer system is telling you to.

If you'd like, you could productively contribute by discussing exactly why VBD principles are or are not accurate when they tell you to take a kicker. Or, you could post snarky comments that miss the point entirely.

Apparently the point of using the information you have above what a computer program tells you is above your head. Sorry. I'll try to keep the syllables down for you.

 

[CalBear]

Apparently the point of using the information you have above what a computer program tells you is above your head. Sorry. I'll try to keep the syllables down for you.

VBD is not "what a computer program tells you"; it's a principle of fantasy drafting. The original poster didn't even mention a computer program.The principle of VBD is that player value is measured relative to other players at the same position, rather than an absolute number of points. VBD principles are the main reason that RBs are valuable in fantasy drafts and QBs are not (in most league formats). So the question asked by the original poster is, why shouldn't VBD principles and draft value also apply to kickers? Just because our intuition would suggest that kickers aren't important doesn't mean that our intuition is right. I'm sure QBs were massively overvalued in early fantasy football leagues, because our intuition is that players who score more points are more important than players who score fewer points.Do you have something to contribute on this question?

 

[BroadwayG]

Do you have something to contribute on this question?

Yes

 

[bucsbaby]

In an auction I generally wouldn't pay more than $1 and almost certainly not more than $2 (out of $200 total). In a draft I generally wouldn't take a K before my last pick. There is just a lot of variability from year to year with Ks.

 

[waj707]

Try setting your baseline to the 1st player not drafted at every position. In a 16 round draft, there might be 20QB 50RB 50WR 15TE 10K, 15DEF taken, so the baseline to measure off of would be QB21, RB51, etc.

 

[HellToupee]

Do you have something to contribute on this question?

Yes

Us FFA guys get no respect here in the pool

 

[Liquid Tension]

I know some of you have adjust the percentages to get more in line with what you believe (instead of Joe's secret formula), but even so the defenses come up pretty high as well.

Of course the projections have to be correct and it greatly changes items, but if the value is correct, it is saying that if you guess the #1 kicker correctly, he should be picked at that early spot. the same is for defense. This year Minnesota should have a very tough defense; will they be the best, who knows, but I would be surprised if they are not top 5. With that if you used the 5th best defense as the spot to take Minnesota that should be good value?

It just seems like variance of predictability aside (i know a big aside), the numbers tell you it is good value to grab the best kicker or the best defense at a much earlier time than people usually think.

 

[Liquid Tension]

As others have said, kicker predictions are far less accurate than other positions. Heck, just look at how the #1 ranked kicker has performed the following year:In 2001, Wilkins was the #1 kicker. He followed that up next year ranked #22.In 2002, Feely was the #1 kicker. He followed that up the next year ranked #24.In 2003, Wilkins was the #1 kicker. He followed that up the next year ranked 24.In 2004, Vinatieri was the #1 kicker. He followed that up the next year ranked #19.In 2005, Feely was the #1 kicker. He followed that up the next year ranked #15.In 2006, Gould was the #1 kicker. He followed that up the next year ranked #7.The amazing thing is that none of these guys missed time due to injury the following year! Their final ranking was just poor performance. With kickers there just isn't much correlation between year x and year x+1.

I always thought defense was more predictable than kicking, but I never ran these numbers...wow. Thanks

 

[Liquid Tension]

Would you also listen to a GPS system in your car if it tells you to go down a road that you know just started construction yesterday and is down to 1 lane from 4 when you know an alternate route? I mean, the computer system is telling you to.

Conceptually your example is very different.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Apparently the point of using the information you have above what a computer program tells you is above your head. Sorry. I'll try to keep the syllables down for you.

VBD is not "what a computer program tells you"; it's a principle of fantasy drafting. The original poster didn't even mention a computer program.The principle of VBD is that player value is measured relative to other players at the same position, rather than an absolute number of points. VBD principles are the main reason that RBs are valuable in fantasy drafts and QBs are not (in most league formats). So the question asked by the original poster is, why shouldn't VBD principles and draft value also apply to kickers? Just because our intuition would suggest that kickers aren't important doesn't mean that our intuition is right. I'm sure QBs were massively overvalued in early fantasy football leagues, because our intuition is that players who score more points are more important than players who score fewer points.Do you have something to contribute on this question?

Thanks CalBear and you are correct. This is about using VBD as a tool, but then shutting it off for kickers or defense when maybe it IS right? Your example of why RB's are valued higher than one would think because of the scarcity and or replacement value is correct. Clearly there is no scarcity issue with kickers, so I guess it comes down to if (and a big if) your projections are correct then the kicker should be picked in the 8th round of a 12 team league draft. the problem is that the ability to guess right on that kicker makes the pick less valuable and this is why want to wait.What about defense then? Defense seems to be more predictable than kickers so by definition I would expect the VBD tool to be more accurate. In my previous post, I used the example of picking the Minnesota defense but waiting until the 5th ranked defense should be picked to more likely ensure that the value is there. This makes sense to me. Further, defense is safer from a standpoint of busting in that a few injuries may not cripple the team?Thoughts on defense?

 

[Liquid Tension]

Try setting your baseline to the 1st player not drafted at every position. In a 16 round draft, there might be 20QB 50RB 50WR 15TE 10K, 15DEF taken, so the baseline to measure off of would be QB21, RB51, etc.

What have you found this to accomplish? (I have not experimented yet, but I will)

 

[John Mamula]

It just seems like variance of predictability aside (i know a big aside), the numbers tell you it is good value to grab the best kicker or the best defense at a much earlier time than people usually think.

The bolded part of your sentence invalidates the latter half of the sentence.Look, you seem to want us to tell you to draft a DT early. OK draft it early.



I'd still suggest you're doing it wrong if in the 6th round you think a DT or PK is your best choice (even if your predictions are accurate).

What I suggest to people is to your projected drafted roster by doing a mock, and fill in the PPG projections for who you'd like to start each week. This will show you that if you start 3 WRs, WR5 will likely be starting 25%+ of your games. You then factor in injuries and WR6 is now seeing 1-2 games of action.

Alter your mock draft to take a kicker early compared to taking a kicker late (here we assume all projections are 100% accurate). You will see that by taking a kicker in round 7 over WR4, you are deteriorating your weekly PPG significantly more than what a baseline will show.

 

[AB in DC]

Thanks for the response, but I understand the VBD and how it should be used, but every year I can't understand why it is saying that the value pick would be a kicker at that point or a defense at the point it tells you.

Sounds like you really don't understand VBD then.VBD is simply one way to compare players at different positions. It's not the only way, and it's not the best way. It has its flaws, just as you see. It's just an approximation.

 

[GregR_2]

VBD/the Draft Dominator tells you where a player should go according to the projctions fed into it, but it can't take into account variance. If we could guarantee that kickers were going to pretty much score as they are projected, it would probably be justified to take the top ones where VBD tells us; the reason we don't is that history tells us that kicker projections are notoriously more inaccurate than other positions.

Without myself actually having tested this, I believe this is exactly right that the projections for kickers are often much worse than the projections for other positions.But VBD doesn't know that by itself. So if you want to be able to view a list sorted by player value that accurately reflects your view on kickers, you need to do some adjusting somewhere in VBD to make it work.You can either do this by building it into your projections or by changing the baseline. In draft dominator, if it's an aucton league I normally use MT's method and use around a 1.3 for offensive positions (adjusted up or down depending on the league setup), but I use a .5 for kicker and IDP.For a non-auction league, I use User Configurable by position rank and have other positions somewhere around last starter, again varying by league setup. Kickers I have at around the median starter... so 12 team league I'd have it set to kicker 6.Of course, I still just use that as a quick look guide. When it comes decision making time, there are plenty of other factors that decide who I take in a draft league. Auction league I generally manipulate things however is necessary to make each player salary be what I think the player is really worth so it tends to be a true list of my beliefs more than the draft league's cheatshet is.

 

[waj707]

Try setting your baseline to the 1st player not drafted at every position. In a 16 round draft, there might be 20QB 50RB 50WR 15TE 10K, 15DEF taken, so the baseline to measure off of would be QB21, RB51, etc.

What have you found this to accomplish? (I have not experimented yet, but I will)

I find that it places the correct static value not only on PK, but on all positions, assuming that you are in a league that doesn't restrain acquiring or trading players.I find that it maximized the value over replacement for my team overall, allowing me to have plenty of ammunition to trade as well as to be resilent to injuries.I like that is sets as zero the value for players that aren't drafted, i.e. why would I draft players that have zero or negative value.For example, in a 10 team league with 9 rounds (all starters), PK would be highly valued because you can't draft any bench players at the other positions.As you expand to 14 to 16 to 18 rounds, the number of PK drafted remains the same (about 10-12), but the other positions get drafted more often, so that the respective VBD value goes down (compared to other positions).If you extend to 20+ rounds, eventually people would start drafting more kickers, so the VBD value would tick back up a little bit (i.e. replacement level would be low because people have more roster spots to and decide to take more kickers).Now this doesn't take into consideration ADP values at all, but I figure that out using another method.

 

[Chase Stuart]

VBD/the Draft Dominator tells you where a player should go according to the projctions fed into it, but it can't take into account variance. If we could guarantee that kickers were going to pretty much score as they are projected, it would probably be justified to take the top ones where VBD tells us; the reason we don't is that history tells us that kicker projections are notoriously more inaccurate than other positions.

Without myself actually having tested this, I believe this is exactly right that the projections for kickers are often much worse than the projections for other positions.But VBD doesn't know that by itself. So if you want to be able to view a list sorted by player value that accurately reflects your view on kickers, you need to do some adjusting somewhere in VBD to make it work.

This is right, but it extends beyond kickers. Running back predictions are a lot better than WR predictions, which is one oft-forgotten reason why taking a RB early is better than taking a WR early. I ran an exhaustive study a year or two ago that I never got around to writing and therefore publishing, but the conclusion was something like this (note: huge generalizations to follow):The average RB10 in terms of ADP ends up scoring as say, RB15. The average WR5 ends up scoring around WR20.The point being, if you're in round two of your fantasy draft, and you've got RB12 and WR4 both with 80 points of VBD, RB12 is a much better choice in terms of predictability. But bagger's approach is still best, although that's not inconsistent with what I said.

 

[sterjs]

VBD/the Draft Dominator tells you where a player should go according to the projctions fed into it, but it can't take into account variance. If we could guarantee that kickers were going to pretty much score as they are projected, it would probably be justified to take the top ones where VBD tells us; the reason we don't is that history tells us that kicker projections are notoriously more inaccurate than other positions.

In other words, the projections suck because they're trying to project the unprojectable. They need to be shaded way down to baseline until there is almost no difference between the various players/teams at unprojectable positions.

 

[sterjs]

I ran an exhaustive study a year or two ago that I never got around to writing and therefore publishing, but the conclusion was something like this (note: huge generalizations to follow):The average RB10 in terms of ADP ends up scoring as say, RB15. The average WR5 ends up scoring around WR20.The point being, if you're in round two of your fantasy draft, and you've got RB12 and WR4 both with 80 points of VBD, RB12 is a much better choice in terms of predictability. But bagger's approach is still best, although that's not inconsistent with what I said.

Is this with no PPR?I've noticed there is a lot of variance for the lower WR tiers, but I haven't noticed as strong of an effect in the top two tier WRs.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I ran an exhaustive study a year or two ago that I never got around to writing and therefore publishing, but the conclusion was something like this (note: huge generalizations to follow):The average RB10 in terms of ADP ends up scoring as say, RB15. The average WR5 ends up scoring around WR20.The point being, if you're in round two of your fantasy draft, and you've got RB12 and WR4 both with 80 points of VBD, RB12 is a much better choice in terms of predictability. But bagger's approach is still best, although that's not inconsistent with what I said.

Is this with no PPR?I've noticed there is a lot of variance for the lower WR tiers, but I haven't noticed as strong of an effect in the top two tier WRs.

Correct, this is with no PPR. I don't think that would significantly change the results, though. You've got lots of examples of clunkers.Moss in '04 and '05 was WR1 pre-season but ended up 15th and 19th.TO in '05 obviously missed 9 games.David Boston in '02 was WR4 and ended up 73rd.Eric Moulds in '03 was WR4 and ended up 45th.Burress in '03 was WR5 and ended up 28th.Big time WRs have had a nasty habit of getting hurt in the first game, too. Ed McCaffrey, Steve Smith, Javon Walker and Michael Westbrook (2 games).It's on my to-do list for next off-season to rerun and finally write this article.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Try setting your baseline to the 1st player not drafted at every position. In a 16 round draft, there might be 20QB 50RB 50WR 15TE 10K, 15DEF taken, so the baseline to measure off of would be QB21, RB51, etc.

What have you found this to accomplish? (I have not experimented yet, but I will)

I find that it places the correct static value not only on PK, but on all positions, assuming that you are in a league that doesn't restrain acquiring or trading players.I find that it maximized the value over replacement for my team overall, allowing me to have plenty of ammunition to trade as well as to be resilent to injuries.I like that is sets as zero the value for players that aren't drafted, i.e. why would I draft players that have zero or negative value.For example, in a 10 team league with 9 rounds (all starters), PK would be highly valued because you can't draft any bench players at the other positions.As you expand to 14 to 16 to 18 rounds, the number of PK drafted remains the same (about 10-12), but the other positions get drafted more often, so that the respective VBD value goes down (compared to other positions).If you extend to 20+ rounds, eventually people would start drafting more kickers, so the VBD value would tick back up a little bit (i.e. replacement level would be low because people have more roster spots to and decide to take more kickers).Now this doesn't take into consideration ADP values at all, but I figure that out using another method.

Logical... As for the others, I probably have not been making myself clear. I have a thorough knowledge of the game, players, draft values etc (understanding the ADP of the league you are in)...I have 5 TV's in one room and watch all the games (yeah I am sick) so I use my eyes (scout) and the stats to make decisions.But it has always struck me as odd that the DD has suggested taking kickers and defenses very early. defenses I can understand in my league as there is a little more scoring, but intuitively the order has always seemed high. I just thought that questioning it and bringing it to the discussion may lead to some good discussions on modifying the DD or interpreting it.For example, I have been a strong advocate of taking Manning in the 1st round from 5 on. I have said this for 3 straight years (I didn't comment this year). Our league is 6 for TD's and 1 pt for every 20 yards with -3 for picks. For the past 3 years most people said you can't do this because of the RB scarcity and on and on. Yet intuitively and statistically, my feeling was that the RB differentials would be less than the QB ones. Further, the DD supported the decision both pre and post years that it did make sense to take Manning. Finally, Manning was by far the safest pick because RB's get injured etc...

 

[Liquid Tension]

I ran an exhaustive study a year or two ago that I never got around to writing and therefore publishing, but the conclusion was something like this (note: huge generalizations to follow):The average RB10 in terms of ADP ends up scoring as say, RB15. The average WR5 ends up scoring around WR20.The point being, if you're in round two of your fantasy draft, and you've got RB12 and WR4 both with 80 points of VBD, RB12 is a much better choice in terms of predictability. But bagger's approach is still best, although that's not inconsistent with what I said.

Is this with no PPR?I've noticed there is a lot of variance for the lower WR tiers, but I haven't noticed as strong of an effect in the top two tier WRs.

Correct, this is with no PPR. I don't think that would significantly change the results, though. You've got lots of examples of clunkers.Moss in '04 and '05 was WR1 pre-season but ended up 15th and 19th.TO in '05 obviously missed 9 games.David Boston in '02 was WR4 and ended up 73rd.Eric Moulds in '03 was WR4 and ended up 45th.Burress in '03 was WR5 and ended up 28th.Big time WRs have had a nasty habit of getting hurt in the first game, too. Ed McCaffrey, Steve Smith, Javon Walker and Michael Westbrook (2 games).It's on my to-do list for next off-season to rerun and finally write this article.

So basically we are saying that the variance in predictability is the main reason why kickers should always be picked last (This is usual for me) as well as defense. Defense is the one I am having trouble with though. While the top ranked defense may not be #1, it seems that it is in the top 5 more than the average RB. LT may be the exception, but has anyone else been that consistent form the RB spot?Also, intuitively, I would think RB's get injured more than WR's so I would think that the top 20 WR's would be more consistent than the top 20 RB's. I have no statistical evidence to support my claim though as I have not done the research.In my league the DD tells me that its value is the 52nd player, but it has an ADP of 84. My league may give a few more points to defense so that is factored in. In the draft we just did, I took Minnesota with the 63rd pick. Interestingly, SD went off the board at 60 from the team that beat me in the SB last year. These numbers probably seem very early to most, but when the choice is between a group of QB's such as Schaub and RB's such as Matt Forte/Edge/Lendale or WR's such as Dwane Bowe/Roddy White, the move makes sense as it may free up a roster spot (you could go with 1 D except for the bye week) and they score at a higher differential than the WR's you would get now compared to later (or the defense difference)

 

[Mungo Burrows]

Some of it depends on your league. If you've got a rule that you must start 2 D/ST's I would guess that almost all 32 get taken during the draft. There is no opportunity for playing Waiver-wire/Matchup games at the position, thus getting decent ones in the draft is more important and defenses will probably go a little closer to their projected value because in this case your alternative if your picks stink is zero or a trade instead of whatever you can get from the waiver wire team playing Oakland, SF, KC, Baltimore or whoever else is the primo D/ST matchup for your scoring system this year.

However with kickers, the variability of the projections probably trumps even that to a large part. Some offenses clearly provide more opportunties to score than others so there is some rough ability to rank, but with a good offense you don't know if you'll just get a few PATs and no Fgs or lots of scoring overall; and a bad offense could peter out and score lots of FGs (hooray!) or may not score at all (yikes!)!!

 

[AB in DC]

Defenses are unpredictable because all it takes is an injury to one player out of eleven to turn a good defense into an average one, and an average defense into a bad one.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Defenses are unpredictable because all it takes is an injury to one player out of eleven to turn a good defense into an average one, and an average defense into a bad one.

Intuitively I would disagree with this. Between coaching schemes and all the other players, I would think defenses would have less variance than a player because of the injury factor being 100%.NE and the Bears have been in the top 5 for 3 straight years. Minnesota was good last year and they will be in the top 5 again this year.

 

[pollardsvision]

i set the VBD baseline for kickers at K1, making them pretty much all worthless.

when i do my own spreadsheets, i just exclude kickers. i've never projected a kicker.