Whoever is representing FBG in the "Experts" mock... (1 Viewer)

[corpcow]

I don't get why the site that took Steve Slaton over Adrian Peterson isn't taking more heat on this.Calvin Johnson at #7 overall? 5 WRs in the 1st round and 6 of the top 13 players?Seems like quite a few strange picks going on here. Also pretty unusual for there to be 9 WRs off the board by the time the 2.12 pick comes up, even in a straight PPR scoring system.Plenty of reasons not to like Jacobs or Grant at the 2/3 turn. At that point, John likely had to choose between the 10th best WR or grabbing the #1 QB or #1 TE. I probably would have made sure to grab at least 1 WR at that turn, but taking the #1 QB or #1 TE isn't very unusual at all. I don't get the hate for Gonzo either.

I agree. You can definitely make a case for MJD especially with the scoring... but I have trouble taking Slaton over ADP in ANY format.And I agree, taking QB/WR there was PROBABLY the right move... I think the thing that John's probably taking the most flack for is WHICH TE and QB were taken given the other options on the board. If the picks there were Brady/Brees and Witten, I don't think anyone would have batted an eye. Like it or not, John definitely went out on a limb a little with this: Only one staffer (Mark) has Rodgers ranked QB1, and no one else has him higher than QB3. Even John himself has Rodgers as QB5, behind 4 guys that were also on the board. Now, I know he was trying to distribute risk, but one has to wonder why he passed on Manning and Warner who he also had ranked higher... if the scoring is really that variable, maybe we need to beef up the rankings stuff to really account for those projections better?Meanwhile, John took Rodgers AHEAD OF Brady and Brees, neither of which have a ranking LOWER than QB3 (except Mark's QB8 ranking on Brady).Similarly, only John and Clayton Gray have Gonzo as TE1 - he has an average rank of 3.2, while Witten is 1.6 and Gates is 2.1. If it were me, personally, I wouldn't have taken those guys at those positions, but I like the boldness on his part. The reality is, they were NOT the expected picks and, if you averaged the FBG staff rankings, not the picks that would have been suggested. Now, that doesn't mean he would have won the league with ADP, Brady and Witten instead of MJD, Rodgers and GOnzo - but if he DOESN'T win the league with the latter trio, it certainly exposes him to more criticism. Then again, we all know that John is going to win the league on the strength of his IDPs anyway... that's one thing that no other site can even hold a candle to FBG on, let alone to JOHN on

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

"Ranked 5th" shouldn't be such a sticking point if it's based on scoring 20 points fewer or something according to your projections. No one's projections are ever accurate to that degree anyway.

 

[GregR_2]

I think some amount of diversifying similarly tiered players across multiple leagues is a good strategy for someone who plays a lot of leagues and especially cash leagues.

The downside to having most of your fantasy teams tank due to a single high picked player on multiple teams getting injured is huge. If we're talking about players being candidates to diversify, then we're talking about negligible differences in our projections for them. A fraction of a fantasy point per game in most cases. If there isn't any other consideration to go with, I'd go with my projection. But other considerations, like bye weeks, QB-WR hookup (whether seeking or avoiding), balancing solid players vs high upside/high risk within this one team, or diversifying your players across teams, can and often should trump that. It's impossible to come up with a single projection or ranking that takes all factors into account since those factors will vary based on how a draft goes.

That said, I think if I were drafting on behalf of Footballguys I'd probably want to treat that league as stand alone in regards to diversifying players. And if I were Joe/David I'd probably ask them to treat it that way. But I wouldn't consider it a felony if someone else didn't think of it in those terms on their own.

Good luck in the league John.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

couple points to make here:

1. Nobody is "paying" for this draft. By that I mean that the results are not considered FBG content. John is drafting as a representative of FBG vs experts from other websites. But, Joe and David don't expect staffers who represent them in these things to draft strictly off Dodds' projections or the "official FBG rankings consensus". They encourage independent thinking and simply ask that people back up their selections with sound reasoning and logic. Appears pretty obvious that John has done that here. Also, by landing Royal and Edwards at the 4/5 turn, I think his WR group is going to turn out just fine.

2. I have no idea if the picks from every other owner participating in this particular draft are matching up well with their rankings, or the projections of the website they represent. Do these other team owners all publish their rankings and/or projections for everyone to use and critique in the same way that FBG does?

 

[LarryAllen'sJockstrap]

Seriously, Lance Moore when McFadden and Moreno are still on the board...

 

[cvnpoka]

varying your picks depending on tier is fine and necessary if you are in a ton of leagues. theres a boatload of variance in ff so its pretty dumb to pick the same guys over and over.

however, having rodgers in the same tier as brady and brees (and even manning) is mouthbreakingly bad.

Yeah, because those guys are guaranteed to finish top 2. After all, consensus rankings are never wrong, are they?

Without looking at stats I'm going to go out on a limb and say that in the past 10 years, of the top 2 QB's in terms of ADP at least one did not end up top 2. That goes for any position in fact.

[ ] understands variance

 

[Stinkin Ref]

couple points to make here:

1. Nobody is "paying" for this draft. By that I mean that the results are not considered FBG content. John is drafting as a representative of FBG vs experts from other websites. But, Joe and David don't expect staffers who represent them in these things to draft strictly off Dodds' projections or the "official FBG rankings consensus". They encourage independent thinking and simply ask that people back up their selections with sound reasoning and logic. Appears pretty obvious that John has done that here. Also, by landing Royal and Edwards at the 4/5 turn, I think his WR group is going to turn out just fine.

2. I have no idea if the picks from every other owner participating in this particular draft are matching up well with their rankings, or the projections of the website they represent. Do these other team owners all publish their rankings and/or projections for everyone to use and critique in the same way that FBG does?

part of his sound reasoning and logic included taking Rodgers because he had taken Brady and Brees in too many other leagues....not sure if that line of thinking is the sound reasoning and logic that some here would support...he could have given plenty of reasons for why he took Rodgers over the other guys......this just shouldn't have been one of them....

 

[cash n carry]

While I am not an "expert" (they didn't invite me into this league) and I understand the strategy, I still think that both Gonzo & Rodgers were reaches at the 2-3 turn. If he had selected Owens & Welker at that turn, he could have had a "tier 1" QB in Warner plus Mcfadden or the choice of quite a few "tier 2" TEs (Daniels, Clark, Olsen) at the 4-5 turn. In MHO that would be a stronger team.

 

[PatsWillWin]

couple points to make here:

1. Nobody is "paying" for this draft. By that I mean that the results are not considered FBG content. John is drafting as a representative of FBG vs experts from other websites. But, Joe and David don't expect staffers who represent them in these things to draft strictly off Dodds' projections or the "official FBG rankings consensus". They encourage independent thinking and simply ask that people back up their selections with sound reasoning and logic. Appears pretty obvious that John has done that here. Also, by landing Royal and Edwards at the 4/5 turn, I think his WR group is going to turn out just fine.

2. I have no idea if the picks from every other owner participating in this particular draft are matching up well with their rankings, or the projections of the website they represent. Do these other team owners all publish their rankings and/or projections for everyone to use and critique in the same way that FBG does?

part of his sound reasoning and logic included taking Rodgers because he had taken Brady and Brees in too many other leagues....not sure if that line of thinking is the sound reasoning and logic that some here would support...he could have given plenty of reasons for why he took Rodgers over the other guys......this just shouldn't have been one of them....

Your opinion has been noted in this thread about 10 or 11 times.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

couple points to make here:

1. Nobody is "paying" for this draft. By that I mean that the results are not considered FBG content. John is drafting as a representative of FBG vs experts from other websites. But, Joe and David don't expect staffers who represent them in these things to draft strictly off Dodds' projections or the "official FBG rankings consensus". They encourage independent thinking and simply ask that people back up their selections with sound reasoning and logic. Appears pretty obvious that John has done that here. Also, by landing Royal and Edwards at the 4/5 turn, I think his WR group is going to turn out just fine.

2. I have no idea if the picks from every other owner participating in this particular draft are matching up well with their rankings, or the projections of the website they represent. Do these other team owners all publish their rankings and/or projections for everyone to use and critique in the same way that FBG does?

part of his sound reasoning and logic included taking Rodgers because he had taken Brady and Brees in too many other leagues....not sure if that line of thinking is the sound reasoning and logic that some here would support...he could have given plenty of reasons for why he took Rodgers over the other guys......this just shouldn't have been one of them....

Your opinion has been noted in this thread about 10 or 11 times.

sorry pats....

 

[sinatravolta]

Teams that look best to me so far:

1.04 KFFL - Peterson, Adrian2.09 KFFL - Williams, DeAngelo3.04 KFFL - Colston, Marques4.9 KFFL - DeSean Jackson1.05 FF Mastermind - Forte, Matt2.08 FF Mastermind - Boldin, Anquan3.05 FF Mastermind - Jacobs, Brandon4.8 FF Mastermind - Jason Witten1.07 USA TODAY - Johnson, Andre2.06 USA TODAY - Jennings, Greg3.07 USA TODAY - Grant, Ryan4.6 USA TODAY - Gates, Antonio1.11 FF Today - Moss, Randy2.02 FF Today - Turner, Michael3.11 FF Today - Manning, Peyton4.2 FF Today - Ochocinco, Chad

 

[baconisgood]

just simply saying that he admitted part of his reasoning for taking Rodgers was because he has Brady and Brees in too many of his other leagues....that should not factor in.......sorry

People who are saying this as an absolute are simply wrong and most poker players know this. Reducing variance at the expense of small amounts of individual EV is an acceptable and proper approach to games in certain situations. In poker reducing variance allows an individual to play with a smaller bankroll with the same risk of ruin, doing so means playing relatively higher stakes which often means the sacrifice of a fraction of a big bet in expectation is more than made up for by playing for larger bets in general. For a contributor of a FF website winning 1 league a year for 9 years can be much more valuable than winning 10 leagues in 1 year and 0 leagues in 8 other years as it would allow him, and his website, constant exposure (David Sklansky covers this topic in at least one of his books where he describes how taking a riskier approach in major tournies is often correct for a writer who will sell oodles of books thanks to any one win, making a win worth much more than the discrepancy between 1st and Xth place money). As for the picks, I disagree with the TE you chose, but agree with the overall strategy.

 

[PatsWillWin]

moar outrage plz

 

[Bob Magaw]

a few points come to mind...

1 - a few vocal posters have harped on it being wrong to diversify... seemingly arbitrarily... i haven't seen any compelling reasons for why... there have been several compelling reasons why it does make sense to do so... there seems to be a big disconnect here... some confusion extended even to not knowing whether it was a mock or actual league...

2 - some of the same vocal posters have repeatedly glossed over the fact that norton earlier explained he found the top QB tier very similar... to ask the question why take the #5 QB instead of #1 QB seems to involve a fundamental inability to grasp this basic point (come on, this isn't a detonator... it shouldn't need a schematic )... it seems like confusion about this point led to greater agitation about the first point... just in case it isn't perfectly clear, staffers literally don't have the option to rank a tier of similarly ranked players as virtually interchangeable... to assume a large gap where none has been implied, seems to be conflating an artifact of rankings limitations (as opposed to projections, such as those he does for IDP, which would absolutely convey this kind of information regarding separation, or lack of, within a tier), with, imo, mistaken assumptions about norton's decision making...

3 - agreed that getting royal/edwards at the 4/5 turn vindicates the decision to go QB/TE at 2/3 (though that initial controversy/outrage seems to have already been largely defused/dissipated by some voices of reason in the thread)...

* i might not necessarily agree with norton's strategy IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, but i have a healthy respect for the importance of diversity of opinions in this hobby in general, & norton's acumen specifically... his rationale made sense to me...

norton is representing FBG in this particular league... but FBG is many staffers in aggregate... those who frequent this site have access to many thoughts, opinions, strategies... obviously if prospective readers based all their decisions in their entirety on the opinions of one person, even a very well informed person, they would be doing so at their own peril...

i doubt if any staffer would endorse that readers just focus on the opinion of one person & ignore the rest... it should be a given that people are integrating the thoughts & rankings of as many sources as they are capable of... & vetting THAT with their own perceptions, thoughts, judgements, etc (this last part can admittedly be more difficult for beginners... all the more reason to consult multiple resources... sort of like reckoning the position & intensity of an earthquake with greater precision & accuracy through triangulation)...

FBG is a tool... it is a versatile & multi-purpose tool... sort of like a supercomputer... you could use it by kicking it to compute 1 + 1 = 2... but it can be so much more... imo, it is best used by including multiple perspectives... i could be way off base, but it seems like if some in this thread had more tolerance for diversity, there wouldn't have been so much unfortunate outrage...

 

[Stinkin Ref]

a few points come to mind...1 - a few vocal posters have harped on it being wrong to diversify... seemingly arbitrarily... i haven't seen any compelling reasons for why... there have been several compelling reasons why it does make sense to do so... there seems to be a big disconnect here... some confusion extended even to not knowing whether it was a mock or actual league...2 - some of the same vocal posters have repeatedly glossed over the fact that norton earlier explained he found the top QB tier very similar... to ask the question why take the #5 QB instead of #1 QB seems to involve a fundamental inability to grasp this basic point (come on, this isn't a detonator... it shouldn't need a schematic )... it seems like confusion about this point led to greater agitation about the first point... just in case it isn't perfectly clear, staffers literally don't have the option to rank a tier of similarly ranked players as virtually interchangeable... to assume a large gap where none has been implied, seems to be conflating an artifact of rankings limitations (as opposed to projections, such as those he does for IDP, which would absolutely convey this kind of information regarding separation, or lack of, within a tier), with, imo, mistaken assumptions about norton's decision making... 3 - agreed that getting royal/edwards at the 4/5 turn vindicates the decision to go QB/TE at 2/3 (though that initial controversy/outrage seems to have already been largely defused/dissipated by some voices of reason in the thread)... * i might not necessarily agree with norton's strategy IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, but i have a healthy respect for the importance of diversity of opinions in this hobby in general, & norton's acumen specifically... his rationale made sense to me...norton is representing FBG in this particular league... but FBG is many staffers in aggregate... those who frequent this site have access to many thoughts, opinions, strategies... obviously if prospective readers based all their decisions in their entirety on the opinions of one person, even a very well informed person, they would be doing so at their own peril...i doubt if any staffer would endorse that readers just focus on the opinion of one person & ignore the rest... it should be a given that people are integrating the thoughts & rankings of as many sources as they are capable of... & vetting THAT with their own perceptions, thoughts, judgements, etc (this last part can admittedly be more difficult for beginners... all the more reason to consult multiple resources... sort of like reckoning the position & intensity of an earthquake with greater precision & accuracy through triangulation)...FBG is a tool... it is a versatile & multi-purpose tool... sort of like a supercomputer... you could use it by kicking it to compute 1 + 1 = 2... but it can be so much more... imo, it is best used by including multiple perspectives... i could be way off base, but it seems like if some in this thread had more tolerance for diversity, there wouldn't have been so much unfortunate outrage...

quit reading after most of that....if you think passing on a higher ranked player because you have him in too many other leagues that have nothing to do with the current league you are drafting in is good strategy....then go ahead follow John Norton to the championship....I can undersatnd why someone would want to do this on an INDIVIDUAL basis.... but not in this situationhe represents FBG in this situation and by his own admittance he made this pick based on what he has done in other drafts .....that should not be the case

 

[PatsWillWin]

Stinkin Ref -> How do you feel about Norton not drafting exactly to his rankings in order to diversify some risk?

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

Stinkin Ref -> How do you feel about Norton not drafting exactly to his rankings in order to diversify some risk?

I am curious as well

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

Stinkin Ref -> How do you feel about Norton not drafting exactly to his rankings in order to diversify some risk?

 

[Stinkin Ref]

thats the thing many of you dont understand....

this isn't about someone being in a bunch of different leagues[ and trying to minimize risk/b]

this is a staff member representing FBG in an EXPERT draft saying he took a player that he had ranked lower because he was trying to minimize his risk....this league where he was representing FBG had nothing to do with all the other leagues where he drafted Brady and Brees before Rodgers...

once again...it has nothing to do with the picks themselves, but more with the fact that he took a league where he is representing FBG and made picks based on what he did in other leagues..

meaning "I would have normally taken Brady or Brees, but since I have them in a bunch of other leagues, I took Rodgers instead"....and simply, that is probably not a prescribed drafting strategy to expect from a FBG staff...

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Stinkin Ref -> How do you feel about Norton not drafting exactly to his rankings in order to diversify some risk?

I am curious as well

he should have gave himself the best chance to win...and he admitted he didn't because he had Brady/Bress in other leagues....simple

 

[PatsWillWin]

thats the thing many of you dont understand....

this isn't about someone being in a bunch of different leagues[ and trying to minimize risk/b]

this is a staff member representing FBG in an EXPERT draft saying he took a player that he had ranked lower because he was trying to minimize his risk....this league where he was representing FBG had nothing to do with all the other leagues where he drafted Brady and Brees before Rodgers...

once again...it has nothing to do with the picks themselves, but more with the fact that he took a league where he is representing FBG and made picks based on what he did in other leagues..

meaning "I would have normally taken Brady or Brees, but since I have them in a bunch of other leagues, I took Rodgers instead"....and simply, that is probably not a prescribed drafting strategy to expect from a FBG staff...

I understand that normally it'd be okay to diversify risk, but how do you feel about him doing it in this draft? Sorry for all the questions, just curious to hear your input on it.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

thats the thing many of you dont understand....

this isn't about someone being in a bunch of different leagues[ and trying to minimize risk/b]

this is a staff member representing FBG in an EXPERT draft saying he took a player that he had ranked lower because he was trying to minimize his risk....this league where he was representing FBG had nothing to do with all the other leagues where he drafted Brady and Brees before Rodgers...

once again...it has nothing to do with the picks themselves, but more with the fact that he took a league where he is representing FBG and made picks based on what he did in other leagues..

meaning "I would have normally taken Brady or Brees, but since I have them in a bunch of other leagues, I took Rodgers instead"....and simply, that is probably not a prescribed drafting strategy to expect from a FBG staff...

I understand that normally it'd be okay to diversify risk, but how do you feel about him doing it in this draft? Sorry for all the questions, just curious to hear your input on it.

he said one of the reasons he took Rodgers was because he had Brady and Brees in other leagues...why is that so hard to understand...lol...ill play

 

[PatsWillWin]

thats the thing many of you dont understand....

this isn't about someone being in a bunch of different leagues[ and trying to minimize risk/b]

this is a staff member representing FBG in an EXPERT draft saying he took a player that he had ranked lower because he was trying to minimize his risk....this league where he was representing FBG had nothing to do with all the other leagues where he drafted Brady and Brees before Rodgers...

once again...it has nothing to do with the picks themselves, but more with the fact that he took a league where he is representing FBG and made picks based on what he did in other leagues..

meaning "I would have normally taken Brady or Brees, but since I have them in a bunch of other leagues, I took Rodgers instead"....and simply, that is probably not a prescribed drafting strategy to expect from a FBG staff...

I understand that normally it'd be okay to diversify risk, but how do you feel about him doing it in this draft? Sorry for all the questions, just curious to hear your input on it.

he said one of the reasons he took Rodgers was because he had Brady and Brees in other leagues...why is that so hard to understand...lol...ill play

Clearly.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

thats the thing many of you dont understand....

this isn't about someone being in a bunch of different leagues[ and trying to minimize risk/b]

this is a staff member representing FBG in an EXPERT draft saying he took a player that he had ranked lower because he was trying to minimize his risk....this league where he was representing FBG had nothing to do with all the other leagues where he drafted Brady and Brees before Rodgers...

once again...it has nothing to do with the picks themselves, but more with the fact that he took a league where he is representing FBG and made picks based on what he did in other leagues..

meaning "I would have normally taken Brady or Brees, but since I have them in a bunch of other leagues, I took Rodgers instead"....and simply, that is probably not a prescribed drafting strategy to expect from a FBG staff...

I understand that normally it'd be okay to diversify risk, but how do you feel about him doing it in this draft? Sorry for all the questions, just curious to hear your input on it.

he said one of the reasons he took Rodgers was because he had Brady and Brees in other leagues...why is that so hard to understand...lol...ill play

Clearly.

cool and Im sure you got your kicks...but you obviously have nothing significant to add to this thread so why not move on....

 

[millertyme1]

Poor, Mark. Guy probably had nothing to do with this..."Wow the guy drafting for footballguys is clearly a jabrone and should be fired ASAP. If I had to guess it would be Mark Wimer, I could spot that guy 2 picks per round and still field a better team than him."

It's not me, but I will point out that I won my Fantasy Sports Trade Association leagues 2 years in a row (2006 and 2007, didn't play last year) - I beat Howard Kamen from USA Today and Matthew Berry from ESPN during 2007. So folks can throw all the mud they want, I've got the trophies on my mantle. LOL. Unlike all the guys who took Steven Jackson in the top 5 last year. LMAO.

OOF. Wrong attitude for a staff member. Probably not the way you want to represent yourself on a public board. You're better than this, Mark.

Should of typed your first three words and left it as that. Respond to the goober on the Rotoworld board.

 

[PatsWillWin]

thats the thing many of you dont understand....

this isn't about someone being in a bunch of different leagues[ and trying to minimize risk/b]

this is a staff member representing FBG in an EXPERT draft saying he took a player that he had ranked lower because he was trying to minimize his risk....this league where he was representing FBG had nothing to do with all the other leagues where he drafted Brady and Brees before Rodgers...

once again...it has nothing to do with the picks themselves, but more with the fact that he took a league where he is representing FBG and made picks based on what he did in other leagues..

meaning "I would have normally taken Brady or Brees, but since I have them in a bunch of other leagues, I took Rodgers instead"....and simply, that is probably not a prescribed drafting strategy to expect from a FBG staff...

I understand that normally it'd be okay to diversify risk, but how do you feel about him doing it in this draft? Sorry for all the questions, just curious to hear your input on it.

he said one of the reasons he took Rodgers was because he had Brady and Brees in other leagues...why is that so hard to understand...lol...ill play

Clearly.

cool and Im sure you got your kicks...but you obviously have nothing significant to add to this thread so why not move on....

Excellent advice here.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

and pats you have contributed greatly ....thanks

 

[Bri]

just simply saying that he admitted part of his reasoning for taking Rodgers was because he has Brady and Brees in too many of his other leagues....that should not factor in.......sorry

People who are saying this as an absolute are simply wrong and most poker players know this. Reducing variance at the expense of small amounts of individual EV is an acceptable and proper approach to games in certain situations. In poker reducing variance allows an individual to play with a smaller bankroll with the same risk of ruin, doing so means playing relatively higher stakes which often means the sacrifice of a fraction of a big bet in expectation is more than made up for by playing for larger bets in general. For a contributor of a FF website winning 1 league a year for 9 years can be much more valuable than winning 10 leagues in 1 year and 0 leagues in 8 other years as it would allow him, and his website, constant exposure (David Sklansky covers this topic in at least one of his books where he describes how taking a riskier approach in major tournies is often correct for a writer who will sell oodles of books thanks to any one win, making a win worth much more than the discrepancy between 1st and Xth place money). As for the picks, I disagree with the TE you chose, but agree with the overall strategy.

I disagree you take the best players, case closed. I don't have a prob with John not wanting to put all his eggs in one basket either. This poker tangent is a failed try to be clever.

 

[Bri]

Hey John, when you decided not to put all your eggs in one basket, why did you draft a lesser player then?

If Brees is better than Rodgers, why not wait til the timing was better?

I saw where you mentioned Rodgers was #2 last year but do you think he'll be this year?

Seems to me like Brady, Manning, Brees, and Warner are fairly comparable and I think you said there's not much difference between the top 3-5 QBs. Why not wait a round?

If you're high on a HOF TE, I have no qualms with that. How well do you think Roddy will do though?

 

[Twilight]

Hey John, when you decided not to put all your eggs in one basket, why did you draft a lesser player then?

If Brees is better than Rodgers, why not wait til the timing was better?

I saw where you mentioned Rodgers was #2 last year but do you think he'll be this year?

Seems to me like Brady, Manning, Brees, and Warner are fairly comparable and I think you said there's not much difference between the top 3-5 QBs. Why not wait a round?

Because there wasn't a "round" between picks. There was 2. And in those 22 picks, the likelyhood of 5 QBs going is very high to almost certain. If he wanted one, he HAD to take him where he did.I just don't understand the hate here. If you don't think a QB is the right choice, it's one thing. But the whining about Brady v Rodgers, when he has them all ranked about equal (meaning I'm guessing around a one point per game difference) seems just silly.

 

[Bri]

Hey John, when you decided not to put all your eggs in one basket, why did you draft a lesser player then?

If Brees is better than Rodgers, why not wait til the timing was better?

I saw where you mentioned Rodgers was #2 last year but do you think he'll be this year?

Seems to me like Brady, Manning, Brees, and Warner are fairly comparable and I think you said there's not much difference between the top 3-5 QBs. Why not wait a round?

Because there wasn't a "round" between picks. There was 2. And in those 22 picks, the likelyhood of 5 QBs going is very high to almost certain. If he wanted one, he HAD to take him where he did.I just don't understand the hate here. If you don't think a QB is the right choice, it's one thing. But the whining about Brady v Rodgers, when he has them all ranked about equal (meaning I'm guessing around a one point per game difference) seems just silly.

cmon now I asked a Qno hate here

 

[Twilight]

Hey John, when you decided not to put all your eggs in one basket, why did you draft a lesser player then?

If Brees is better than Rodgers, why not wait til the timing was better?

I saw where you mentioned Rodgers was #2 last year but do you think he'll be this year?

Seems to me like Brady, Manning, Brees, and Warner are fairly comparable and I think you said there's not much difference between the top 3-5 QBs. Why not wait a round?

Because there wasn't a "round" between picks. There was 2. And in those 22 picks, the likelyhood of 5 QBs going is very high to almost certain. If he wanted one, he HAD to take him where he did.I just don't understand the hate here. If you don't think a QB is the right choice, it's one thing. But the whining about Brady v Rodgers, when he has them all ranked about equal (meaning I'm guessing around a one point per game difference) seems just silly.

cmon now I asked a Qno hate here

The hate comment was generic. I see you were comfortable with it a couple of posts up and I definitely wasn't targeting you.

 

[Bri]

Because there wasn't a "round" between picks. There was 2. And in those 22 picks, the likelyhood of 5 QBs going is very high to almost certain. If he wanted one, he HAD to take him where he did.

ADP	 Early	Late	Drafts	Pos	Player Name	Tm	+/-17.86	4	27	462	QB	Drew Brees	NO	0.1223.58	4	34	462	QB	Tom Brady			NE	-0.2227.82	11	36	462	QB	Peyton Manning	IND	0.240.63	25	58	462	QB	Kurt Warner	ARI	0.642.12	26	57	462	QB	Philip Rivers	SD	-1.1943.67	21	60	462	QB	Aaron Rodgers	GB	-1.1

 

[greyone]

Because there wasn't a "round" between picks. There was 2. And in those 22 picks, the likelyhood of 5 QBs going is very high to almost certain. If he wanted one, he HAD to take him where he did.

ADP	 Early	Late	Drafts	Pos	Player Name	Tm	+/-17.86	4	27	462	QB	Drew Brees	NO	0.1223.58	4	34	462	QB	Tom Brady			NE	-0.2227.82	11	36	462	QB	Peyton Manning	IND	0.240.63	25	58	462	QB	Kurt Warner	ARI	0.642.12	26	57	462	QB	Philip Rivers	SD	-1.1943.67	21	60	462	QB	Aaron Rodgers	GB	-1.1

No way rodgers makes it to 40 let alone 60. What are those MFL ranks?Once again...Norton can make any decision as he pleases. So what...if he selected rodgers to "diversify" his folder. He was expanding on his rankings. And holds true to his entire rankings as a whole. People are acting like this is Armageddon. Its a draft pick with many different contributing forces. And his strategy is crystal clear and sound in my book. Why cant you guys get behind the fact he is just as confident in his 5 qb as he is on his 2nd qb. Forget the names. John Norton believes strongly in his overall projection of all his players. Enough to take a SEMI-chance at a supposedly lesser qb by "how many points?". The range or variance could be so small at 10-20point for the cumulative score. Over a 16 week period.....1+ measly point of margin. Cmon guys. Get real. All you haters have hitched your argument to such a small technicality....its ridiculous. its like arguing about spelling in an internet forum.....Oh my god...he didn't capitalize the first letter of a sentence. LYNCH HIM!!!!!

 

[fantasyplayer]

a lot of people are getting hung up on the idea of picking a different player from the same tier when you already have other players in different leagues. is that really such a bad idea though?like most draft decisions, it's all about risk management. last year, if you wound up with Brady on most of your teams, he goes down in week 1 and you're likely screwed. but, if you had mixed it up and taken Brees or Peyton over Brady in some leagues, you'd minimize your overall risk and likely remain competitive in those other leagues after the Brady injury.I suppose you can argue that this strategy might not be appropriate for this particular type of draft, but I think it makes a lot of sense and is pretty natural for any drafter who participated in a bunch of leagues.

I actually do this all the time. Mitigate the risk. Maybe there are a couple of guys that I try to get in every league, but then with others, I try to spread it out. Not sure why this is a big deal.

Agree. If he has Brady projected for 21.6 ppg and Rodgers for 21.2, and he has Brady in several other leagues, I aruge that Rodgers is the better pick from an overall fantasy football profitability standpoint. I for one am not willing to risk all of my leagues in the event of a Brady injury just to achieve a potential extra .4 ppg.

 

[fantasyplayer]

a lot of people are getting hung up on the idea of picking a different player from the same tier when you already have other players in different leagues. is that really such a bad idea though?like most draft decisions, it's all about risk management. last year, if you wound up with Brady on most of your teams, he goes down in week 1 and you're likely screwed. but, if you had mixed it up and taken Brees or Peyton over Brady in some leagues, you'd minimize your overall risk and likely remain competitive in those other leagues after the Brady injury.I suppose you can argue that this strategy might not be appropriate for this particular type of draft, but I think it makes a lot of sense and is pretty natural for any drafter who participated in a bunch of leagues.

I actually do this all the time. Mitigate the risk. Maybe there are a couple of guys that I try to get in every league, but then with others, I try to spread it out. Not sure why this is a big deal.

Agree. If he has Brady projected for 21.6 ppg and Rodgers for 21.2, and he has Brady in several other leagues, I aruge that Rodgers is the better pick from an overall fantasy football profitability standpoint. I for one am not willing to risk all of my leagues in the event of a Brady injury just to achieve a potential extra .4 ppg.

Further, how many fbg's subscribers come here to try to distinguish which QB might score 0.4 ppg more than another? I come here for overall strategy and analysis, not to debate over who's #1 and who's #5. Frankly, there will likely will be very little difference between the two in the end, and NOBODY knows for sure anyway.I don't pay $25 to fbgs to try to win one league. That would not be a very good investment in my opinion (unless it's a very high stakes league). I subscribe to try to maximize my profits across multiple leagues, which includes risk management. I suspect many other fbg's subscribers are here for the same reason, so John's "diversification" explanation is actually quality advice to the subscribers here.

 

[corpcow]

Because there wasn't a "round" between picks. There was 2. And in those 22 picks, the likelyhood of 5 QBs going is very high to almost certain. If he wanted one, he HAD to take him where he did.

ADP	 Early	Late	Drafts	Pos	Player Name	Tm	+/-17.86	4	27	462	QB	Drew Brees	NO	0.1223.58	4	34	462	QB	Tom Brady			NE	-0.2227.82	11	36	462	QB	Peyton Manning	IND	0.240.63	25	58	462	QB	Kurt Warner	ARI	0.642.12	26	57	462	QB	Philip Rivers	SD	-1.1943.67	21	60	462	QB	Aaron Rodgers	GB	-1.1

No way rodgers makes it to 40 let alone 60. What are those MFL ranks?

In fairness, he very well may have. There have now been 51 picks and Warner and Rivers are both still on the board. Warner, who John had ranked higher, would have been available at the turn as well as Rivers, and Warner is almost definitely ranked higher across the board (most magazines, other sites, ADP, etc).Now, I completely understand why John would want to start the run instead of be at the end of it. I also completely understand why he would want to diversify risk, so I can buy passing on Brady and Brees for that reason. But, then, the question is, why not Manning or Warner who JOHN has ranked ahead of Rodgers in his own rankings?Perhaps - and I've said this before - the "rankings" system could be improved to account for this. First, we need tiering there, because clearly that was a big reason John made the choice. Perhaps the way to do this is to base it on projections - and for dynasty purposes, overlay a potential/probability/longevity component - and do te tiering automatically based on standard deviations and drops and so on. Just a suggestion In any case, I've volunteered a number of times to try to get involved and help out on the FBG programming stuff and haven't even heard back. I may just build this tool myself and see if you guys find it useful....

 

[Darko M]

What better way to get some extra clicks than be a little wacky for a lame mock draft. You guys took the bait.

 

[corpcow]

What better way to get some extra clicks than be a little wacky for a lame mock draft. You guys took the bait.

Considering that 1) all of us discussing this were already here, 2) others have specifically said in comments that they WOULDN'T visit FBG as a result, 3) FBG makes its money from subscriptions not clicks, I'm not sure exactly what "bait" you are referring to.

 

[Bob Magaw]

quit reading after most of that....if you think passing on a higher ranked player because you have him in too many other leagues that have nothing to do with the current league you are drafting in is good strategy....then go ahead follow John Norton to the championship....I can undersatnd why someone would want to do this on an INDIVIDUAL basis.... but not in this situationhe represents FBG in this situation and by his own admittance he made this pick based on what he has done in other drafts .....that should not be the case

one of the main points i was trying to make was that john mentioned several times he found the top QB top very similar in terms of HIS projections... those that were most vehemently taking him to task for not rigidly adhering to his rankings (in the interest of diversification) have downplayed this seemingly relevant fact... true to form, you skipped it...i happen to like brees & brady more than rodgers... but IF i viewed them similarly, i wouldn't hesitate to execute a similar diversification strategy... john attempted to clarify this several times, and you have repeatedly deemphasized it to the point of ignoring it... perhaps because it doesn't conveniently fit into your pat theory about how staffers MUST represent FBG...* for instance, do you KNOW john's projections for the QBs & how close they are in his personal rankings... from the facts alone that he took brees & brady first in several previous drafts, it doesn't NECESSARILY follow logically that they are far apart in his rankings...to the extent that they were far apart, you point might be well taken... conversely, the closer they are together, the less significant it becomes to diversify...if you don't know how closely john has them projected, that is a critically important missing piece of the puzzle, & imo makes your rigidity on this matter unwarranted...

 

[Bri]

People are acting like this is Armageddon.

I wasn't acting out of hand or making a big deal of anything. I was simply asking a Q and trying to get to a discussion point that I thought we should be on-discussion.John had a theory and it's preseason. I think we all benefit if we can reasonably discuss it and that includes seeing results like was their a similar QB at the next pick? If so, what RB or WR were left at each? Was it still a good move or should he have waited? There's lots we can discuss.that ADP was from KFFL by the way.

 

[Bri]

he represents FBG in this situation and by his own admittance he made this pick based on what he has done in other drafts .....that should not be the case

FBGs is a staff of many individuals, not 30 robots making Dodds picks. When they're original individuals they are representing FBGs well. The visitors that will best learn from FBGs are the ones that can find the advantages and disadvantages to each's thoughts and theories.

 

[greyone]

People are acting like this is Armageddon.

I wasn't acting out of hand or making a big deal of anything. I was simply asking a Q and trying to get to a discussion point that I thought we should be on-discussion.John had a theory and it's preseason. I think we all benefit if we can reasonably discuss it and that includes seeing results like was their a similar QB at the next pick? If so, what RB or WR were left at each? Was it still a good move or should he have waited? There's lots we can discuss.that ADP was from KFFL by the way.

i wasn't referring to you Bri.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

thats the thing many of you dont understand....

this isn't about someone being in a bunch of different leagues[ and trying to minimize risk/b]

this is a staff member representing FBG in an EXPERT draft saying he took a player that he had ranked lower because he was trying to minimize his risk....this league where he was representing FBG had nothing to do with all the other leagues where he drafted Brady and Brees before Rodgers...

once again...it has nothing to do with the picks themselves, but more with the fact that he took a league where he is representing FBG and made picks based on what he did in other leagues..

meaning "I would have normally taken Brady or Brees, but since I have them in a bunch of other leagues, I took Rodgers instead"....and simply, that is probably not a prescribed drafting strategy to expect from a FBG staff...

I understand that normally it'd be okay to diversify risk, but how do you feel about him doing it in this draft? Sorry for all the questions, just curious to hear your input on it.

Not the brightest bulb on the tree, huh?

 

[PatsWillWin]

thats the thing many of you dont understand....

this isn't about someone being in a bunch of different leagues[ and trying to minimize risk/b]

this is a staff member representing FBG in an EXPERT draft saying he took a player that he had ranked lower because he was trying to minimize his risk....this league where he was representing FBG had nothing to do with all the other leagues where he drafted Brady and Brees before Rodgers...

once again...it has nothing to do with the picks themselves, but more with the fact that he took a league where he is representing FBG and made picks based on what he did in other leagues..

meaning "I would have normally taken Brady or Brees, but since I have them in a bunch of other leagues, I took Rodgers instead"....and simply, that is probably not a prescribed drafting strategy to expect from a FBG staff...

I understand that normally it'd be okay to diversify risk, but how do you feel about him doing it in this draft? Sorry for all the questions, just curious to hear your input on it.

Not the brightest bulb on the tree, huh?

No, you're not. Hint:

 

[baconisgood]

just simply saying that he admitted part of his reasoning for taking Rodgers was because he has Brady and Brees in too many of his other leagues....that should not factor in.......sorry

People who are saying this as an absolute are simply wrong and most poker players know this. Reducing variance at the expense of small amounts of individual EV is an acceptable and proper approach to games in certain situations. In poker reducing variance allows an individual to play with a smaller bankroll with the same risk of ruin, doing so means playing relatively higher stakes which often means the sacrifice of a fraction of a big bet in expectation is more than made up for by playing for larger bets in general. For a contributor of a FF website winning 1 league a year for 9 years can be much more valuable than winning 10 leagues in 1 year and 0 leagues in 8 other years as it would allow him, and his website, constant exposure (David Sklansky covers this topic in at least one of his books where he describes how taking a riskier approach in major tournies is often correct for a writer who will sell oodles of books thanks to any one win, making a win worth much more than the discrepancy between 1st and Xth place money). As for the picks, I disagree with the TE you chose, but agree with the overall strategy.

I disagree you take the best players, case closed. I don't have a prob with John not wanting to put all his eggs in one basket either. This poker tangent is a failed try to be clever.

You're entitled to your opinion, but since you've decided not to back up your statements, or challange mine, with any kind of logic or evidence I think most will ignore it. The poker tangent isn't a tangent, its a parallel.

 

[TheAssassin]

Dallas Clark would have been available in the 5th. To me Gonzo is closer to Clark than Colston/Bowe (avail in 3rd) to Royal/Edwards. I have Rodgers 4th but don't have a problem with the pick. Gonzo was a Huge reach.

 

[gianmarco]

I happen to think the poker analogy is spot on.

 

[gianmarco]

Dallas Clark would have been available in the 5th. To me Gonzo is closer to Clark than Colston/Bowe (avail in 3rd) to Royal/Edwards. I have Rodgers 4th but don't have a problem with the pick. Gonzo was a Huge reach.

No offense, but that's also why it's Norton's draft and not yours. Just because YOU see it that way doesn't mean he does. Did you consider that he might view Gonzo as head & shoulders above the rest? In fact, if you read the thread and his explanation, he clearly states that he has Gonzo alone in tier 1. Not saying that this year is going to mirror last year, but if he made this decision last year he would have been 100% correct in doing so. Gonzo outscored other TEs by a significant margin. He was in a tier by himself. He's done it other times in his career. It's not unfathomable for him to do it again.So again, just because YOU or others think there is a closer line between Gonzo and other TE's doesn't mean he does. Likewise, just because YOU and others view a larger difference between Brees/Brady and Rodgers doesn't mean he does. We all have players that we differ substantially from consensus rankings/projections and we may be seeing 2 guys of his that fall in that category.

Personally, I have certain guys like P. Thomas and A. Bryant significantly higher than most and I would probably receive the same criticism if you see me taking AB at ~WR15. But, that's where I have him ranked.

Now, if you want to discuss the fact that he likely could have waited and still landed those guys, that's a completely different story. However, given his position in the draft, there was a very reasonable likelihood he would have missed out on one or both. He's explained that as his reasoning. It's not faulty reasoning even if YOU or others don't agree. I initially thought they were terrible picks. I read his explanation. I no longer think so. Even though I'm actually in agreement with you in that I see the top tier of TE's much closer together, I can understand if someone views him as in a tier by himself and didn't want to miss out. He said he does. That easily justifies his pick and makes sense.

ETA--You mentioned that you have Rodgers 4th so you don't have a problem with the pick. So essentially, because his ranking/projection is similar to yours, then you're ok with it. Let's assume that you have Rodgers ranked 10th. Would you still have been ok with the pick or you would have had a much bigger problem with it because it didn't coincide with your rankings? Are your rankings more correct than Norton's? The bottomline is that the issue should NOT be where he has these guys ranked. If you want to discuss the draft itself, a better discussion would be whether or not he still could have gotten these guys at the 4/5 turn. In other words, his mistake shouldn't be where he has these guys ranked. His mistake could be taking these guys earlier than he had to. Rodgers likely wouldn't have made it. Gonzo is 50/50 to me. But, given that he said he has him ranked ALONE in a tier by himself at the very top, there's no margin for error if he's wrong. It would be a different story if he had 3-4 TE's ranked that high.

 

[Eraser]

I happen to think the poker analogy is spot on.

Agreed.This entire topic reminds me of the "Crank" articles..... it sounds like a lot of guys here like to wait in line and take the player they are supposed to when their number is called.