who's drafting the Ravens or Bears "D" early (1 Viewer)

[clinton_c]

So who is willing to draft one of these 2 defenses in the late 6th round?

I know my league has crazy scoring, but I am usually the guy that laughs at people taking a defense that early, while I take my high-upside #3 back or a solid starting TE.

However this year I am really considering pulling the trigger on one of them...

abyone else?

 

[stevegamer]

I've done it before, and had success. this year I think it can make some sense. I think late 6th might be a touch early, but i'm thinkinking 7th-8th for them.

 

[Lehigh98]

I'm big on Defense by Committee, I guess I trust in bad offenses more than good defenses.

But if the Bears fall a few rounds and there's no clear other pick for me, I may take them this year.

But I doubt other teams will let them drop to the point where I see them as a value.

 

[greenf7cat]

I had the #3 pick in my draft, and took the Ravens D directly after the #2 spot went to Chicago D, which took place in round 7.

 

[Lehigh98]

I had the #3 pick in my draft, and took the Ravens D directly after the #2 spot went to Chicago D, which took place in round 7.

Good luck with that, they have the toughest schedule in the league this year.

 

[greenf7cat]

I had the #3 pick in my draft, and took the Ravens D directly after the #2 spot went to Chicago D, which took place in round 7.

Good luck with that, they have the toughest schedule in the league this year.

I know that, but they always perform exceptionally well. i think they just have too much talent on D to ignore, regardless of who they are playing.

 

[Lehigh98]

I had the #3 pick in my draft, and took the Ravens D directly after the #2 spot went to Chicago D, which took place in round 7.

Good luck with that, they have the toughest schedule in the league this year.

I know that, but they always perform exceptionally well. i think they just have too much talent on D to ignore, regardless of who they are playing.

I'd rather start average D's against piss poor offenses than great D's againts great offenses.Plus you can wait on picking your D's and not burn a 7th round pick on them.

 

[clinton_c]

I had the #3 pick in my draft, and took the Ravens D directly after the #2 spot went to Chicago D, which took place in round 7.

Good luck with that, they have the toughest schedule in the league this year.

I know that, but they always perform exceptionally well. i think they just have too much talent on D to ignore, regardless of who they are playing.

I'd rather start average D's against piss poor offenses than great D's againts great offenses.Plus you can wait on picking your D's and not burn a 7th round pick on them.

I used to go with that approach. However since we changed or defensive scoring last year, there was an 86 point spread between the 1st Defense (Ravens) and the 12th Defense (Cowboys).Although everyones league is different, I can't ignore that anymore.

 

[Sweat Hog]

I had the #3 pick in my draft, and took the Ravens D directly after the #2 spot went to Chicago D, which took place in round 7.

Good luck with that, they have the toughest schedule in the league this year.

I know that, but they always perform exceptionally well. i think they just have too much talent on D to ignore, regardless of who they are playing.

I'd rather start average D's against piss poor offenses than great D's againts great offenses.Plus you can wait on picking your D's and not burn a 7th round pick on them.

I agree. Plus I've been burned on D's one too many times. We do an auction and last year I paid $3 for Redskins D(ranked 4th at the time -and most D's go for a $1. ) I hung with them for 4 weeks before dumping them. They finished 32nd in my league's scoring. I finished out of the money in no small part because of this.I could've thrown a dart and picked a better D - AND saved $2 in valuable cap space. The only D I'd consider paying more than the minimum for is Chicago and I probably won't be able to fit them into my overall strategy.I've seen a few posts that seem to contradict the Ravens ranking as #2 this year. Other than the schedule, is there any other reason they might fall short of this?

 

[Routilla]

DEF/ST is the one position that I cannot use VBD or ADP. Our scoring system is quite different than most. Your DEF/ST starts the game with 30 pts, then you subtract ONLY the points given up by the DEF/ST. If you have BAL and McNair has a fumble or an INT returned for a TD it does NOT count against the BAL DEF/ST. Add 2 pts each for INT, fum rec, safety, sacks and 6 points for TDs. So as you might guess DEF/ST goes a lot earlier in our league which makes the strategy much more difficult in drafting QB, RB, WR and TE. This year CHI went last in the 3rd rd, then BAL and I got N.E. 38th overall(10 team league). The team that waits until the 8th rd or later usually gets hammered on a weekly basis because of the points against factor, FWIW. The funny thing is once the 3rd-4th DEF/ST has been drafted there is a desperate push by the other teams to secure DEF/ST that will not kill them each week. This allowed me to get Boldin/Walker as my WR1-2 in the 5th/6th rounds respectively. We'll see how it turns out.

 

[Routilla]

I had the #3 pick in my draft, and took the Ravens D directly after the #2 spot went to Chicago D, which took place in round 7.

Good luck with that, they have the toughest schedule in the league this year.

I know that, but they always perform exceptionally well. i think they just have too much talent on D to ignore, regardless of who they are playing.

I'd rather start average D's against piss poor offenses than great D's againts great offenses.Plus you can wait on picking your D's and not burn a 7th round pick on them.

I agree. Plus I've been burned on D's one too many times. We do an auction and last year I paid $3 for Redskins D(ranked 4th at the time -and most D's go for a $1. ) I hung with them for 4 weeks before dumping them. They finished 32nd in my league's scoring. I finished out of the money in no small part because of this.I could've thrown a dart and picked a better D - AND saved $2 in valuable cap space. The only D I'd consider paying more than the minimum for is Chicago and I probably won't be able to fit them into my overall strategy.I've seen a few posts that seem to contradict the Ravens ranking as #2 this year. Other than the schedule, is there any other reason they might fall short of this?

I think McGahee adds value to the BAL DEF. He should pick up more 1st downs than Lewis did last year and keep the DEF off the field more as well. IMO of course.

 

[David Yudkin]

I personally do not feel that defenses are predictable enough to take one that early. For example, the Ravens did well in 2004, dropped to 148 points scored in 2005, and bounced back to 235 points last year. The 148 point mark was basically the baseline for a starting fantasy defense that year. If it played out that way again, would that be worth a 6th round pick?

 

[gump]

I thought abou it, but there are two sleepers I'm targeting instead:

BUFF D - ADP = 22nd rd, rank = 2

MINN D - ADP = 19th rd, rank = 4

Too cheap to go after the #1 or #3 (Chi or Balt).

 

[Sweat Hog]

I thought abou it, but there are two sleepers I'm targeting instead:BUFF D - ADP = 22nd rd, rank = 2MINN D - ADP = 19th rd, rank = 4Too cheap to go after the #1 or #3 (Chi or Balt).

Funny - I thought about these two as well but we get 3 bonus points if our D ends up on the winning side so I've got to look at some other teams that have upside AND are likely to finish with good win/loss records.

 

[Ilov80s]

I thought abou it, but there are two sleepers I'm targeting instead:BUFF D - ADP = 22nd rd, rank = 2MINN D - ADP = 19th rd, rank = 4Too cheap to go after the #1 or #3 (Chi or Balt).

Funny - I thought about these two as well but we get 3 bonus points if our D ends up on the winning side so I've got to look at some other teams that have upside AND are likely to finish with good win/loss records.

Pats and Chargers would provide much better value then Balt/Chi and just as much upside.

 

[PahtyTom]

The same mistake is made year after year.

 

[Evilhomer3k]

Pats and Chargers would provide much better value then Balt/Chi and just as much upside.

Chargers also have a very easy SOS compared to the Bears, Patriots, and Baltimore.

 

[Justin99]

why does everyone want the Bears. Last year in the the beginning of the year they were great. However, at the end of the year they stunk.

 

[mozzy84]

I personally do not feel that defenses are predictable enough to take one that early. For example, the Ravens did well in 2004, dropped to 148 points scored in 2005, and bounced back to 235 points last year. The 148 point mark was basically the baseline for a starting fantasy defense that year. If it played out that way again, would that be worth a 6th round pick?

of course that was the one and only year I took a d early, won't be doing that ever again....

 

[freeannyong]

However, at the end of the year they stunk.

Mainly because they lost Tommy Harris and Mike Brown. Both are back and healthy and they will be playing like they did at the beginning of the year.

 

[Spiderman]

If a great team defense can potentaially be a top 10 scorer in your league, and you are convinced that the Bears can put up those type numbers, when do you take them ? Sure, it's a defense, andinjuries could wreck a defense, but if they peform how they are suppossed to (and in the Bears case, also have Devin Hester returning kicks), I think it makes for an interesting scenario.

 

[LionsFan78]

I got a bad feeling about Baltimore this year, I would not consider them that early. Personally, CHI's the only defense I'd spend a relatively early pick on (for me it would be the 7/8 turn).

 

[bostonfred]

I personally do not feel that defenses are predictable enough to take one that early. For example, the Ravens did well in 2004, dropped to 148 points scored in 2005, and bounced back to 235 points last year. The 148 point mark was basically the baseline for a starting fantasy defense that year. If it played out that way again, would that be worth a 6th round pick?

How many of the sixth round picks that year performed at or below the baseline? How many outperformed it? And more importantly, in leagues that give points for points allowed and yards allowed as well as def/st TDs, sacks and turnovers, how many sixth round picks outperformed their respective baselines by 100+points? There aren't a lot of sixth round picks that are guaranteed to score. Sure, defenses may fluctuate from year to year, but so do Santana Moss, Jeremy Shockey and Julius Jones. I'm not saying I'd take a defense ove rone of those guys specifically, because there's more replacement value and matchup/committee value at defense than at RB/WR/TE. But the argument that a sixth round pick might bust is not a strong argument against taking a defense there.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

The Bears D was 6th in overall scoring last

year in one of my leagues.

I traded Michael Bush and 49ers D

for

Bears D and 2nd rnd rookie pick 2008.

 

[Steelnation]

OAKLAND

 

[burd]

i never take a Def early ... i usually wait until my last pick. Last year, i got the Ravens D because they weren't ranked as high as they usually are and they were expected to slide a little. No one took them so i grabbed them and they were so huge for me. Anything less than round 10 for a Def is a reach in my opinion but i've been wrong before. Jax is a good defense and they're always available late.

 

[David Yudkin]

I personally do not feel that defenses are predictable enough to take one that early. For example, the Ravens did well in 2004, dropped to 148 points scored in 2005, and bounced back to 235 points last year. The 148 point mark was basically the baseline for a starting fantasy defense that year. If it played out that way again, would that be worth a 6th round pick?

How many of the sixth round picks that year performed at or below the baseline? How many outperformed it? And more importantly, in leagues that give points for points allowed and yards allowed as well as def/st TDs, sacks and turnovers, how many sixth round picks outperformed their respective baselines by 100+points? There aren't a lot of sixth round picks that are guaranteed to score. Sure, defenses may fluctuate from year to year, but so do Santana Moss, Jeremy Shockey and Julius Jones. I'm not saying I'd take a defense ove rone of those guys specifically, because there's more replacement value and matchup/committee value at defense than at RB/WR/TE. But the argument that a sixth round pick might bust is not a strong argument against taking a defense there.

I'm certainly not saying that players or defenses don't bust, but the Ravens DEF/ST two years ago say a decrease in their fantasy production of 50%+. The 100+ points you referenced certainly would be a good thing if that total was predictable. In 2005, the value score for the numbe one defense was about 50 points and some of the top projected defense fell far short of their projections (BAL for one and teams like PHI and NE were close to the Bottom 5).All I'm saying is it would be great if it worked out, but it would be a disaster if it didn't.

 

[Dexter Manley]

I guess I have a different definition of taking a defense early than most people. I took Denver's D in the 11th round of a recent 12 team league draft (16 rounds total), and I consider that EARLY. I'm very high on Denver's D and have them rated ahead of Bmore, fwiw.

They play the Chiefs and Raiders twice, and the first 2 rounds of the playoffs they got KC at home, and are @Houston. The only negative is they play @ SD during the Super Bowl (week 16), but I will simply pick up another D who has a great Super Bowl matchup sometime during the season.

I really think taking a defense early, like in the 6th or 7th round, is a guppy move. It's sort of like taking a qb in the 1st or 2nd round.

 

[mozzy84]

I personally do not feel that defenses are predictable enough to take one that early. For example, the Ravens did well in 2004, dropped to 148 points scored in 2005, and bounced back to 235 points last year. The 148 point mark was basically the baseline for a starting fantasy defense that year. If it played out that way again, would that be worth a 6th round pick?

How many of the sixth round picks that year performed at or below the baseline? How many outperformed it? And more importantly, in leagues that give points for points allowed and yards allowed as well as def/st TDs, sacks and turnovers, how many sixth round picks outperformed their respective baselines by 100+points?

There aren't a lot of sixth round picks that are guaranteed to score. Sure, defenses may fluctuate from year to year, but so do Santana Moss, Jeremy Shockey and Julius Jones. I'm not saying I'd take a defense ove rone of those guys specifically, because there's more replacement value and matchup/committee value at defense than at RB/WR/TE. But the argument that a sixth round pick might bust is not a strong argument against taking a defense there.

I'm certainly not saying that players or defenses don't bust, but the Ravens DEF/ST two years ago say a decrease in their fantasy production of 50%+. The 100+ points you referenced certainly would be a good thing if that total was predictable. In 2005, the value score for the numbe one defense was about 50 points and some of the top projected defense fell far short of their projections (BAL for one and teams like PHI and NE were close to the Bottom 5).

All I'm saying is it would be great if it worked out, but it would be a disaster if it didn't.

this is true, and if they do stink it up a person (me anyways) will stick with them for the first 6 weeks of the year thinking they will turn it around sooner or later and lose games because of it....

 

[Silverstreak]

However, at the end of the year they stunk.

Mainly because they lost Tommy Harris and Mike Brown. Both are back and healthy and they will be playing like they did at the beginning of the year.

I would concur with this. In a local guppie, ahhh re-draft, these guys for some reason have the Def (Chi #6 overall) scoring very aggressive. I thought that I'd try a new approach out here. I landed the 1 (LT) and watched the typical top RB's fall, then the typicall mix of RB, top tier WR & QB's fall. I noticed that there was almost an 80 pt swing from the #1 TE (Gates) and the 2 (Gonzo) so here's the craziness...I broke TE's at 3.1 (took Gates), then I broke DEF's at 5.1 (CHI). Interestingly enough, in a 12 teamer, I'm liking how this shaped up!QB) McNabb (6.1)RB1) LT (1.1)RB2) Benson (2.12)WR1) S.Moss (7.1)WR2) D.Branch (8.12)WR3) R.Brown (9.1)DEF) Chicago (5.1)RB3) F.Taylor (4.12)I like what I ended up with, gives me a solid base to work with WHILE starting off the Def trun at the 5.1 for a top 10 overall scorer last year. Now granted there were 3 other top 25 Defensive scorers overall and could've perhaps waited a little longer but I wanted to see the reaction. Once Chi broke, the other 3 went before my swing at the 6.1, so I feel that I still got some very serviceable WR's late and getting 3 #1 by position selections with LT, Gates, & Chi. The Top WR's (6 or so) were off the board by the time I picked up "Sonic" Benson so I figured, what the heck, lets give this a try!Anyways, it certainly appeared to work out here for me, perhaps it could work out well for someone else as well. The dynamics of a live draft amaze me sometimes watching guys get "caught up" in them.

 

[bostonfred]

Here are the 6th round picks FBG recommended at this time last year (VBD number in parentheses):

Todd Heap (39)

Derrick Mason (-36)

Marc Bulger (65)

Ahman Green (18)

Joey Galloway (46)

Alge Crumpler (53)

Lee Evans (75)

Dominic Rhodes (-42)

DeAngelo Williams (-68)

Curtis Martin (-161)

Daunte Culpepper (-182)

Chris Brown (-145)

About half of this round was a complete bust, and the other half had an average VBD value of 49.

The 7th round was similarly filled with busts (VBD numbers provided for positive VBDs only), but also had some booms:

Jake Delhomme

Ron Dayne

Jason Witten (0)

Michael Vick (64)

Frank Gore (111)

LenDale White

Chris Cooley (28)

Laurence Maroney

Drew Bledsoe

Michael Clayton

Rod Smith

Laveraneus Coles (45)

The next player on their list was the Bears defense, their highest ranked defense, by over 20 spots. They had a VBD number of 100 in my main league. That's bigger than anyone on this list except Gore. The Ravens had a VBD number of 146, which would have made them worth more than anyone except Tomlinson and Jackson. That's a massive advantage.

FBGs' top ten defenses for "high performance" defense scoring like mine was:

Carolina (15th, 153 points, -3 VBD)

Chicago (2nd, 256 points, 100 VBD)

Pittsburgh (9TH, 166 points, 10 VBD)

Baltimore (1st, 302 points, 146 VBD

Tampa (27th, 114 points, -42 VBD)

Washington (32nd, 78 points, -78 VBD)

Indy (31st, 101 points, -55 VBD)

Jacksonville (7th, 169 points, 13 VBD)

Seattle (12th, 156 points, 0 VBD)

Miami (5th, 189 points, 33 VBD)

As far as I can tell, there were fewer busts in the top ten defenses than there were in the rest of the sixth and seventh rounds. Defenses get a bad rap because they are hard to predict, but I think the real reason is because there is no positional scarcity. If there were, then people wouldn't be talking about drafting a couple defenses late and pairing them up, and they wouldn't be talking about how they picked up the Pats late or maybe got the Vikings off the waiver wire.

Of course, I will also temper my enthusiasm a bit by saying tha the VBD numbers for these defenses are wrong - both artificially high because the guys with the bottom tier defenses are going to be doing a DTBC that should theoretically improve their total points at the position and thus raise the baseline, and artificially low, because several of the end-of-year top 12 defenses were still unrostered as of the end of the season in my league. And last year does seem to be an abnormally big year for defenses, so there's a little bit of the one-year-memory effect going on here. But there's no question that a top defense can have a huge VBD impact on your team.

All that said, if you can show me a top defense with a top kick returner on a team that runs the ball, plays in the cold, and gets to play Tarvaris Jackson, Favre, the Martz QB twice, Brodie Croyle, Culpepper, Eli, Campbell, and then finishes the fantasy season against Tarvaris Jackson and Favre again, then yes, I will confidently predict that they will have a greater VBD value than more than half of the picks in the same round.

 

[Gonzo Stokes]

Here are the 6th round picks FBG recommended at this time last year (VBD number in parentheses):Todd Heap (39) Derrick Mason (-36)Marc Bulger (65)Ahman Green (18)Joey Galloway (46)Alge Crumpler (53)Lee Evans (75)Dominic Rhodes (-42)DeAngelo Williams (-68)Curtis Martin (-161)Daunte Culpepper (-182)Chris Brown (-145)About half of this round was a complete bust, and the other half had an average VBD value of 49. The 7th round was similarly filled with busts (VBD numbers provided for positive VBDs only), but also had some booms:Jake DelhommeRon DayneJason Witten (0)Michael Vick (64)Frank Gore (111)LenDale WhiteChris Cooley (28)Laurence MaroneyDrew BledsoeMichael ClaytonRod SmithLaveraneus Coles (45)The next player on their list was the Bears defense, their highest ranked defense, by over 20 spots. They had a VBD number of 100 in my main league. That's bigger than anyone on this list except Gore. The Ravens had a VBD number of 146, which would have made them worth more than anyone except Tomlinson and Jackson. That's a massive advantage. FBGs' top ten defenses for "high performance" defense scoring like mine was:Carolina (15th, 153 points, -3 VBD)Chicago (2nd, 256 points, 100 VBD)Pittsburgh (9TH, 166 points, 10 VBD)Baltimore (1st, 302 points, 146 VBDTampa (27th, 114 points, -42 VBD)Washington (32nd, 78 points, -78 VBD)Indy (31st, 101 points, -55 VBD)Jacksonville (7th, 169 points, 13 VBD)Seattle (12th, 156 points, 0 VBD)Miami (5th, 189 points, 33 VBD)As far as I can tell, there were fewer busts in the top ten defenses than there were in the rest of the sixth and seventh rounds. Defenses get a bad rap because they are hard to predict, but I think the real reason is because there is no positional scarcity. If there were, then people wouldn't be talking about drafting a couple defenses late and pairing them up, and they wouldn't be talking about how they picked up the Pats late or maybe got the Vikings off the waiver wire. Of course, I will also temper my enthusiasm a bit by saying tha the VBD numbers for these defenses are wrong - both artificially high because the guys with the bottom tier defenses are going to be doing a DTBC that should theoretically improve their total points at the position and thus raise the baseline, and artificially low, because several of the end-of-year top 12 defenses were still unrostered as of the end of the season in my league. And last year does seem to be an abnormally big year for defenses, so there's a little bit of the one-year-memory effect going on here. But there's no question that a top defense can have a huge VBD impact on your team. All that said, if you can show me a top defense with a top kick returner on a team that runs the ball, plays in the cold, and gets to play Tarvaris Jackson, Favre, the Martz QB twice, Brodie Croyle, Culpepper, Eli, Campbell, and then finishes the fantasy season against Tarvaris Jackson and Favre again, then yes, I will confidently predict that they will have a greater VBD value than more than half of the picks in the same round.

Outstanding info. Have you done any thinking about how we could have predicted the Ravens to boom last year?

 

[stevegamer]

Here are the 6th round picks FBG recommended at this time last year (VBD number in parentheses):Todd Heap (39) Derrick Mason (-36)Marc Bulger (65)Ahman Green (18)Joey Galloway (46)Alge Crumpler (53)Lee Evans (75)Dominic Rhodes (-42)DeAngelo Williams (-68)Curtis Martin (-161)Daunte Culpepper (-182)Chris Brown (-145)About half of this round was a complete bust, and the other half had an average VBD value of 49. The 7th round was similarly filled with busts (VBD numbers provided for positive VBDs only), but also had some booms:Jake DelhommeRon DayneJason Witten (0)Michael Vick (64)Frank Gore (111)LenDale WhiteChris Cooley (28)Laurence MaroneyDrew BledsoeMichael ClaytonRod SmithLaveraneus Coles (45)The next player on their list was the Bears defense, their highest ranked defense, by over 20 spots. They had a VBD number of 100 in my main league. That's bigger than anyone on this list except Gore. The Ravens had a VBD number of 146, which would have made them worth more than anyone except Tomlinson and Jackson. That's a massive advantage. FBGs' top ten defenses for "high performance" defense scoring like mine was:Carolina (15th, 153 points, -3 VBD)Chicago (2nd, 256 points, 100 VBD)Pittsburgh (9TH, 166 points, 10 VBD)Baltimore (1st, 302 points, 146 VBDTampa (27th, 114 points, -42 VBD)Washington (32nd, 78 points, -78 VBD)Indy (31st, 101 points, -55 VBD)Jacksonville (7th, 169 points, 13 VBD)Seattle (12th, 156 points, 0 VBD)Miami (5th, 189 points, 33 VBD)As far as I can tell, there were fewer busts in the top ten defenses than there were in the rest of the sixth and seventh rounds. Defenses get a bad rap because they are hard to predict, but I think the real reason is because there is no positional scarcity. If there were, then people wouldn't be talking about drafting a couple defenses late and pairing them up, and they wouldn't be talking about how they picked up the Pats late or maybe got the Vikings off the waiver wire. Of course, I will also temper my enthusiasm a bit by saying tha the VBD numbers for these defenses are wrong - both artificially high because the guys with the bottom tier defenses are going to be doing a DTBC that should theoretically improve their total points at the position and thus raise the baseline, and artificially low, because several of the end-of-year top 12 defenses were still unrostered as of the end of the season in my league. And last year does seem to be an abnormally big year for defenses, so there's a little bit of the one-year-memory effect going on here. But there's no question that a top defense can have a huge VBD impact on your team. All that said, if you can show me a top defense with a top kick returner on a team that runs the ball, plays in the cold, and gets to play Tarvaris Jackson, Favre, the Martz QB twice, Brodie Croyle, Culpepper, Eli, Campbell, and then finishes the fantasy season against Tarvaris Jackson and Favre again, then yes, I will confidently predict that they will have a greater VBD value than more than half of the picks in the same round.

Outstanding info. Have you done any thinking about how we could have predicted the Ravens to boom last year?

As far as I know the Ravens have busted once recently, and have probably had as much value over the last 5 years as almost all of the offensive guys who drafted in rounds 6-9 last year. I think it was pretty liekly they'd have a bounceback year - they in fact went crazy, but that doesn't matter.So let's see, if I understand the default "shark" theory....- You want to get high upside picks in the later rounds to hopefully find that breakout.- You want to ignore defenses, since they are completely unpredictable - since even the great ones bust every once in a while.- You especially need to ignore that defensive booms happen, and that you - if you hit the right defense - can get a LT-esque advantage (I would have said Peyton-esque, but nobody really wants to draft him, as it's a guppy move)People need to realize that there are edges to be gained. I've seen lots of people ignoring what elite performers at positions other than RB & WR can do this year around here.

 

[Sweetness_34]

Jax D or San Diego D is the D to target this year ...both have talent and both have some easy offenses to feast on

Jax: Tenn twice (no running game; no WRs); Hous twice (new QB; no real WR2; iffy running game; bad OL); NFC South (Bucs; Falcons without Vick; Delhomme....must I say more); KC with Croyle/Huard and that OL; Oakland in week 16 (championship game) with Russell starting by then

San Diego D: AFC West twice (Oak; Den and KC have untested QBs); NFC North (Green Bay; Vikings have horrible offenses; Rex Grossman might have his off day on opening day; Lions without Kevin Jones might be forced to be too predictable passing the ball which leads to sacks, turnovers/ints)

You can get these defenses after Bears, Ravens, NE and do fine.

 

[whodeywhodey]

I am.

I have created an algorithm and I think that's its pretty much a no brainer. However I would add that I'd pick CHI in the 6th and either NE, SD and/or BAL in the 7th.

Follow the algorithm: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=7163319

 

[amphibianbri]

I won't ever have these top notch defenses on my team, because I'm not willing to pay the price for the inconsistency that many of these defenses show from year to year. I feel that the Bears and Ravens #'s will be a bit less than last year (Bears - NFC north got better offensively and schedule got a little harder , Ravens - lost Thomas and schedule I think is harder this year). Many times a defense that you take in the last couple of rounds or at least a few rounds later than the elite defenses are taken score enough points to make that pick not much of a value to you at all. Personally, I'd rather use that pick on a RB sleeper like Brandon Jackson or an extra RB like Fred Taylor (both of their ADP's are round 6) and wait on a defense like Green Bay (or a DBC) that will still score me points.

 

[amphibianbri]

Also depends on your scoring system though, as the Bears and Ravens in my league would only have a true VBD value of about 35-40 points.

 

[whodeywhodey]

So you would rather have a backup RB3/RB4 that will only play on bye weeks and injuries than picking a DEF that will outscore the other DEF in your league by an average of 50 points (in these types of leagues, anyway)? I am thinking the exact opposite as you - I'd rather take a stud starter first (CHI for example) who plays every week and then take a backup RB.

In normal leagues I totally agree with you. I NEVER (NEVER!!!) take DEF early. But in leagues where DEF score over 200 I am rethinking my strategy.

Some other RBs you could take if you waited just 1 round and the difference from FTaylor who you used as an example:

Taylor projected: 145 pts (06.11)

Morency: 125 (09.04)

LenDale Weight: 125 (09.08)

Foster: 123 (9.06)

etc, etc

So you net a total of about 20 points.

 

[stevegamer]

I won't ever have these top notch defenses on my team, because I'm not willing to pay the price for the inconsistency that many of these defenses show from year to year. I feel that the Bears and Ravens #'s will be a bit less than last year (Bears - NFC north got better offensively and schedule got a little harder , Ravens - lost Thomas and schedule I think is harder this year). Many times a defense that you take in the last couple of rounds or at least a few rounds later than the elite defenses are taken score enough points to make that pick not much of a value to you at all. Personally, I'd rather use that pick on a RB sleeper like Brandon Jackson or an extra RB like Fred Taylor (both of their ADP's are round 6) and wait on a defense like Green Bay (or a DBC) that will still score me points.

I see this theory, but most of the top tier defenses will go later than round 6-7. Many times, getting elite performance from positions wins. Where you draft that performance is key.