Why shouldn't Manning be a 1st round pick? (1 Viewer)

[Liquid Tension]

I read all the time in these shark infested waters how "people just blindly draft Manning in the 1st round." I could list the posters, but I would imagine they will chime in here.

First, outside of last years playoffs because he sat (and this is hard to predict), Manning and SA are probably the most consistent fantasy scorers in the league. You can't get hurt drafting Manning but you could with many players going before him.

OK, that is simple enough, but what about value. I am a huge value guy, but judging from our scoring (12 team league) where all TD's are 6 points and 1 pt for every 20 yards for QB's and 1 for 10 for the rest, the football guys spreadsheet and projections tell "us" that Manning should be the 10th player taken overall. So what the heck is everyone's issue?

 

[perry147]

I read all the time in these shark infested waters how "people just blindly draft Manning in the 1st round." I could list the posters, but I would imagine they will chime in here.

First, outside of last years playoffs because he sat (and this is hard to predict), Manning and SA are probably the most consistent fantasy scorers in the league. You can't get hurt drafting Manning but you could with many players going before him.

OK, that is simple enough, but what about value. I am a huge value guy, but judging from our scoring (12 team league) where all TD's are 6 points and 1 pt for every 20 yards for QB's and 1 for 10 for the rest, the football guys spreadsheet and projections tell "us" that Manning should be the 10th player taken overall. So what the heck is everyone's issue?

I have no problem taking Manning late in the1st round with the scoring system described above. The reason most people are so resistant to it is because you need depth at RB due to most starting requirements; the RB-RB drafting strategy has been popular for as long as I can remember and most FF players are uncomfortable drafting outside of it.

 

[Warpig]

I think it's because most leagues award 6 pts for rushing/receiving td's while only 3 or 4 pts for passing td's. Therefore most of your first round picks will be RB's and WR's. Now if you are in a league that awards 6 pts for all TD's then I could certainly justify Manning as a 1st rounder since he's good for atleast 35 td's on his own. The average QB gets what...20 - 25 td's? Since I'm in a league that only gives QB's 4 pts for a TD he won't garner much thought from me until the 2nd round at the earliest.

 

[Pots]

Because finding a QB to throw 25 TDs past the 4th round is a lot easier than finding a RB or WR to score 10 TDs.

Because most people don't play in leagues where Passing TDs count for 6 points.

Because finding a servicable QB is MUCH MUCH easier than finding a servicable RB.

Because top 10 RBs have more trade value.

 

[srnohav]

Because finding a QB to throw 25 TDs past the 4th round is a lot easier than finding a RB or WR to score 10 TDs.

Because most people don't play in leagues where Passing TDs count for 6 points.

Because finding a servicable QB is MUCH MUCH easier than finding a servicable RB.

Because top 10 RBs have more trade value.

and you have to start two running backs in most leagues compared to one QB, not enough talent to go around on the RB position compared to plenty of talent at QB assuming 12 starters vs. 24 rb's starters

 

[thesurfshop19]

I think that an interesting question is, isn't it a problem if Manning isn't a first round pick in fantasy leagues?

Granted, not everyone is playing for the same reasons. But if Manning can't even get into the 1st round of your fantasy draft which is only, for the most part, offensive skill positions ... isn't there something wrong with the system itself?

 

[joffer]

click me

 

[Warpig]

click me

 

[Sinrman]

I think it's because most leagues award 6 pts for rushing/receiving td's while only 3 or 4 pts for passing td's. Therefore most of your first round picks will be RB's and WR's. Now if you are in a league that awards 6 pts for all TD's then I could certainly justify Manning as a 1st rounder since he's good for atleast 35 td's on his own. The average QB gets what...20 - 25 td's? Since I'm in a league that only gives QB's 4 pts for a TD he won't garner much thought from me until the 2nd round at the earliest.

BINGO!

 

[J-Rock]

I think it's because most leagues award 6 pts for rushing/receiving td's while only 3 or 4 pts for passing td's.  Therefore most of your first round picks will be RB's and WR's.  Now if you are in a league that awards 6 pts for all TD's then I could certainly justify Manning as a 1st rounder since he's good for atleast 35 td's on his own.  The average QB gets what...20 - 25 td's?  Since I'm in a league that only gives QB's 4 pts for a TD he won't garner much thought from me until the 2nd round at the earliest.

BINGO!

I disagree with the take that it's because TD's are weighted higher. It is relitave. If Mannings TD's are worth 6 so are Plummers. It does not matter what TD's are worth. The big reason is the fall off from one player to the next at the same psoition. It is basic VBD. The difference between Manning and a guy you can get in the 4-5 round is smaller than the difference between a RB drafted in the first round and a guy in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th.

Using FBG projections and ADP: The difference between Manning in the first round and Mcnabb in the 4th is only 2pts/gm.

passing on a RB in the first and taking one in the 2nd and 3rd will result in a difference of 3-4 pts/game.

 

[Sabertooth]

"protection problems"

 

[Mungo Burrows]

Without getting into all the intracies of Dynamic VBD and multi-round value drops for players at positions where ADP indicates a slow change in value even after a large initial drop, suffice it to say I think you'll end up with a worse overall team (due to the collective effect of value drops at multiple other positons) by taking any QB in the first round unless you feel very confident projecting him to be at or near record-breaking numbers.

 

[Capt Hook]

Go to the mag or in the articles section and read the articles on VBD and drafting - if that doesn't convince you, add this reason

"Because you don't want to be Dead Money in your league"

BTW, those posters who said because the QB TDs are 6 points are dead wrong. The NFBC has 6 points for QB TDs and he should never be a first round pick in those leagues either, so I think the projections sheet you have needs work.

 

[(HULK)]

I disagree with the take that it's because TD's are weighted higher. It is relitave. If Mannings TD's are worth 6 so are Plummers. It does not matter what TD's are worth.

The big reason is the fall off from one player to the next at the same psoition. It is basic VBD. The difference between Manning and a guy you can get in the 4-5 round is smaller than the difference between a RB drafted in the first round and a guy in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th.

Using FBG projections and ADP: The difference between Manning in the first round and Mcnabb in the 4th is only 2pts/gm.

passing on a RB in the first and taking one in the 2nd and 3rd will result in a difference of 3-4 pts/game.

Yes it does matter. If QB A has 10 more tds than QB B in a 4 point passing touchdown league, thats a 40 point difference. In a 6 point passing touchdown league, thats a 60 point difference.6 points per passing td increases the value of top QBs according to VBD.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

I disagree with the take that it's because TD's are weighted higher. It is relitave. If Mannings TD's are worth 6 so are Plummers. It does not matter what TD's are worth.

The big reason is the fall off from one player to the next at the same psoition. It is basic VBD. The difference between Manning and a guy you can get in the 4-5 round is smaller than the difference between a RB drafted in the first round and a guy in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th.

Using FBG projections and ADP: The difference between Manning in the first round and Mcnabb in the 4th is only 2pts/gm.

passing on a RB in the first and taking one in the 2nd and 3rd will result in a difference of 3-4 pts/game.

Yes it does matter. If QB A has 10 more tds than QB B in a 4 point passing touchdown league, thats a 40 point difference. In a 6 point passing touchdown league, thats a 60 point difference.6 points per passing td increases the value of top QBs according to VBD.

I think the point is that even a 20 point additional difference over the course of the year makes Manning have more value, but still not enough to justify a first round pick. It's a bad pick even in 6pt passing TD leagues.

 

[(HULK)]

I think the point is that even a 20 point additional difference over the course of the year makes Manning have more value, but still not enough to justify a first round pick. It's a bad pick even in 6pt passing TD leagues.

I am certain that if plug the couple of last years actual stats into a VBD excel sheet, Manning would be in the top 10 at least twice, based on VBD.

 

[perry147]

I think the point is that even a 20 point additional difference over the course of the year makes Manning have more value, but still not enough to justify a first round pick. It's a bad pick even in 6pt passing TD leagues.

I am certain that if plug the couple of last years actual stats into a VBD excel sheet, Manning would be in the top 10 at least twice, based on VBD.

Exactly.

Manning in the late first round is a solid pick in league where QB scoring is favorable.

 

[joffer]

I think the point is that even a 20 point additional difference over the course of the year makes Manning have more value, but still not enough to justify a first round pick.  It's a bad pick even in 6pt passing TD leagues.

I am certain that if plug the couple of last years actual stats into a VBD excel sheet, Manning would be in the top 10 at least twice, based on VBD.

if you give me the scoring/roster numbers that you want to see i can give you his exact position.

 

[LHUCKS]

There is more to drafting winning fantasy teams than just VBD.

 

[GregR_2]

I think it's because most leagues award 6 pts for rushing/receiving td's while only 3 or 4 pts for passing td's.

Because most people don't play in leagues where Passing TDs count for 6 points.

I recently asked MFL if they could post what the percentage breakdown was of their leagues that use 6 and 4 pt TDs. The 6 pt TD leagues outnumber the 4 pt TD leagues by a fair margin.

 

[Warpig]

Go to the mag or in the articles section and read the articles on VBD and drafting - if that doesn't convince you, add this reason

"Because you don't want to be Dead Money in your league"

BTW, those posters who said because the QB TDs are 6 points are dead wrong. The NFBC has 6 points for QB TDs and he should never be a first round pick in those leagues either, so I think the projections sheet you have needs work.

Why would you not consider getting a QB in the 1st round if passing TD's are 6 points? Manning has been head and shoulders better than his competition. The guy is good for 40 td's a year. What other QB is close to that? Atleast with RB's you have 3 guys that could be good for 25 tds (LJ, LT, and SA). After that you have another group of RB's that are good for 11 - 14 td's (Portis, Tiki, possibly Edge) then after that there is a whole plethera of RB's that might get you 5 - 10 td's (Rudi, Lamont Jordan, Steven Jackson, Ronnie Brown...blah, blah, blah). Then there's Reuben Droughns with 2. So if you miss out on LJ, LT, or SA, why wouldn't you take the guy that will get you the next highest amount of TD's? I'd be more than happy to be sitting with Manning, Domanick Davis, and Brian Westbrook with a handful of WR's that might get me 10 - 12 td's combined.

 

[Warpig]

There is more to drafting winning fantasy teams than just VBD.

 

[GregR_2]

Go to the mag or in the articles section and read the articles on VBD and drafting - if that doesn't convince you, add this reason

"Because you don't want to be Dead Money in your league"

BTW, those posters who said because the QB TDs are 6 points are dead wrong. The NFBC has 6 points for QB TDs and he should never be a first round pick in those leagues either, so I think the projections sheet you have needs work.

Why would you not consider getting a QB in the 1st round if passing TD's are 6 points?

It's really a lot more complicated of a decision than 6 or 4 pt TDs. To really answer the question you need to figure out the effect that taking Manning has on every other pick you make. Things like "does the lesser quality RB2 you got mean you take an extra backup RB before your WR3, and how much does it hurt you at WR3 then" need to be included.Then you need to take into account what are the odds of guys performing at the level you predict for them, of bombing, or of outperforming. Once you've done that for your likely "Manning in round 1 draft", you need to compare it to what you'd do if you went another way in round 1.

One of the things a Manning pick has going for it is that we probably feel there is a pretty high likelihood he scores close to his career average, while RBs are more volatile. That can be hard to include. It is possible to find a QB later who will end up doing what Manning does, but there is also a lot more risk you won't be the guy who got that QB. What are your odds of doing so, vs what are your odds of finding a later round RB who makes up the difference.

All those sorts of factors really need to be included in the discussion if we want to really look at it thoroughly.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

There is more to drafting winning fantasy teams than just VBD.

Go to the mag or in the articles section and read the articles on VBD and drafting - if that doesn't convince you, add this reason

"Because you don't want to be Dead Money in your league"

BTW, those posters who said because the QB TDs are 6 points are dead wrong. The NFBC has 6 points for QB TDs and he should never be a first round pick in those leagues either, so I think the projections sheet you have needs work.

Why would you not consider getting a QB in the 1st round if passing TD's are 6 points?

It's really a lot more complicated of a decision than 6 or 4 pt TDs. To really answer the question you need to figure out the effect that taking Manning has on every other pick you make. Things like "does the lesser quality RB2 you got mean you take an extra backup RB before your WR3, and how much does it hurt you at WR3 then" need to be included.Then you need to take into account what are the odds of guys performing at the level you predict for them, of bombing, or of outperforming. Once you've done that for your likely "Manning in round 1 draft", you need to compare it to what you'd do if you went another way in round 1.

One of the things a Manning pick has going for it is that we probably feel there is a pretty high likelihood he scores close to his career average, while RBs are more volatile. That can be hard to include. It is possible to find a QB later who will end up doing what Manning does, but there is also a lot more risk you won't be the guy who got that QB. What are your odds of doing so, vs what are your odds of finding a later round RB who makes up the difference.

All those sorts of factors really need to be included in the discussion if we want to really look at it thoroughly.

:EvenBetterPosting:

 

[(HULK)]

I think the point is that even a 20 point additional difference over the course of the year makes Manning have more value, but still not enough to justify a first round pick.  It's a bad pick even in 6pt passing TD leagues.

I am certain that if plug the couple of last years actual stats into a VBD excel sheet, Manning would be in the top 10 at least twice, based on VBD.

if you give me the scoring/roster numbers that you want to see i can give you his exact position.

8 teams (I think this makes a big difference, because the RB baseline is RB16, not RB24), 6 points all tds, 1 point 10 yards rush/receiving, 1 point 20 yards passing.The past couple of years his VDB has been fairly high. I think last year was a little lower than the couple before it.

 

[Z-Dog]

Part of the problem is the VBD system.

Almost nobody I know uses any kind of risk discounting system to rank players. If you did, you'd find that a QB like Manning is certainly a 1st-round pick b/c of his reliablity. Problem is that in recent years, he's sat as early as week 16, and lots of people who would ahve won championships and come into the next year with revised opinions of drafting Manning in the first round instead lost their leagues, or won in spite of missing Manning, and conventional wisdom has soldiered on.

 

[PhillySwampAss]

I disagree with the take that it's because TD's are weighted higher. It is relitave. If Mannings TD's are worth 6 so are Plummers. It does not matter what TD's are worth.

The big reason is the fall off from one player to the next at the same psoition. It is basic VBD. The difference between Manning and a guy you can get in the 4-5 round is smaller than the difference between a RB drafted in the first round and a guy in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th.

Using FBG projections and ADP: The difference between Manning in the first round and Mcnabb in the 4th is only 2pts/gm.

passing on a RB in the first and taking one in the 2nd and 3rd will result in a difference of 3-4 pts/game.

Ding Ding Ding...WINNER...This is exactly right and well written.

Let'em take Manning..you can get a Delhomme 7 rounds later and have better value elsewhere!

 

[SSOG]

Go to the mag or in the articles section and read the articles on VBD and drafting - if that doesn't convince you, add this reason

"Because you don't want to be Dead Money in your league"

BTW, those posters who said because the QB TDs are 6 points are dead wrong. The NFBC has 6 points for QB TDs and he should never be a first round pick in those leagues either, so I think the projections sheet you have needs work.

Why would you not consider getting a QB in the 1st round if passing TD's are 6 points? Manning has been head and shoulders better than his competition. The guy is good for 40 td's a year. What other QB is close to that? Atleast with RB's you have 3 guys that could be good for 25 tds (LJ, LT, and SA). After that you have another group of RB's that are good for 11 - 14 td's (Portis, Tiki, possibly Edge) then after that there is a whole plethera of RB's that might get you 5 - 10 td's (Rudi, Lamont Jordan, Steven Jackson, Ronnie Brown...blah, blah, blah). Then there's Reuben Droughns with 2. So if you miss out on LJ, LT, or SA, why wouldn't you take the guy that will get you the next highest amount of TD's? I'd be more than happy to be sitting with Manning, Domanick Davis, and Brian Westbrook with a handful of WR's that might get me 10 - 12 td's combined.

Yeah, Manning is good for 40 TDs a year... assuming by "good for 40 TDs a year" you mean "has only gotten more than 30 TDs twice in his 8 year career, and has only gotten more than 33 TDs once".I think you might want to look back and see just how "head and shoulders" Manning has really been above his peers during his career. More specifically, check how many times Peyton Manning has been the #1 fantasy quarterback in the NFL, even.

Here's a hint: the number begins with a "Z". And it ends with an "ero".

 

[joffer]

I think the point is that even a 20 point additional difference over the course of the year makes Manning have more value, but still not enough to justify a first round pick.  It's a bad pick even in 6pt passing TD leagues.

I am certain that if plug the couple of last years actual stats into a VBD excel sheet, Manning would be in the top 10 at least twice, based on VBD.

if you give me the scoring/roster numbers that you want to see i can give you his exact position.

8 teams (I think this makes a big difference, because the RB baseline is RB16, not RB24), 6 points all tds, 1 point 10 yards rush/receiving, 1 point 20 yards passing.The past couple of years his VDB has been fairly high. I think last year was a little lower than the couple before it.

without looking, those numbers will increase his X-value no doubt. I'm assuming start 1/2/3/1/1 (no flex).

2005 - QB3, overall VBD rank of 22, 153 points behind Alexander

2004 - QB1, overall VBD rank of 1, 4 points ahead of Culpepper

2003 - QB1, overall VBD rank of 22, 151 points behind Holmes

2002 - QB3, overall VBD rank of 28, 146 points behind Holmes

 

[John Mamula]

I think the point is that even a 20 point additional difference over the course of the year makes Manning have more value, but still not enough to justify a first round pick.  It's a bad pick even in 6pt passing TD leagues.

I am certain that if plug the couple of last years actual stats into a VBD excel sheet, Manning would be in the top 10 at least twice, based on VBD.

Exactly.That is the best argument against VBD one could make as a system to quantify who to draft.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

Ding Ding Ding...WINNER...

This is exactly right and well written.

Let'em take Manning..you can get a Delhomme 7 rounds later and have better value elsewhere!

This is where I come out, also. Some of it is just a matter of personal style and what you're comfortable with. I would never take a QB in the 1st round, period. It's like stocks. Some people are growth investors, others value investors. Both can do okay Peyton is a growth stock, Jake is a value stock.

 

[John Mamula]

VBD as a quantitative drafting method is the Scientology of fantasy football.

 

[GregR_2]

Yeah, Manning is good for 40 TDs a year... assuming by "good for 40 TDs a year" you mean "has only gotten more than 30 TDs twice in his 8 year career, and has only gotten more than 33 TDs once".

I think you might want to look back and see just how "head and shoulders" Manning has really been above his peers during his career. More specifically, check how many times Peyton Manning has been the #1 fantasy quarterback in the NFL, even.

Here's a hint: the number begins with a "Z". And it ends with an "ero".

You are right to point out what Manning has really produced. But you might want to go easy on the last statement. Manning was the #1 QB in a lot of scoring systems in 2004. In fact he was the #1 QB in all 4 of my leagues, none of which have all that unusual of QB scoring, and one league of which used the FBG Survivor II scoring system.

 

[MLBrandow]

I think the point is that even a 20 point additional difference over the course of the year makes Manning have more value, but still not enough to justify a first round pick. It's a bad pick even in 6pt passing TD leagues.

Incorrect.The difference between Manning/Palmer and the rest of the QBs is almost 20% of the total value of the position.

If TDs were 1pt or 100pts he'd still be worth a first round pick.

The real question is now that Palmer is going to be healthy, why is he NOT a first round pick as well?

 

[denver90]

Why would you not consider getting a QB in the 1st round if passing TD's are 6 points? Manning has been head and shoulders better than his competition.  The guy is good for 40 td's a year.  What other QB is close to that?  Atleast with RB's you have 3 guys that could be good for 25 tds (LJ, LT, and SA).  After that you have another group of RB's that are good for 11 - 14 td's (Portis, Tiki, possibly Edge) then after that there is a whole plethera of RB's that might get you 5 - 10 td's (Rudi, Lamont Jordan, Steven Jackson, Ronnie Brown...blah, blah, blah).  Then there's Reuben Droughns with 2.  So if you miss out on LJ, LT, or SA, why wouldn't you take the guy that will get you the next highest amount of TD's?  I'd be more than happy to be sitting with Manning, Domanick Davis, and Brian Westbrook with a handful of WR's that might get me 10 - 12 td's combined.

Manning's TD totals for his career including rushing TDs:26, 28, 34, 30, 29, 29, 49, 28.I would hardly say he is good for 40 every year. You should be ecstatic if he or any QB gets to 30 in a year. Likewise for 20+ TD runningbacks and 15+ TD receivers.

There may be players that reach those lofty numbers every year, but they most likely won't be the same individuals who do it from year to year. Predicting the ones who will is what remains difficult from year to year.

 

[Sinrman]

I think it's because most leagues award 6 pts for rushing/receiving td's while only 3 or 4 pts for passing td's.  Therefore most of your first round picks will be RB's and WR's.  Now if you are in a league that awards 6 pts for all TD's then I could certainly justify Manning as a 1st rounder since he's good for atleast 35 td's on his own.  The average QB gets what...20 - 25 td's?  Since I'm in a league that only gives QB's 4 pts for a TD he won't garner much thought from me until the 2nd round at the earliest.

BINGO!

I disagree with the take that it's because TD's are weighted higher. It is relitave. If Mannings TD's are worth 6 so are Plummers. It does not matter what TD's are worth. The big reason is the fall off from one player to the next at the same psoition. It is basic VBD. The difference between Manning and a guy you can get in the 4-5 round is smaller than the difference between a RB drafted in the first round and a guy in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th.

Using FBG projections and ADP: The difference between Manning in the first round and Mcnabb in the 4th is only 2pts/gm.

passing on a RB in the first and taking one in the 2nd and 3rd will result in a difference of 3-4 pts/game.

Sure, Plummer's, Culpepper's, McNabb's, Warner's, any QB's TDs would all be worth the same. It's the same with any other league -- one player shouldn't make or break your season. It's all about the supporting cast. If I draft Peyton Manning, and then go for saaay Randy Moss in the 2nd round, thus having no RBs until the 3rd at least, then sure, I deserve what I have coming to me. But if I draft Peyton Manning at 6 pts/passing TD and then go for like Brian Westbrook or Cadillac Williams or some decent RB in the second round, then I'm not too far behind in that position, plus I have the top QB in a QB-friendly scoring league.Don't see anything wrong with that....

 

[Mungo Burrows]

I think the point is that even a 20 point additional difference over the course of the year makes Manning have more value, but still not enough to justify a first round pick. It's a bad pick even in 6pt passing TD leagues.

Incorrect.The difference between Manning/Palmer and the rest of the QBs is almost 20% of the total value of the position.

If TDs were 1pt or 100pts he'd still be worth a first round pick.

The real question is now that Palmer is going to be healthy, why is he NOT a first round pick as well?

For simplicity (and because I have not done my own projections ) I'll use FBG projections and scoring for this discussion:If you assume Manning will be #1, getting similar numbers to this years FBG projections and last years #1 (~317) you can get the "worst starter" (#12 QB - Plummer) , who gets more than 84% of Mannings' projected total, in the late 6th or early 7th round for a net difference of about 50 points over the course of the season. The difference between the running backs you would get in the mid-late 1st compared to the late 7th is over 100 points.

Even if you don't replace one RB with another leaving all other picks the same, you have to deal with the collective impact of all 6 of your other picks before the seventh being one round later, or some combination of picks being a total of 6 rounds later, and the collective impact is usually about the same because other positions drop faster. The 50 point difference between Manning and the Plummers of the world is not enough to make up for your losses elsewhere. Even if you add another 20 points for 6pts/td vs 4pt/td it still doesn't generally make up for the total losses at other positions.

 

[jerseyh8r]

Part of the problem is the VBD system.

Almost nobody I know uses any kind of risk discounting system to rank players. If you did, you'd find that a QB like Manning is certainly a 1st-round pick b/c of his reliablity. Problem is that in recent years, he's sat as early as week 16, and lots of people who would ahve won championships and come into the next year with revised opinions of drafting Manning in the first round instead lost their leagues, or won in spite of missing Manning, and conventional wisdom has soldiered on.

I was just thinking of this today!! I am almost halfway through my projections and was trying to determine what other variables to use (objectively) to help separate the players even more than their projected stats. Reliablity and consistencty were the first things to come to mind.I am working on Indy's projections and values for consistency and am expecting Manning to have the best value concerning this. The problem is then finding the right formula to weigh consistency vs strength of schedule vs injury risk vs playoff weather/strength of schedule....but I am working on it.

 

[RandyDB]

I think it's because most leagues award 6 pts for rushing/receiving td's while only 3 or 4 pts for passing td's.

Because most people don't play in leagues where Passing TDs count for 6 points.

I recently asked MFL if they could post what the percentage breakdown was of their leagues that use 6 and 4 pt TDs. The 6 pt TD leagues outnumber the 4 pt TD leagues by a fair margin.

4 points per passing TD: 27.3% of all leagues.

6 points per passing TD: 32.8% of all leagues.

other points for passing TD: 39.9% of all leagues.

The other points per TD leagues out number the 6 pt TD leagues by a larger margin.We don't know if these "other pts" per passing TD leagues are 3 pt leagues or 12 pt leagues or 5pt leagues. From personally viewing scoring rules on many of the MFL leagues I see a lot more 3 pt per passing TD leagues than the other possibilities.

I think it would be accurate to agree with Pots and conclude that most people don't play in 6 pt per passing TD leagues.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Go to the mag or in the articles section and read the articles on VBD and drafting - if that doesn't convince you, add this reason

"Because you don't want to be Dead Money in your league"

BTW, those posters who said because the QB TDs are 6 points are dead wrong. The NFBC has 6 points for QB TDs and he should never be a first round pick in those leagues either, so I think the projections sheet you have needs work.

Man I started this thread and was way and I have a lot of catching up to do...Captain Hook you are correct that people who say having the TD's score 6 doesn't mean anything are dead wrong, however the projections are not mine, these are the FBG ones and in the type of scoring I describe Manning IS AND SHOULD be a 1st round pick.

I haven't seen any arguments state that at number 9-12 you have a solid option at RB that is better than Manning.

 

[Liquid Tension]

  Posted by SSOG      I think you might want to look back and see just how "head and shoulders" Manning has really been above his peers during his career. More specifically, check how many times Peyton Manning has been the #1 fantasy quarterback in the NFL, even.  Here's a hint: the number begins with a "Z". And it ends with an "ero".

Sorry SSOG with the scoring we talked about in this thread Manning was the top scorer in 2003 and 2004. We give negaitive points for INTs and fumbles (-3).Regardless, if you take the last 3 years 2003-2005 (not including 2002 where Manning finished 2nd to Gannon) Look at how "money in the bank" Manning is/was averaged per year:

Manning 394Green 313Culpy 306Brady 302Hasselback 301Favre 284Mcnabb 282 Plummer 274Brooks 270Delhomme 269

This is a serious differential to have this consistency. I just don't see the logic in This type of scoring to pass on him in the 1st round. In fact, he probably should go at the latest 7th or maybe even after Portis at 4.

 

[The Jerk]

Liquid Tension,

There are a variety of reasons people will use in support of their belief that drafting a QB in the first round is never a good strategy. At some point, however, it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, i.e., people never draft a QB early because they don't want to draft a QB early. Period.

I had a lot of success drafting Randy Moss and Terrell Owens in the late first round 4-6 years ago. Sure, my RBs were weaker, but my #1 WR was producing at a level near or above the level of nearly every other team's RB1. Many similar arguments can be applied to this situation, but the bottom line is that my strategy worked because my first-round pick produced. It always comes down to drafting good players.

In general, every strategy depends on your league scoring method and your league's collective drafting habits. My thinking is that the earlier your league tends to take QBs, the earlier Manning should be drafted. Where I think you can be hurt is if you draft Manning, and then everyone else waits until the 7th round or later to take a QB. Probably won't happen, but if it does then your talent pool deficit is greater in each round.

From my post to this point you can see I'm open to the idea of drafting Manning in the first round. However, I'm almost guaranteed not to do it this year for two reasons:

A) In my main league, QBs go early and I'm drafting 12th (as the defending champ).

B) I have had great success in waiting until rounds 5-7 or later to take my first QB.

To explain part B, here's a snippet of my post from a thread on strategy from a couple of months ago. My comments expand this discussion to include the top 3 QBs or so, not just Manning, but the message is more or less the same.

I agree that the "value drafting" can also apply to QBs, however from my experience, there typically is less agreement on who belongs in the #4-6 or #7-10 QB is vs. RB or WR. As a result, there is a greater likelihood of getting a top 4 QB (or top 7 QB) after nearly all the other teams have a QB compared to the other positions.

Whether or not you agree that the tiers break differently for RBs, in virtually all leagues, RBs will continue to be drated until half or more of the teams in the league have a backup. This is normally not the case with QBs. And in QBs, the #11-#15 tier is where there is virtually no consensus.

The way you can use this situation to your advantage is to target a QB you think is going to finish in the top 6 or top 10 or whatever. You can sit patiently and hope this guy will be there later into the draft, but even if he is not, you can stock your lineup full of other players, then draft two QBs back to back or over three rounds. If you end up with two QBs roughly 14th and 15th in value, you still have three chances to get good production out of them:

1. one or the other QB can step up their game and end up #7-#9 or so.

2. you can play the matchups and hopefully get the most out of each player's totals (of course, this can backfire, too...)

3. you can jump on free agent QBs who emerge out of nowhere or due to injury

I don't think this approach works as well with either RBs or WRs.

 

[Pipes]

While typically I don't take QB's in the first I can see taking Manning. One thing that seems to be ignored is consistency. You can pencil in Manning to be a top 5 QB at worst...most likely he'll end up 1 or 2. The same cannot be said for 1st round RB's. Last year McGahee, K Jones, J Jones & P Holmes were all considered top 10 RB's going into the draft yet for some reason or another they didn't finish there.

The same thing happens every year where many of the preseason top 10 RB's haven't finished in the top 10. Manning's in the top couple of QB's every year. This year I'd especially consider Manning in the late 1st. After LJ, SA, LT, Portis, Tiki and Edge the rest of the RB's have some sort of question mark. I'm not so sure how excited I'd be with a backfield of lets say Steven Jackson and Ronnie Brown. I think I'd rather have Manning to go along with one of those guys.

 

[David Yudkin]

Having started the other thread, I will say that taking a QB early is a dicey proposition based mostly on the fact that even if you were fortunate to take the QB that ranks #1, he may not be worth taking him in the first round (looking only at yearend value).

That's why I suggested that how you project players will factor into all of this, and if you are sold on your own projections, you can make a case (or throw it out) depending upon the numbers.

I happen to think that the Colts will miss James a lot more than many are suggesting, that the Colts will struggle more than in seasons past, that Manning will play every week instead of sitting at the end of the year, and that he will have to pass more for the Colts to do well. All that to me equlas Manning does better than normal (although not 2004 better).

I also see other QBs with some issues (see what I had in the thread) and there are some guys that are risky to start from week to week.

As others have pointed out, even if Manning would be worth a first round pick, if QBs fall in your league you still may be able to get him in the 2nd or 3rd. If that's the case, then burning a first rounder makes no sense.

Given where other QB are going and the fact that guys I am high on are going late, late, I probably will stick with RB and WR early and wait on QBs.

I still think Manning will end up having first round value this year. Where people want to draft him is another story.

 

[SSOG]

Posted by SSOG I think you might want to look back and see just how "head and shoulders" Manning has really been above his peers during his career. More specifically, check how many times Peyton Manning has been the #1 fantasy quarterback in the NFL, even. Here's a hint: the number begins with a "Z". And it ends with an "ero".

Sorry SSOG with the scoring we talked about in this thread Manning was the top scorer in 2003 and 2004. We give negaitive points for INTs and fumbles (-3).Regardless, if you take the last 3 years 2003-2005 (not including 2002 where Manning finished 2nd to Gannon) Look at how "money in the bank" Manning is/was:

Manning 394Green 313Culpy 306Brady 302Hasselback 301Favre 284Mcnabb 282 Plummer 274Brooks 270Delhomme 269This is a serious differential to have this consistency. I just don't see the logic in This type of scoring to pass on him in the 1st round. In fact, he probably should go at the latest 7th or maybe even after Portis at 4.

I wasn't arguing whether or not Manning was worthy of a first round pick. I understand that his consistancy is unbelievable, and certainly wasn't trying to belittle his accomplishments because he never finished 1st in standard FBG scoring (I believe in 2004 he was just 4 points behind Culpepper). I was just trying to argue that any statements that Manning was "good for 40+ TDs" and was "head and shoulders above his peers" are just factually incorrect.If you want to draft Manning in the first, then by all means, draft Manning in the first. Just do it for the right reasons. Do it because he's never finished as anything other than a starting-caliber QB. Do it because he's never finished outside of the top-4 QBs since his rookie season. Do it because he's got the second longest consecutive starts streak going (128 and counting), which means you can skimp on the backup. DO NOT do it because you think that Manning is going to be this mythical figure who will give you a 4 point edge over every other QB in the league every single week.

I understand the concept of drafting a player based on risk-adverse strategies, and I have no problem with it. I don't see anything wrong with taking Tomlinson as the first RB off the board even though he's never finished as the #1 RB just because he's finished in the top-5 in season-ending VBD for 4 years running now. I don't see anything wrong with taking Antonio Gates in the early third or even the late second simply because you think his floor is so high that he's going to be TE1 and historically TE1 is going to finish with a VBD ranging from 10-30. I don't see anything wrong with taking Peyton Manning in the first round, either. Personally, I don't like it, just because- as has been noted- value lingers a lot longer at the QB position than it does at the RB position (24 RBs always go before 12 QBs, which means you can get a starting QB while other people are drafting backup RBs). However, if you're ever going to do it, this is the year to take Manning in the first. Again, just don't do it EXPECTING 40+ TDs and 4500 yards. That's just unreasonable.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Liquid Tension,

There are a variety of reasons people will use in support of their belief that drafting a QB in the first round is never a good strategy. At some point, however, it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, i.e., people never draft a QB early because they don't want to draft a QB early. Period.

I had a lot of success drafting Randy Moss and Terrell Owens in the late first round 4-6 years ago. Sure, my RBs were weaker, but my #1 WR was producing at a level near or above the level of nearly every other team's RB1. Many similar arguments can be applied to this situation, but the bottom line is that my strategy worked because my first-round pick produced. It always comes down to drafting good players.

In general, every strategy depends on your league scoring method and your league's collective drafting habits. My thinking is that the earlier your league tends to take QBs, the earlier Manning should be drafted. Where I think you can be hurt is if you draft Manning, and then everyone else waits until the 7th round or later to take a QB. Probably won't happen, but if it does then your talent pool deficit is greater in each round.

From my post to this point you can see I'm open to the idea of drafting Manning in the first round. However, I'm almost guaranteed not to do it this year for two reasons:

A) In my main league, QBs go early and I'm drafting 12th (as the defending champ).

B) I have had great success in waiting until rounds 5-7 or later to take my first QB.

To explain part B, here's a snippet of my post from a thread on strategy from a couple of months ago. My comments expand this discussion to include the top 3 QBs or so, not just Manning, but the message is more or less the same.

I agree that the "value drafting" can also apply to QBs, however from my experience, there typically is less agreement on who belongs in the #4-6 or #7-10 QB is vs. RB or WR. As a result, there is a greater likelihood of getting a top 4 QB (or top 7 QB) after nearly all the other teams have a QB compared to the other positions.

Whether or not you agree that the tiers break differently for RBs, in virtually all leagues, RBs will continue to be drated until half or more of the teams in the league have a backup. This is normally not the case with QBs. And in QBs, the #11-#15 tier is where there is virtually no consensus.

The way you can use this situation to your advantage is to target a QB you think is going to finish in the top 6 or top 10 or whatever. You can sit patiently and hope this guy will be there later into the draft, but even if he is not, you can stock your lineup full of other players, then draft two QBs back to back or over three rounds. If you end up with two QBs roughly 14th and 15th in value, you still have three chances to get good production out of them:

1. one or the other QB can step up their game and end up #7-#9 or so.

2. you can play the matchups and hopefully get the most out of each player's totals (of course, this can backfire, too...)

3. you can jump on free agent QBs who emerge out of nowhere or due to injury

I don't think this approach works as well with either RBs or WRs.

Understanding your league dynamics is real important. As you said if everyone waits after you pick Manning then you lose the opportunity to draft other players that were left there while 11 other qb's get taken off the board. In general, I have really enjoyed Manning on my team. He is consistently really good which allows you to not even worry about a backup. I have also had trouble drafting RB's late in the 1st round. I need a 1st rounder to produce at a high level, not necessarily the highest level (although it is helpful), but if your 1st rounder dogs you, trouble is brewing.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Having started the other thread, I will say that taking a QB early is a dicey proposition based mostly on the fact that even if you were fortunate to take the QB that ranks #1, he may not be worth taking him in the first round (looking only at yearend value).

That's why I suggested that how you project players will factor into all of this, and if you are sold on your own projections, you can make a case (or throw it out) depending upon the numbers.

I happen to think that the Colts will miss James a lot more than many are suggesting, that the Colts will struggle more than in seasons past, that Manning will play every week instead of sitting at the end of the year, and that he will have to pass more for the Colts to do well. All that to me equlas Manning does better than normal (although not 2004 better).

I also see other QBs with some issues (see what I had in the thread) and there are some guys that are risky to start from week to week.

As others have pointed out, even if Manning would be worth a first round pick, if QBs fall in your league you still may be able to get him in the 2nd or 3rd. If that's the case, then burning a first rounder makes no sense.

Given where other QB are going and the fact that guys I am high on are going late, late, I probably will stick with RB and WR early and wait on QBs.

I still think Manning will end up having first round value this year. Where people want to draft him is another story.

With your logic DY, however the FBG projections value Manning as the 10th pick in the draft according to my rules.BTW, changing the thread a little, if Manning is not worth a 1st round pick than people should be changing their scoring rules IMO. It doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Liquid Tension]

  Posted by SSOG      I think you might want to look back and see just how "head and shoulders" Manning has really been above his peers during his career. More specifically, check how many times Peyton Manning has been the #1 fantasy quarterback in the NFL, even.  Here's a hint: the number begins with a "Z". And it ends with an "ero".

Sorry SSOG with the scoring we talked about in this thread Manning was the top scorer in 2003 and 2004. We give negaitive points for INTs and fumbles (-3).Regardless, if you take the last 3 years 2003-2005 (not including 2002 where Manning finished 2nd to Gannon) Look at how "money in the bank" Manning is/was:

Manning 394Green 313Culpy 306Brady 302Hasselback 301Favre 284Mcnabb 282 Plummer 274Brooks 270Delhomme 269This is a serious differential to have this consistency. I just don't see the logic in This type of scoring to pass on him in the 1st round. In fact, he probably should go at the latest 7th or maybe even after Portis at 4.

I wasn't arguing whether or not Manning was worthy of a first round pick. I understand that his consistancy is unbelievable, and certainly wasn't trying to belittle his accomplishments because he never finished 1st in standard FBG scoring (I believe in 2004 he was just 4 points behind Culpepper). I was just trying to argue that any statements that Manning was "good for 40+ TDs" and was "head and shoulders above his peers" are just factually incorrect.If you want to draft Manning in the first, then by all means, draft Manning in the first. Just do it for the right reasons. Do it because he's never finished as anything other than a starting-caliber QB. Do it because he's never finished outside of the top-4 QBs since his rookie season. Do it because he's got the second longest consecutive starts streak going (128 and counting), which means you can skimp on the backup. DO NOT do it because you think that Manning is going to be this mythical figure who will give you a 4 point edge over every other QB in the league every single week.

I understand the concept of drafting a player based on risk-adverse strategies, and I have no problem with it. I don't see anything wrong with taking Tomlinson as the first RB off the board even though he's never finished as the #1 RB just because he's finished in the top-5 in season-ending VBD for 4 years running now. I don't see anything wrong with taking Antonio Gates in the early third or even the late second simply because you think his floor is so high that he's going to be TE1 and historically TE1 is going to finish with a VBD ranging from 10-30. I don't see anything wrong with taking Peyton Manning in the first round, either. Personally, I don't like it, just because- as has been noted- value lingers a lot longer at the QB position than it does at the RB position (24 RBs always go before 12 QBs, which means you can get a starting QB while other people are drafting backup RBs). However, if you're ever going to do it, this is the year to take Manning in the first. Again, just don't do it EXPECTING 40+ TDs and 4500 yards. That's just unreasonable.

Agree with everything here SSOG. Expecting Manning to get over 35 TD's would be a low % bet, even though he probably will go over 30 (which he hasn't done often) because of the need to throw more near the goal line. FWIW, the TE's might be in line for a TD pickup.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

BTW, changing the thread a little, if Manning is not worth a 1st round pick than people should be changing their scoring rules IMO. It doesn't make sense to me.

If you want to make Manning a 1st rounder, you could start by requiring 2 QB starters. But that's a whole different subject. It's been discussed many times around here, and I wouldn't shift the focus of this thread to that argument at this point.

 

[David Yudkin]

Having started the other thread, I will say that taking a QB early is a dicey proposition based mostly on the fact that even if you were fortunate to take the QB that ranks #1, he may not be worth taking him in the first round (looking only at yearend value).

That's why I suggested that how you project players will factor into all of this, and if you are sold on your own projections, you can make a case (or throw it out) depending upon the numbers.

I happen to think that the Colts will miss James a lot more than many are suggesting, that the Colts will struggle more than in seasons past, that Manning will play every week instead of sitting at the end of the year, and that he will have to pass more for the Colts to do well.  All that to me equlas Manning does better than normal (although not 2004 better).

I also see other QBs with some issues (see what I had in the thread) and there are some guys that are risky to start from week to week.

As others have pointed out, even if Manning would be worth a first round pick, if QBs fall in your league you still may be able to get him in the 2nd or 3rd.  If that's the case, then burning a first rounder makes no sense.

Given where other QB are going and the fact that guys I am high on are going late, late, I probably will stick with RB and WR early and wait on QBs.

I still think Manning will end up having first round value this year.  Where people want to draft him is another story.

With your logic DY, however the FBG projections value Manning as the 10th pick in the draft according to my rules.BTW, changing the thread a little, if Manning is not worth a 1st round pick than people should be changing their scoring rules IMO. It doesn't make sense to me.

If we look at the FBG projections as an absolute end result, Manning would have a value score of 50 points.THere are 9 RB, 10 WR, 1 TE, and 2 DEF projected with higher value scores. Manning is projected as the 23rd most valuable player based on the lowest scoring starter model (actually WR30 for WR).

The big concern people have is that by taking Manning in the 1st, your team will suffer at RB. The other concern is that it is far easier to get a decent starting QB in the middle rounds and there is very little chance to draft a starting RB that late (unless there are injuries to guys higher on the depth chart).

So while taking Manning earlier onthe surface may seem like it is the less risky play, for fantasy purposes it most likely MORE risky.