Would you pass on a player if... (1 Viewer)

[milfordshane]

Do you pass on a player if you think his teamates might fall and represent more value?

This is a half formed idea that I was hoping you could help me explore. I'd rather not debate the value of player X and player Y. We all have our favorites. I also realize that this maybe an example of thinking a little too hard. See what you think?

FOR EXAMPLE

Let's say you' re on the clock and you have S. Jackson valued ahead of Lamont Jordan in Rnd 1.

You really like T. Holt, M. Bulger, I. Bruce etc. as value picks later in the draft, but you don't want to have too many guys from one team on your fantasy squad.

You aren't as high on Moss or Brooks etc.

Do you pass on S. Jackson and take L. Jordan instead and hope that you score one of the other players later? Or do you always take the guy you have ranked highest?

It seems to me that by taking Jackson you limit your possible picks in later rounds. If you have Jackson way ahead of Jordan then obviously you take him, but what if he's only slightly ahead?

What about in later rounds in the draft? Do you pass on a WR in the 5th because you hope to land his QB in the 8th?

 

[MLBrandow]

A few studies have shown that drafting teammates is largely uncorrelated in terms of success or failure.

Therefore, while I'd never go out of my way to draft teammates, I'd also not avoid one because of it.

Good idea, but research would disagree.

 

[Marc Levin]

Unless bye weeks are an issue, of course - as per survivor leagues.

I don't pass on players either - not ones EARLIER in the draft, anyway. I am always surprised when someone says to me "going for Rams, huh?" when I draft a few from one team.

I go by value in the first 6 or 8 rounds, and worry about how it shakes out later on down the draft. I might HEGE against having a bunch of Rams, for example, by making sure I don;t take any flyers on Rams, but I have targeted Holt/Bruce in several drafts -and wouldn't pass on the combo just b/c I drafted Bulhger and/or SJax.

 

[Trap Play]

Do you pass on S. Jackson and take L. Jordan instead and hope that you score one of the other players later?

Absolutely not. I would take the best player available every time, there's no guarantee you will get one of those team mates later, and you may wind up over-paying for them down the line because you've now made them more important than they needed to be by passing on another player from a great offense.

 

[milfordshane]

Do you pass on S. Jackson and take L. Jordan instead and hope that you score one of the other players later?

Absolutely not. I would take the best player available every time, there's no guarantee you will get one of those team mates later, and you may wind up over-paying for them down the line because you've now made them more important than they needed to be by passing on another player from a great offense.

That's an interesting way to look at it. We don't go for "book learnin'"round here, but it seems like you would increase the odds of grabbing a player you liked by taking Jordan. There would be one more WR1 to choose from, one more WR2 and so on. I've heard people talk about RB tiers and how they're targeting 5 or 6 RBs in a particular round. If you have 5 RBs equal in value wouldn't it be smart to pass on the 4 RBs with great complmentary players and take the one who leaves you with the most options later in the draft.

 

[kutta]

Unless bye weeks are an issue, of course - as per survivor leagues.I don't pass on players either - not ones EARLIER in the draft, anyway. I am always surprised when someone says to me "going for Rams, huh?" when I draft a few from one team.I go by value in the first 6 or 8 rounds, and worry about how it shakes out later on down the draft. I might HEGE against having a bunch of Rams, for example, by making sure I don;t take any flyers on Rams, but I have targeted Holt/Bruce in several drafts -and wouldn't pass on the combo just b/c I drafted Bulhger and/or SJax.

So you would be comfy with a team of Holt, Bruce, Jackson, and Bulger?

 

[Trap Play]

...but it seems like you would increase the odds of grabbing a player you liked by taking Jordan. There would be one more WR1 to choose from, one more WR2 and so on.

I think I understand what you are getting at now, but I'm not sure I like LaMont Jordan as the example. Are you saying that on a team where these is only one clear-cut stud (e.g. Chicago Bears RB whether it be Jones or Benson), you would take that player over a stud from a team with 2-3 studs? If so, I can kinda see doing that, but I wouldn't put that much thought into it in the early rounds. Especially with the uncertainty of players after the top 3-4 this year, I want the best player available, if I am fortunate enough to have a strong conviction on whether or not there is a best player at that point. I think I would save your more in-depth analysis for the early-middle rounds.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I don't ever target certain players so I don't ever draft with later picks in mind. I think that targetting certain players ALWAYS means that you're sacrificing somewhere else.

 

[milfordshane]

...but it seems like you would increase the odds of grabbing a player you liked by taking Jordan. There would be one more WR1 to choose from, one more WR2 and so on.

I think I understand what you are getting at now, but I'm not sure I like LaMont Jordan as the example. Are you saying that on a team where these is only one clear-cut stud (e.g. Chicago Bears RB whether it be Jones or Benson), you would take that player over a stud from a team with 2-3 studs? If so, I can kinda see doing that, but I wouldn't put that much thought into it in the early rounds. Especially with the uncertainty of players after the top 3-4 this year, I want the best player available, if I am fortunate enough to have a strong conviction on whether or not there is a best player at that point. I think I would save your more in-depth analysis for the early-middle rounds.

Yeah that's it. If you have a group of players ranked as equal or close to equal it may be better to go with the one who leaves more quality players as options for your team. I'm not saying take Frank Gore over E. James or S. Jackson because value is always important, but I'm toying with the idea of adding "how this choice might limit my options" into my criteria for how to choose which stud to pick.That is of course if you're one of FF players who don't like to have your team based around a group of teamates. If that doesn't bother you then this probably isn't of much use.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Unless bye weeks are an issue, of course - as per survivor leagues.I don't pass on players either - not ones EARLIER in the draft, anyway. I am always surprised when someone says to me "going for Rams, huh?" when I draft a few from one team.I go by value in the first 6 or 8 rounds, and worry about how it shakes out later on down the draft. I might HEGE against having a bunch of Rams, for example, by making sure I don;t take any flyers on Rams, but I have targeted Holt/Bruce in several drafts -and wouldn't pass on the combo just b/c I drafted Bulhger and/or SJax.

I draft players based on the color of their jerseys. I'm big into blue this year.

 

[kbleck]

Good topic,

I personally dont mind having teammates when it comes to QB/WR combos but I really do spend some time looking at week 14,15,16 schedules when drafting teammates.

having a bad game during the regular Fantasy season due to a team getting shutout is one thing but having it happen in fantasy playoffs is not going to sit well.

So if the Rams have a weaker end of season schedule than say the Cards (edge, Fitz, Warner, combo) then I might consider it.

But going Jackson/Holt I dont have a problem with because they are studs. If I had both those players I definately would not be drafting Bruce or Bulger. There are other players on their tier level that I would take to avoid a really terrible week in the playoffs.

 

[Chaka]

I would pass on Marvin Harrison to grab a similarly valued RB with the hope that I could get Reggie Wayne in the next round. Ditto for Fitz/Boldin and probably a host of other examples of two players from the same team who could finish with similar stats (Galloway/Clayton, Chad/TJ, Kennison/Parker, Javon/Rod...etc). This pretty much applies exclusively to WRs.

However I would not do it in the context you are suggesting. If you think SJax is going to outperform Lamont then you should take SJax every time.

 

[gump]

With a few drafts over by now, and with the way Jackson and Holt are lining up in the rankings for a mid-1st and mid-2nd pick, have a lot of people gone with these two?

Anyone avoided one of the other bc of them being on the same team?

 

[RRaptors]

With a few drafts over by now, and with the way Jackson and Holt are lining up in the rankings for a mid-1st and mid-2nd pick, have a lot of people gone with these two?Anyone avoided one of the other bc of them being on the same team?

I had Bulger, Jackson and Holt last year and wasn't worried. I guess the only thing to consider is what happens if Bulger goes down, how does that impact the other players. Typically a down QB hurts all other positions unless there is a reliable back-up. That is the only concern that I have doing it this way since one injured QB could effect key positions on your fantasy roster.

 

[gump]

With a few drafts over by now, and with the way Jackson and Holt are lining up in the rankings for a mid-1st and mid-2nd pick, have a lot of people gone with these two?Anyone avoided one of the other bc of them being on the same team?

I had Bulger, Jackson and Holt last year and wasn't worried. I guess the only thing to consider is what happens if Bulger goes down, how does that impact the other players. Typically a down QB hurts all other positions unless there is a reliable back-up. That is the only concern that I have doing it this way since one injured QB could effect key positions on your fantasy roster.

That is exactly my concern. If Bulger goes down, which we all know can EASILY happen...it not only hurts your #1 WR but your #1 RB. If Bulger were not injury-prone, it would be different.I'm thinking this aspect of this particular combo is too risky.

 

[The Deathstar]

With a few drafts over by now, and with the way Jackson and Holt are lining up in the rankings for a mid-1st and mid-2nd pick, have a lot of people gone with these two?Anyone avoided one of the other bc of them being on the same team?

I had Bulger, Jackson and Holt last year and wasn't worried. I guess the only thing to consider is what happens if Bulger goes down, how does that impact the other players. Typically a down QB hurts all other positions unless there is a reliable back-up. That is the only concern that I have doing it this way since one injured QB could effect key positions on your fantasy roster.

That is exactly my concern. If Bulger goes down, which we all know can EASILY happen...it not only hurts your #1 WR but your #1 RB. If Bulger were not injury-prone, it would be different.I'm thinking this aspect of this particular combo is too risky.

Injuries aside, think of it this way: If you are in a 12+ team league, as I am, having 2 or more players on one team only really effects you for one week; the bye week. It boils down to who the 2 players are. If we are talking Hasslebeck/Alexander, then I take my chances of maybe taking a loss on the bye week when they can't play. If it's a combo like Brooks/Moss, then you may want to think about it. Brooks/Moss have a higher likelyhood of stinking it when they are both playing than do Hasslebeck/SA or Bulger/Holt.