Thrifty, you don't really argue my broad point at all. You simply took a few counter arguments out of context. If you think there is value in doing what I suggested was faulty practice, lets discuss it.
I don't really have an argument because it's an inexact science. Both methods can work. Both have +/-. From my standpoint a key selling point to Upside Down is reducing risk on your early picks - more stability and a bigger window. However if we look back at 2012 it doesn't really bare that out.Here's the 1st 2 rounds in DLFMOCK from Feb 20121: Rice, Calvin, McCoy, Foster, Rodgers, Newton, MJD, Brees, Nicks, Stafford, Forte, AJG2: Julio, Fitz, Gronk, Andre, Graham, CJ1K, Mathews, Charles, TR, Jennings, ADP, Wallaceworth considerably more now: TR, ADP, AJGworth a little more now: Gronk, Calvinworth the same: Rodgers, Newton, Brees, Charles, Julio, Rice, Grahamworth a little less now: Foster, McCoy, Stafford, Forteworth considerably less now: MJD, Fitz, Andre, Mathews, Wallace, Jennings, CJ, NicksA lot of the players that fell off were RBs who facepalmed and WRs who either got older, hurt or more situation dependent (Fitz, Jennings, Wallace). The marquee RBs who you might avoid with upside down only fell off gradually, with the "it was obvious this was going to happen" MJD being the main exception. Of course "bigger window" is a big part of it, and that gradual decline definitely had a noticeable gradation.