Lab

FWIW, I agree. If there is a 4-RB limit, then you are tying your hands by keeping 4, and you'd miss out if one drops to you unexpectedly in the draft.

Are those totals are for the regular season plus the playoffs? In the regular season only, I think he only had about 1185yds (rush+rec) and 6tds. Even so, I agree with your point: his per-game averages are pretty impressive, and if he hadn't missed a few games he'd be a top-10 RB. But he still worries me because (1) he missed so many games, and (2) he seems to be facing some decent competition from Bradshaw. On the other hand, Bradshaw really didn't have any impact until the last game of the regular season. I give up -- I don't know what to make of Jacobs.

The crazy thing is that you list 9 teams with possible need for a solid RB (3-4 definitely needing a RB), but there are easily half a dozen or more RBs in the draft that are looking like potential starting RBs in the NFL: McFadden Stewart Mendenhall Felix Jones (?) Kevin Smith Chris Johnson (?) Ray Rice Jamaal Charles Tashard Choice Mike Hart I agree with the person who said that Turner's value is getting hurt by the heap of talent coming out. Can he sign a one-year contract for reasonable dollars to guarantee a chance at starting, and then cash in when/if he does well? Or does he carry some sort of contract that will bind him?

I'm bumping this old thread because I am seeing lots of talk on the internets (Sporting News and other places) about how McFadden might be a bust, or at least will not perform up to first-round expectations. I think there's no way he meets the crazy expectations people have for him, but that's because people have hyped the guy up so much that expectations will be impossible to meet. But I see no reason he won't be a solid first-round RB in the NFL. Has anyone watched a lot of game film and developed more informed insights? I recall some post by Waldman from a few weeks ago where be suggests that McFadden and Stewart are neck-and-neck at the top of the class, but don't think he gave much insight on whether he thinks McFadden will do well in the NFL.

"Committed" is pretty good. If you're willing to go past football and read about fantasy baseball, "Fantasyland" is even better -- in fact, "Fantasyland" is really good.

"The Blind Side" by Michael Lewis. Really excellent book. All about Michael Oher, who likely will be picked in rounds 1-2 of the 2008 NFL draft.

I've wondered too why Atlanta's not giving Norwood more carries. While Dunn has been a great back, and still has some miles left, he does seem to have gone downhill, and Norwood's clearly got lots of potential. The only logical explanation I can think of is that Atlanta's coaches/management realized early that the 2007 season is going to be a wash, and decided to save wear-and-tear on Norwood until next season when they (hopefully) will have a franchise QB again. Anyone else think this makes some sense? Also, do Atlanta homers hear anything about possible trades for QBs? Atlanta seems to be in a perfect position to draft Brohm or Woodson, and keep either Harrington or Leftwich on the roster as the interim QB while the rookie learns next season. If Atlanta wants to improve faster though, they could go after one of the other QBs in the league that might be available for trade at the season's end (Losman, Grossman, Anderson, Pennington, C-Pep, McNabb maybe?). Anderson or McNabb would seem to be pretty good choices, but I am not sure whether Atlanta has anything to trade away or cap space available. Any thoughts?

What do you think about the season-long prospects for these two defenses? NO: In 2006, NO's defense was surprisingly good (#3 in passing yards allowed, #22 in rushing yards, #13 in points allowed, #12 in sacks). This was a nice improvement from prior seasons for them. So far this season, they stink. Do you think their defense will turn around when their offense starts to stay on the field longer? Remaining schedule looks OK (Car, Sea, Atl, SF, Jxn, StL, Hou, Car, TB, Atl, AZ, Phi). Atl: In 2006, Atlanta's defense slid a little from previous years (#29 passing yds allowed, #10 rushing yds allowed, #15 in points against, #13 in sacks). Over they years, they seem (to me at least) consistently pretty good but not great. So far this season, they stink. Is this because Harrington's killing them? Are they demoralized over Vick? Think they'll turn it around? Remaining schedule looks potentially easy (Hou, TN, NYG, NO, SF, Car, TB, Ind, StL, NO, TB, AZ). (Apologies if you think this belongs on Help board.)

Although it's always fun to bash Harrington, he actually was not bad last season. His 2230 yds and 12 TDs over 11 games annualize to 3450 yds and 18.5 TDs (but lots of ints), which is not bad considering he was stepping in and out of QB role all season. Below are his gamelog stats (sorry for bad formatting). If he's an unquestioned started in ATL with a full camp to get prepped, he might be worth a look. 2006 Gamelog Stats Week Starter Opp Result Cmp Att Cmp% Yard TD INT Att Yard Avg TD 5 Y at NE L 10-20 26 41 63.4 232 0 2 0 0 - 0 6 Y at NYJ L 17-20 27 43 62.8 266 1 2 1 -1 -1.0 0 7 Y GB L 24-34 33 62 53.2 414 2 3 1 3 3.0 0 9 Y at CHI W 31-13 16 32 50.0 137 3 2 4 2 0.5 0 10 Y KC W 13-10 19 35 54.3 201 0 0 4 6 1.5 0 11 Y MIN W 24-20 26 42 61.9 254 1 1 2 -5 -2.5 0 12 Y at DET W 27-10 19 29 65.5 213 3 1 1 2 2.0 0 13 Y JAC L 10-24 27 42 64.3 267 1 2 1 -1 -1.0 0 14 Y NE W 21-0 18 30 60.0 190 1 0 4 4 1.0 0 15 Y at BUF L 0-21 5 17 29.4 20 0 2 1 7 7.0 0 16 Y NYJ L 10-13 7 15 46.7 42 0 0 0 0 - 0 TD Distance Passing: 2, 8, 13, 5, 6, 24, 11, 8, 5, 19, 17, 32

I think Deuce stays in NO and takes a salary cut if necessary. I just read an article this week about Deuce's many ties to his hometown of Jackson, Mississippi and his efforts to set up non-football businesses there. I guess there's no reason he could not get traded to another team and still continue his commitment to Jackson, but it sure seemed like he would want to keep playing in nearby New Orleans, where he has played his entire pro career. Maybe the article was a puff-piece, but it sure made him sound like a stay-in-one-place kind of guy.

I think Hawking has one of the other teams ... and I am totally going to kick that guy's butt!. To make matters worse, it's a keeper league with a salary cap. I think I might be in over my head ....

I need some advice. I am in a league where the scoring system confuses me. It is not directly based on points a player scores, but instead gives 1-10 points in various categories based on how your combined players RANK against other teams. For example, if my two RBs combine for 200 yards in Week 1, that might rank my team #1 in the "rushing yards" category, and get me 10 points that week. But if they also combine for only 1 TD, they might rank #7 in the "rushing TDs" category, so I get only 3 points. The categories on offense include things like passing yds, passing TDs, yards per pass completion, passing completion %, interceptions, rushing yds, rushing TDs, yards per rush, receiving yds, receiving TDs, yards per reception, total receptions. There are 6 different categories for defense, but I cannot remember them all. We start 2 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 2 D. Has anyone ever played a league like this? I am having a tough time valuing players because none of the FF sites have customized scoring that I can match up to the league's system. Any advice from the stats-junkies on how I can value players? I am trying to figure out a VBD system that gives me some idea of how to compare players in different positions for the draft. It seems like QBs and Ds should rule here, but I am not positive. Any ideas appreciated. Thanks in advance. (Apologies if this belongs on "Little Help" board, but it seems like a general strategy question instead of a team-specific question.)

I am trying to develop a AVT model for drafting that is "dynamic," meaning that the baseline changes with each draft round. I have gotten confused in my thinking about how to structure it. Any thoughts from the draft-geeks out there? Note: Please don't slam me with dozens of posts about how AVT stinks or other better ways of drafting ("follow your gut", "best available", ADP, stud RB, etc). I understand AVT's weaknesses, and I understand why it's important to set aside your draft list sometimes. I am not looking to debate AVT -- I just want to set up a usable model so I can compare the results to what other methods generate. If I can get an AVT model working, my next task will be to try to incorporate other concepts into the model, like Waldman's consistency rankings, etc. The first step though is just to clear my head on AVT. Thanks. Here is where I've gotten so far: I averaged four years worth of points data for my league's scoring system, so each position has an AVT number (eg, QB1=334 points, RB10=281 points, etc). Most AVT models pick a static baseline for each position (eg, best starter=QB12, RB24, WR36, TE12, or maybe just an arbitrary number). My theory is that the baseline should change with each round of the draft, to account for how other people draft (eg, lots of RBs in early rounds). To do this, I plan to use some ADP numbers to estimate how many players of each position will be gone after each round, and then use that point as my baseline. So, if ADP data suggests that by Round 2 people will have selected 1 QB, 18 RBs, and 5 WRs, then those become my baselines for that round. The baselines will change in each round, and I will have a different AVT list for each round. My question/confusion is this: How do I use each of the lists? Round 1 is easy; I just use the list, which currently suggests this order: RB1, RB2, RB3, RB4, RB5, RB6, RB7, RB8, RB9, RB10, WR1, RB11. But in Round 2, when I re-sort the list with the new baseline, what do I do with the results? (RB1, RB2, RB3, RB4, RB5, RB6, RB7, WR1, RB8, WR2, RB9, RB10, WR3, WR4, WR5, QB1, WR6, RB11, RB12, RB13, WR7, RB14, WR8, RB15) Would I need to strike off the names of any players already selected, and then choose the best remaining according to this new list? Does that make any sense when the rankings shift each round? Or would I expect them to shift because I am accounting for which players will not be around when I next pick? For example, using my current lists above, assume I am drafting at #12 spot, and everyone else takes RBs 1-10 plus Manning (QB1) in Round 1, so at the end of Round 1, I get to take my WR1. Great. Now, what do I do in Round 2? Would I take RB11 because he is the highest remaining on my Round 1 list? Or would I shift to WR2, because he is highest remaining on my Round 2 list? I think the obvious choice is to take the RB11. But does that mean my whole model is off-base if I have to make those kind of adjustments on the fly? Right now, I think maybe the answer is that I use the Round 1 list to rank spots 1-12, and then use the Round 2 list to rank spots 13-24 (after eliminating any players on my Round 1 list). In the end, I would have one master list. (In the example above, it would be RB1, RB2, RB3, RB4, RB5, RB6, RB7, RB8, RB9, RB10, WR1, RB11, and then WR2, WR3, WR4, WR5, QB1, WR6, RB12, RB13, WR7, RB14, WR8, RB15. Actually, that ranking list looks logical to me because the league is PPR and WRs are relatively valuable.) I'm not sure if any of this makes sense though. Any helpful thoughts from the summer crew? Thanks in advance. I know this all sounds like a lot of number-crunching, but I am plugging the numbers into a spreadsheet, so the math is done for me. The hardest part is to get the theory working.

Not strictly FF related, but a good football read. I'm about 1/2 way through it now. It's about the evolving nature of the West Coast offense, the rise of aggressive pass rushers, and the resulting importance of left tackles. It's all wrapped around the personal story of a high school football player from Memphis. A good read.

OK, I've got two teams, and each has a weak WR that I'm thinking about moving to the WW (Gabriel & Jurevicious). Key players and FAs are listed below. Any advice appreciated. I think my teams are each pretty solid right now (although not spectacular), so I think what I am looking for on the WW is a sleeper with big upside potential. Both teams start 2 WR & 2 RB. My Team 1, my thinking is that I dump Gabriel for Curry or Parker, since those seem to have the most upside potential. Or should I stand pat with Gabriel for now? For Team 2, I think the obvious choice is to try to drop Jurevicious for Jennings, but I am low on the WW priority list so I may not get him. If I miss on Jennings, then Bradford or Parker are good options. However, since I already have 4 solid WRs on Team 2, I think a better move is to try for another RB. It seems like Cobbs has the most upside potential since he possibly could win the Denver sweepstakes. Any advice appreciated. Thanks in advance. Team 1 (dump Gabriel?): WRs: Driver, Horn, Kennison, Gabriel RBs: LJ, JJ, CTaylor, McAllister, MBennett, MeMoore FAs available: Givens, Curry, Caldwell, Samie Parker, Lelie Team 2 (dump Jurevicious?): WRs: Driver, Mason, RSmith, Kennison, Jurevicious RBs: Tiki, JJ, Bush, Lundy, Brandon Jacobs WR FAs available: GJennings, CBradford, Caldwell, Gabriel, Lelie, SParker, Curry RB FAs available: CCobbs, SDavis, MHicks

I'm not too wild about the overall team, and I agree he reached in rounds 2-5 (especially with S.Moss and D.Mason IMHO). But I think all the bashers are ignoring the good value he got in later rounds. According to Antsports, for a 10-team league, C.Palmer's ADP is 4.06, and R.Bush is at 5.02, but the poster must've gotten them in rounds 6 & 7. Also, T.Jones' ADP is 7.03, but the poster must've gotten Jones in round 8. Overall, instead of FWParker, S.Moss, and D.Mason, I would've rather seen Westbrook/McGahee/J.Jones/K.Jones in round 2, and Boldin/Chambers/Wayne/Ward in round 3, and Driver/J.Walker/A.Johnson in round 5, but this team is not as bad as people are suggesting. If Bush gets the starting job over McAllister, then he becomes your RB2, and this team looks pretty strong. (I'd still dump Moore and find another WR on the WW though ....) Quote from Post #15 above: "I was 4rth pick in a ten team league. no way Parker would have still been there in the 3rd. 1 - portis 2 - parker 3 - moss 4 - gates [i think he meant Gonzo.] 5 - mason and so forth"

How many RBs do you draft at the beginning of the season? For a 16-man team that starts 2 RBs, I usually try to grab RB1 & RB2 in the first 3 rounds, and then stockpile about 2-4 more RBs in later rounds. However, in some recent mocks, I have been drafting RB, RB, RB before looking at any WRs. When I do that, I miss out on all the top WRs, and I find myself frantically sweeping up every potentially valuable mid-level WR well into the later rounds, so I sometimes end the draft with only 3 RBs on my roster. (I understand this RB-early strategy might be a bust, but that's not my question here.) My gut says it's bad to have only 3 RBs, because I need to have plenty of backups for when they start getting injured. However, in most of these mocks, I end up with three pretty solid RBs. Here are three sets from recent drafts: (1) S-Jax/K.Jones/C.Taylor, (2) S-Jax, C.Williams, FWParker, (3) R.Johnson, Westbrook, Droughns. If I get three solid RBs like this, do I really need more depth at RB for a 2RB team? I am thinking I might be OK with just these 3 (and maybe a late round handcuff for the more fragile RBs, like Moats or Staley maybe). What do you think? Is three RBs enough to get through the season? Or will I get killed by injuries? Has anyone tried it before? Thanks in advance. By the way, I understand (and agree) that not all of this stuff can be planned pre-draft. If (for example) I already have 3-4 solid RBs on roster, and a solid mid-level back like Droughns is still sitting there, then of course I'll grab him. My question assumes that no one will drop unexpectedly far below his ADP. Not sure if it matters, but I am thinking a redraft league, not keeper.

I was in this exact same spot at a recent mock draft and struggled with the same question. I went with Boldin & Chambers, but I'm not really happy with how it turned out. By the time I got to draft again at 4.11, the RBs left were pretty scarce. Dillon was clearly the best available, but I think I made a big mistake in not immediately handcuffing him to Maroney at 5.02. At 6.11 and 7.02, I tried to correct my earlier mistake by grabbing both Benson & Jones from Chicago, but the person picking at 6.12/7.01 stole Jones from me. The bottom line is that once I'd committed to WRs at 2.11 and 3.02, I was feeling panic as I scrambled to grab some RBs. Even if I'd succeeded in getting a strong RB combo, like Dillon/Maroney or Benson/Jones, I'd be stuck with some mediocre players at QB, TE, and WR3/WR4. The "problem" with picking LJ/LT2/SA is that even though they can produce twice as much as the average top RB, your second RB is going to produce half as much as the average. (That was a gross generalization; I've never checked those numbers.) If Boldin/Chambers are monsters this season, I'd be in really good shape, but it scares me to trust WRs. If I had it to do over again, I'd probably go RB, RB, WR (or maybe even RB, RB, RB), just so I could be assured more consistency from my starting RBs. POS Player Name Team Pick Bye QB Michael Vick ATL 8.11 5 QB Philip Rivers SDC 10.11 3 RB Shaun Alexander SEA 1.02 5 RB Corey Dillon NEP 4.11 6 RB Cedric Benson CHI 6.11 7 WR Anquan Boldin ARI 2.11 9 WR Chris Chambers MIA 3.02 8 WR Lee Evans BUF 7.02 8 WR Eddie Kennison KCC 9.02 3 TE Todd Heap BAL 5.02 7 TE Heath Miller PIT 11.02 4

OK, thanks for all the input, but *why* do you take so many RBs? You only need one spare for bye weeks. Really, in all the time you're played FF, how often have your RB4, RB5, or RB6 turned into superstuds that displaced your RB1, RB2, or RB3? I understand that RBs get hurt and miss weeks, but if you have one spare, aren't you protected? If you lose your two of your top three RBs to injury, that's rough sledding and you season is probably over. But even if that happens, are you going to rely on your RB4 or RB5, or are you going to grab your RB1's handcuff off the waiver wire? I also understand the value of handcuffs to your stud RBs. However, in my (admittedly few) years at FF and in the mocks I've done, I rarely see people sticking to a strict handcuff approach. Few people grab Ladell Betts or Mo Morris in the late rounds -- most grab some RBBC candidate and hope for the best. What gives?

Here is an interesting idea about the order of drafting players for a team. Please let me know if it makes sense, or if I’ve forgotten to account for some issue. Conventional FF wisdom seems to be that the best draft order is something similar to RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, QB, TE, or some variation of that order depending on how the draft is going (for example, taking a top-tier QB/TE early to beat the rush, or maybe taking a RB3 that your opponents have undervalued). My point is that in drafting a team, RB generally is considered first priority and WR is considered second priority. For RBs, their top priority is based on (1) the fact that RBs put up huge points in most FF formats, (2) the limited supply of RBs, and (3) that there is a big drop-off in points between the top-tier RBs and the lower tier. For WRs, their top priority is based on the same factors: (1) top WRs put up significant points, and (2) the drop-off between top-tier WRs and lower-tier WRs is big (although not nearly as big as for RBs). QBs and TEs usually are chosen later than WRs (rounds 5-10) because the gap between a top-tier QB/TE and a mid-tier QB/TE is not that big. With these things in mind, I looked at draft results and season-end performance numbers for 2004 & 2005. (I used the draft results from www.myfantasyleague.com, and the player performance numbers from a couple standard-scoring leagues (6/TD, 1/20 pass, 1/10 running/receiving, no PPR).) I compared how top-drafted players at each position did in scoring during the season. What I found is interesting: For QBs: 5 of the first 10 QBs drafted ended the season in the top 10 in QB points (2005) 9 of the first 10 QBs drafted ended the season in the top 25 in QB points (2005) 6 of the first 10 QBs drafted ended the season in the top 10 in QB points (2004) 9 of the first 10 QBs drafted ended the season in the top 25 in QB points (2004) For RBs: 3 of the first 10 RBs drafted ended the season in the top 10 in RB points (2005) 7 of the first 10 RBs drafted ended the season in the top 25 in RB points (2005) 7 of the first 25 RBs drafted ended the season in the top 10 in RB points (2005) 18 of the first 25 RBs drafted ended the season in the top 25 in RB points (2005) 6 of the first 10 RBs drafted ended the season in the top 10 in RB points (2004) 10 of the first 10 RBs drafted ended the season in the top 25 in RB points (2004) 10 of the first 25 RBs drafted ended the season in the top 10 in RB points (2004) 18 of the first 25 RBs drafted ended the season in the top 25 in RB points (2004) For TEs: 8 of the first 10 TEs drafted ended the season in the top 10 in TE points (2005) 10 of the first 10 TEs drafted ended the season in the top 25 in TE points (2004) 7 of the first 10 TEs drafted ended the season in the top 10 in TE points (2004) 8 of the first 10 TEs drafted ended the season in the top 25 in TE points (2004) For WRs: 3 of the first 10 WRs drafted ended the season in the top 10 in WR points (2005) 5 of the first 25 WRs drafted ended the season in the top 10 in WR points (2005) 6 of the first 10 WRs drafted ended the season in the top 25 in WR points (2005) 12 of the first 25 WRs drafted ended the season in the top 25 in WR points (2005) 5 of the first 10 WRs drafted ended the season in the top 10 in WR points (2004) 5 of the first 25 WRs drafted ended the season in the top 10 in WR points (2004) 8 of the first 10 WRs drafted ended the season in the top 25 in WR points (2004) 11 of the first 25 WRs drafted ended the season in the top 25 in WR points (2004) What all this tells me is that FF players (on average) are pretty good at predicting which QBs, RBs, and TEs will do well during the season (50-70% accurate depending on how you read it). However, we’re pretty bad at predicting how WRs will perform during the season (20-50% accurate at best). I understand part of this is because there are many more WRs in play than at QB/RB/TE, so it’s harder to predict accurately. Nevertheless, given that we’re so bad at predicting which WRs will perform well, does this mean that WRs should be picked later in the draft? Although a top WR is generally more valuable than a top QB/TE, it is very difficult to pick a top WR in the draft, so those WR picks in rounds 3-5 are often busts. Wouldn’t it make more sense to use those round 3 & 4 draft picks to go with a “sure thing” at QB/TE, and then use several later picks to get an assortment of WRs? If my numbers are correct, only about half of the top 25 WRs are chosen in the first 25 WR picks, so that means a lot of the top WR scorers each season are late-round or waiver-wire picks that just luck out. Indeed, for 2004-05, only 5 of the top 10 WRs were even picked among the top 25 draft picks for WRs, which means that the other 5 came out of nowhere! For this year's drafts, I am thinking of going RB, RB, RB, TE, QB, WR, WR, etc. (or something like that). Does this analysis make sense? Am I missing something? Any input appreciated. -- Lab

Esoitl, I agree that a WR3 will generally score more points than a TE -- no argument on that. However, I don't think that's the right comparison to make. I think the comparison you want to make is how much better a WR3 you'd get in early rounds as opposed to in late rounds vs. how much better a TE you'd get in early rounds as opposed to in late rounds. In other words, if you take your WR3 early and your TE late, are you better or worse off than if you took your TE early and your WR3 late? To test this, I looked at the 2005 average draft positions from www.myfantasyleague.com. I assumed a 12-person league, with TE required. Below are the WRs & TEs chosen in some early rounds and in some later rounds, along with the points they ultimately scored in 2005. I know the sample size is small, but it's the best I can do. If you chose your WR in rounds 4-6, and waited on your TE until round 8-10, then your WR scored an average of 128 points and your TE scored an average of 71 points, for a total of 199. If you chose your TE in rounds 4-6, and waited on your WR until round 8-10, then your WR scored an average of 104 points and your TE scored an average of 117 points, for a total of 221. I think this supports the idea that drafting a top TE early might be better than taking WRs early (at least at some point in the draft). Again, I know it's a small sample, and it doesn't account for all the different ways you might draft. Also, for the reasons in my earlier post, I am still not totally sold on this idea. All feedback welcome, even feedback that disproves my idea. -- Lab WRs from rounds 4-6 (picks 37-72): Ward 161 D-Jax 74 S.Smith 252 Mi.Clayton 33 Roy Williams 112 Bennett 92 Boldin 193 Coles 107 Fitzgerald 218 Driver 144 Bruce 66 Porter 122 Lelie 84 J.Smith 137 Branch 120 Average = 128 TEs from rounds 4-6 (picks 37-72): (Gates & Gonzo gone in round 3) Witten 105 Crumpler 111 Shockey 135 Average = 117 WRs from rounds 8-10 (picks 85-120): Rod Smith 141 Lee Evans 109 Kennison 140 Stokley 54 Moulds 103 Housh 143 Santana Moss 207 Ch.Rogers 24 Key.Johnson 107 McCardell 138 Stallworth 138 Colbert 35 Br.Edwards 66 Williamson 45 Average = 104 TEs from rounds 8-10 (picks 85-120): D.Clark 71 R.McMichael 81 LJ Smith 77 Wiggins 55 Average = 71

Thanks for all the kind words about my original post. However, I'm still not convinced that my analysis is right. Frankly, it wasn't too hard to average compare draft choices to season-end performance (just a little time consuming), so I have to think someone has done this before. I also am concerned that almost all serious FF players seem to place so much emphasis on WR -- if all these smart people who have been doing this for so long, it must make sense. I feel like there must be some flaw in my reasoning, and I am hoping someone here will point it out. Here are the possible flaws I've spotted so far. Flaw #1: Limited data sample. I only looked at two recent years (2004 & 2005). Maybe the top-drafted WRs in those years were just more likely to be busts than in other years. If my theory is true, it should apply to all years equally. Does anyone here have the time/interest to check data for other years? Flaw #2: (This is the one that concerns me most.) The limited pool of QBs/TEs (as compared to WRs) could be throwing off the results. There are many WRs who score a lot of points, and who might make a run at top 10 or top 25. However, there's only about 20 decent QBs in any given season, and even fewer high-scoring TEs, so it's not too hard to identify on draft day the 10 that likely will end the season at the top of the heap. What I have not looked at is how accurate FF players are at determining on draft day who ultimately will be the top scorers among those top 10 draft choices. In other words, a conventional draft strategy is to pick WRs in rounds 3-5, which I think is risky, because the numbers I've seen say that only about 20-50% percent of those picks will be among the top 25 WRs in scoring by the end of the season. If instead I pick a top-rated QB and TE in rounds 3-5, there's a pretty good chance (50-80%) my picks will end the season among the top 10 QBs/TEs. But where in the top 10 ??? If they end the season at #8-10 on the list, then have I really improved my position by drafting them early? Wouldn't a top 10 QB/TE still be available a few rounds later? I think the way to test this is to look at a smaller range of QBs/TEs. In other words, did the top 3 or 4 drafted QBs/TEs (which is what I'd be getting in most drafts in rounds 3-5) consistently end the season among the top 5 performers? Or did they slip to the 6-10 spots in performance? Flaw #3: What separates the (many) inconsistent WRs from the (few) that are consistent? This isn't really a flaw, but it is the toughest question. If only about 50% of the top 10 or 25 drafted WRs ends the season in the top 10 or 25 in scoring, is there any way to identify them now? I know we all like to think we can spot them, but I'm not so sure we can. When I looked back at the 2004 & 2005 drafts and season-end results, there were a lot of names that surprised me (ones that should've scored but didn't, and ones that shouldn't have scored but did). If anyone has good ideas about separating the consistent from the inconsistent, I'd love to hear them. What other flaws are there? C'mon Geeks! I'm counting on you! Any input appreciated. -- Lab Another point about all my thoughts -- I am assuming a TE-required league, because all the leagues I play require a TE. If you have a WR/TE flex (and no TE required), that would be a very different situation, I think.

Fair enough - I hear what you're saying about all the factors that go into valuing individual WRs. What I'm thinking is that no matter what factors anyone uses to value individual WRs, they're too inconsistent as a whole to justify early draft picks. In 2005 for example, Javon Walker, Joe Horn, Andre Johnson, and Nate Burleson were all top-10 WR draft picks that did not even finish the season in the top 25 WRs in points. All 4 of those guys likely met most of the criteria for "sure bet" WRs - gunslinger QBs, experience in system, respectable #2 at WR/TE, high % of targets, no major injury history, etc. But they still wilted ....

Of these three, which are the best two? I think Clark is definitely one of them. So the question becomes who has the more potential this year -- Hilton or Winslow. (I am thinking redraft, not keeper.) This is a slightly different spin on the ongoing "is Hilton a sleeper?" debate. My gut feeling is that Hilton is a better pick in a redraft, because he has actual NFL experience. For a keeper, I might pick Winslow. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance.

12-person redraft league. Start 3 WRs, plus flex spots for WR/RB & WR/TE. WRs score 6 points for TD (receiving or returning), plus 1 point for 10yds, plus bonus of 5 points for getting over 125 yards in a game. No points-per-reception. I am weak at WR. I've got Andre Johnson, McCardell, Stallworth, Pinkston, Kevin Curtis, Sinorice Moss, and Troy Williamson. (For the WR/TE flex spot, my TEs are only average: Dallas Clark and Zach Hilton.) Some notable WRs left in free agency are Chad Jackson, Ron Curry, D.Gabriel, A.Chatman, Devery Henderson, Troy Brown, Rod Gardner, Colbert, Reche Caldwell, Kelley Washington, & Bryant Johnson. Any suggestions on who I might switch out for better production? Caldwell is tempting, but likely will be only mediocre in NE's spread-the-ball offense. If Chris Henry continues to be an idiot, then Chatman or Washington might have value. On my team, I think the first to go should be Moss. Agree? He's a rookie behind two well-established receivers on a team with two strong TEs (Shockey & Boo). Any help appreciated. Thanks in advance.