Anyone have the sheet telling you to VBD WR?

[SeaMonkeyOfDeath 0]

my sheet says I should take, in order, faulk, ownes, moss, harrison as the top 4 based on the following

1qb, 2rb, 3wr, 1k, 1def

1/50 passing, 1/20 rush/rec, 4pt passing td, 6 pt rush/rec td

 

does that make sense?

[Turbo Dog 0]

1) Did you correctly list your scoring method on the Compilers?

 

2) Did you change/adjust the "Base Adjust Factor" on the WRs and input the correct number of "Starters" on the Compiler?

 

3) Did you input additional sources of projections and ensure that the columns are input correctly?

[Faiders 0]

I have the same starting requirements, a little different scoring. I am using VBD 1 and it tells me the "Big 3" are after Faulk as well.

[Mike MacGregor 21]

When starting 3 WR versus only 2 RB and using the last starter baseline method, which I think most of us do, then the big 3 WRs do seem to find their way right to the top of the rankings. The thing is, they are projected to set themselves much further apart from lower ranked WR than even Green, Holmes, Alexander (Mike K hasn't bought into the Alexander hype) will set themselves apart from the lower ranked RB. This is why they are valued so high by the Compiler.

 

Now, something to keep in mind is the Compiler cannot account for supply and demand of your draft. If demand for RBs is paramount, which again, I think applies to most of us, then perhaps it is prudent to draft RBs first because on your next turn, there won't be much of any to choose from.

 

Where the brain really gets working though is when you're drafting around the 8 or later spots. Do you at this time pass on one of the WR who represents potential top 5 value? Tougher call. Think about the scoring system to see if it makes sense and think about what the downside is (i.e. what will be left for you at your next pick).

 

Overall, if you're not comfortable with the overall rankings produced by the Compiler, do not feel compelled to follow them to the letter. I do stand by that the VBD logic works and they represent a solid assessment of relative value of each position in your league (assuming scoring system can be replicated within reason). However, there could be other factors at work to influence your actual draft decisions.

 

Some ways to try to get that overall list to be more RB heavy include bumping up the Base Adjust Factor on RBs and perhaps even lowering the BAF on WRs. Also, try using the last drafted baseline with say 2 starter and 2 backup RB, 3 starter and 2 backup WR. This I think under most scenarios will also increase the value of RBs, because, say in a 10 team league, you're comparing each RB to the 40th RB (ugh) and each WR to the 50th WR (not as bad).

[Mike FF Today 758]

SeaMonkey,

 

Mike gave a great explanation. I do value the "big 3" at the WR position this season... which is why you may find them higher in the overall cheatsheet than most years.

 

Also, I just don't see a lot of disparity in the RB position this season (outside of Faulk of course.) Tomlinson, Thomas, Martin, S. Davis, Williams, all have similar to value to me... and with James coming off a knee injury, I'm still a little hesitant tor predict a typical James-type year for him.

 

Anyway, all of those factors, plus Mike's great explanation, is why you'll see WRs ranked a little higher in the Overall Cheatsheet.