Depth: What's So Great About It?

[Fozzy4 0]

Don't jump on me right away - read a bit first. This topic comes up because several people around here seem to suggest that it's a perfectly sound idea to draft backups (most notably at RB) even before all your starting skill position spots are filled. Well, is it? After thinking about it a while, I arrived at the inevitable point where I can't fathom how this could possibly be a sound strategy. At best, you can assume that your #3 RB will play maybe 8 games - and that's assuming some injuries to your #1 and #2. At worst, he plays 2: the buy weeks, if the top 2 stay healthy for you. That gives an expected usage of between 1/8th and half of his production for the year. With that in mind, how can it possibly be reasonable to pass on a full-time starter in order to bag a position that may only see 2 games of use the entire season?

 

Lets say for the sake of argument that you anticipate the RBs will drop off by 32 pts between your current pick and your next one, and you're looking at taking the best available as your #3. If we were to assume he'll get 2 games of use, then his value over the next rds' backs is much less than 32. His value-per-game would be 2 pts better than the next round's possibilities, so if he only gets used 2 games, his value is only really 4 pts better, not the 32 your projections will tell you for the entire season. This is the case in general with non-starting picks: their value must be adjusted to account for expected usage. If we say he'll get used for 6 starts, his value over next round's backs would be 2(6)=12. Any reasonable estimate of the #3 RB starts for your team is bound to end up with the WRs falling off a lot more than the #3 RBs, and as a result it will always be advantageous to take a starting WR over a #3 RB. The other positions do not have as constant of a fall as WR and so it's not for certain that they will always be better than a #3 RB, but at the least I can see no way to justify a #3 RB until you own the full number of starting WRs. In most cases I would expect QB and maybe even TE to have enough drop-off to beat #3 RBs as well, which likely means there isn't enough value to a #3 RB to warrant taking one until the 6th or 7th round, after 2 RBs 3 WRs and possibly a starting QB and/or TE have been selected.

 

Anyway, hopefully that makes sense. If I missed something, feel free to let me know. If I didn't, then I think it's high time that we put this seemingly poor draft strategy to rest.

[Cuse9 129]

I agree. I always draft qb, 2 rb's, 2 wr's before I would even consider drafting another rb. UNLESS a rb fell to me and he was just too good to pass up.

 

I'd rather get five full time starters. If you have a great third rb, then he just sits on the bench doing nothing for your team. The only way he is valuable is if you trade him.

 

I'm not big on depth unless it's from skillful/lucky drafting.

[cblue 0]

I agree with both of you for the most part. If the tier of WRs is large enough that I think one will fall to my next pick, I might take rb3 before i take wr2. It also depends on how big the QB tier is, I am not one who takes a QB early- I am happy with a top 10 - 12 QB.

 

I love draft day!

[Vanillarainstorm 0]

I always like to be 3 deep at RB. Not just for injury purposes, but in case one of my 2 others backs isn't performing up to par. I know a lot of people that had Gore as their 3rd back last year. That worked out pretty well for them

[steel827 2]

WR can be a fickle lot. 40 yards 2 weeks in a row then 120 and 2 tds. Then it's off to 40 yards again. I would rather have a 3rd back sitting, but waiting. Not just because of injuries, but so many are underperformers. Think about Brown, Lewis, Caddilac, James, Jordan, Portis, Droughns, J.Jones etc. for the 1st half of the year. I was stuck with James, Lewis & J.Jones and they killed me. I had Green sitting on my bench and took out Lewis and that helped. Who will be this years underperformers?

[flushmonkii 0]

It's nice having that depth for trade fodder also. If you have an owner in your league who just lost his RB1 and you have a decent RB on your bench, you can swing him his way to get an upgrade at another position. That's probably the only reason I do that.

[ppierce 2]

i think the best strategy is to actually wait until the later rounds i.e after 9 or 10 and actually just draft your rb's backups. that ensures you of always having a starting rb no matter what.

[jaxjag 43]

Don't jump on me right away - read a bit first. This topic comes up because several people around here seem to suggest that it's a perfectly sound idea to draft backups (most notably at RB) even before all your starting skill position spots are filled. Well, is it? After thinking about it a while, I arrived at the inevitable point where I can't fathom how this could possibly be a sound strategy. At best, you can assume that your #3 RB will play maybe 8 games - and that's assuming some injuries to your #1 and #2. At worst, he plays 2: the buy weeks, if the top 2 stay healthy for you. That gives an expected usage of between 1/8th and half of his production for the year. With that in mind, how can it possibly be reasonable to pass on a full-time starter in order to bag a position that may only see 2 games of use the entire season?

 

Lets say for the sake of argument that you anticipate the RBs will drop off by 32 pts between your current pick and your next one, and you're looking at taking the best available as your #3. If we were to assume he'll get 2 games of use, then his value over the next rds' backs is much less than 32. His value-per-game would be 2 pts better than the next round's possibilities, so if he only gets used 2 games, his value is only really 4 pts better, not the 32 your projections will tell you for the entire season. This is the case in general with non-starting picks: their value must be adjusted to account for expected usage. If we say he'll get used for 6 starts, his value over next round's backs would be 2(6)=12. Any reasonable estimate of the #3 RB starts for your team is bound to end up with the WRs falling off a lot more than the #3 RBs, and as a result it will always be advantageous to take a starting WR over a #3 RB. The other positions do not have as constant of a fall as WR and so it's not for certain that they will always be better than a #3 RB, but at the least I can see no way to justify a #3 RB until you own the full number of starting WRs. In most cases I would expect QB and maybe even TE to have enough drop-off to beat #3 RBs as well, which likely means there isn't enough value to a #3 RB to warrant taking one until the 6th or 7th round, after 2 RBs 3 WRs and possibly a starting QB and/or TE have been selected.

 

Anyway, hopefully that makes sense. If I missed something, feel free to let me know. If I didn't, then I think it's high time that we put this seemingly poor draft strategy to rest.

 

This post is an example of an all too common attempt to quantify everything rather than use common sense. Assessing a guy's contribution based on 1/8 of a season (bye weeks)? You're kidding me, right? Players get hurt. Players underperform. How about trades? How about matchups? Ever want to sit your RB2 who is going up against the Bears D in Chicago in December? Ever try to find a servicable RB on waiver late in the season? It's almost impossible. But you can almost always find a QB, WR or TE.

 

I am not talking extremes. For example, I'm probably not taking RB4 before WR2. But even this decision depends on the dynamics of the draft and who is on the board. At a high level, I'm mostly likely to wait on a QB, WR3 or a TE since I believe good value can be had in a later round.

[jaxjag 43]

i think the best strategy is to actually wait until the later rounds i.e after 9 or 10 and actually just draft your rb's backups. that ensures you of always having a starting rb no matter what.

 

I agree to a point but there are situations (high power offense, good offensive lines, high profile backup) that warrant taking the backup earlier than you suggest (round 11 or later). This can be dicey though as it isn't always clear who is the true backup and how the team will function with a change in personnel.

[Gepetto 1,367]

But, we're trying to win week to week. Projections should be based on fantasy points per game, not season totals. Every week matters. Taking back-ups is not only for starting them when a "starter" gets hurt, the backups actually could play better than your starter. Also, fantasy football is about playing the matchups. You can't really do that if your back up running backs are Noah Herron, Mewelde Moore, etc.

[Watchdog 0]

I think it also depends on how big your league is. In a ten team league it's certainly possible to get a #3 RB who's a decent starter. There will also be more depth at WR in that league (especially if you only start 2 WRs instead of 3), so taking the backup RB first is a plausible move.

 

That's a lot less likely in my 14 team league, where it's usually better to attend to most of your other positions before drafting a backup RB. In large leagues, if your starting RB does get hurt, it's unlikely that you'll get a #3 RB worth an early round pick.

[hotgumbo1 12]

Don't jump on me right away - read a bit first. This topic comes up because several people around here seem to suggest that it's a perfectly sound idea to draft backups (most notably at RB) even before all your starting skill position spots are filled. Well, is it? After thinking about it a while, I arrived at the inevitable point where I can't fathom how this could possibly be a sound strategy. At best, you can assume that your #3 RB will play maybe 8 games - and that's assuming some injuries to your #1 and #2. At worst, he plays 2: the buy weeks, if the top 2 stay healthy for you. That gives an expected usage of between 1/8th and half of his production for the year. With that in mind, how can it possibly be reasonable to pass on a full-time starter in order to bag a position that may only see 2 games of use the entire season?

 

Lets say for the sake of argument that you anticipate the RBs will drop off by 32 pts between your current pick and your next one, and you're looking at taking the best available as your #3. If we were to assume he'll get 2 games of use, then his value over the next rds' backs is much less than 32. His value-per-game would be 2 pts better than the next round's possibilities, so if he only gets used 2 games, his value is only really 4 pts better, not the 32 your projections will tell you for the entire season. This is the case in general with non-starting picks: their value must be adjusted to account for expected usage. If we say he'll get used for 6 starts, his value over next round's backs would be 2(6)=12. Any reasonable estimate of the #3 RB starts for your team is bound to end up with the WRs falling off a lot more than the #3 RBs, and as a result it will always be advantageous to take a starting WR over a #3 RB. The other positions do not have as constant of a fall as WR and so it's not for certain that they will always be better than a #3 RB, but at the least I can see no way to justify a #3 RB until you own the full number of starting WRs. In most cases I would expect QB and maybe even TE to have enough drop-off to beat #3 RBs as well, which likely means there isn't enough value to a #3 RB to warrant taking one until the 6th or 7th round, after 2 RBs 3 WRs and possibly a starting QB and/or TE have been selected.

 

Anyway, hopefully that makes sense. If I missed something, feel free to let me know. If I didn't, then I think it's high time that we put this seemingly poor draft strategy to rest.

holy cow i'm utterly

[Ras66not99 0]

Players get hurt. Players underperform. How about trades? How about matchups? Ever want to sit your RB2 who is going up against the Bears D in Chicago in December? Ever try to find a servicable RB on waiver late in the season? It's almost impossible. But you can almost always find a QB, WR or TE.

 

I'm mostly likely to wait on a QB, WR3 or a TE since I believe good value can be had in a later round.

 

everything above....very nicely put my friend....

 

I couldn't have said it better...

[rebooters 1]

I always like to be 3 deep at RB. Not just for injury purposes, but in case one of my 2 others backs isn't performing up to par. I know a lot of people that had Gore as their 3rd back last year. That worked out pretty well for them

I had alexander last year and the fact that my roster had 7 RB's out of 15 roster spots helped me win my league. 7 may be overkill and i got alot of them in the late rounds but I agree with this guy that Its good to get 3 RB's and I say get them by round 5 if the value is right. In leagues where you can start 3 RB using your flex, Id try to get a decent #4 RB...After the first 3 tiers of WR, they are almost a dime a dozen so you can wait IMO.

[Cuse9 129]

Basically it comes down to ones confidence in their drafting ability and knowing the players they are drafting. I think alot of you have missed the point of the original posters thought:

 

Would you rather start Anquan Boldin/Randy Moss/Lee Evans and so on every week or have Ahman Green/Brandon Jackson/Jamal Lewis on your bench?

 

That's what it comes down to for your third round pick. Would you rather draft a bench player or a starter. Simple enough.

 

While aniticipating injuries I don't draft my back ups right away. I draft wiser in the later rounds. Try to find that "diamond in the rough". Starting guys based on match-ups is too much guess work. Helk, I think Ronnie Brown went for 150+ vs the Bears last year.....who could have predicted that!

 

Like I said, you draft according to your knowledge of who your drafting and the confidence you have in your ability.

[Killer Elite 0]

Welcome to Fantasy Football.

[Zangief 0]

Look at last year. There were plenty of people that took Thomas Jones or Fred Taylor or MJD as their 3rd RB. And plenty of the guys projected as #3 WRs last year completely flopped, and there are always WRs that break out. If you're in a 12 team league you have 3 RBs that are legit you are way ahead of the game, whether you wind up trading one, get an injury, or your #3 guy busts out.

[Fozzy4 0]

This post is an example of an all too common attempt to quantify everything rather than use common sense. Assessing a guy's contribution based on 1/8 of a season (bye weeks)? You're kidding me, right? Players get hurt. Players underperform. How about trades? How about matchups? Ever want to sit your RB2 who is going up against the Bears D in Chicago in December? Ever try to find a servicable RB on waiver late in the season? It's almost impossible. But you can almost always find a QB, WR or TE.

 

I am not talking extremes. For example, I'm probably not taking RB4 before WR2. But even this decision depends on the dynamics of the draft and who is on the board. At a high level, I'm mostly likely to wait on a QB, WR3 or a TE since I believe good value can be had in a later round.

 

This post was an attempt to quantify everything because Fantasy Football is a game that is run entirely by numbers. If you don't quantify things, then you're not doing math. No matter how much your common sense likes to have a RB3, if it is mathematically inferior, then you are losing ground by doing it. The numbers decide whether you win or lose, not your common sense.

 

The 1/8 was, as I explained, the low. I allowed for up to half a season's worth of starts from the RB3, which IMO is a liberal estimate. Even with that, 1/2 the dropoff at RB just isn't going to touch the full dropoff at WR - not by the time you get to rd 3 where the first RB3 could be taken. Having 2 starting RBs on your roster kills the value of remaining RBs until you get other starting positions filled.

 

As for guys getting hurt and underperforming, if you end up starting your #3 RB all the time because of that, it is nearly guaranteed to kill your season no matter how high you drafted him. In that case you are losing the entire value of your starting RB that he's replacing, likely a rd 1 or rd 2 pick. In case you haven't noticed before, you generally can't survive that. If you can, you seriously fleeced the rest of your league on draft day. Drafting a backup RB in case something goes seriously wrong with a starter is only planning for failure - you're trading away starter value at WR in exchange for limited backup value at RB. The loss of pts is guaranteed to hurt you at WR, where the gain in RB3 pts is only available situationally, meaning a fractional gain of perceived value. Even if you assume your RB3 can start half a season for you, half the RB fall-off from rd 3 on is pretty much invariably going to be less than the full WR fall-off, meaning you are always better with that starting WR... and that's assuming you get 8 starts out of that #3 RB. Odds are you don't, meaning his value is even worse.

 

But, we're trying to win week to week. Projections should be based on fantasy points per game, not season totals. Every week matters. Taking back-ups is not only for starting them when a "starter" gets hurt, the backups actually could play better than your starter. Also, fantasy football is about playing the matchups. You can't really do that if your back up running backs are Noah Herron, Mewelde Moore, etc.

 

Right - I don't think RB3 needs to fall to the 10th rd like was suggested by someone else. However, this rd 3/4/5 crap has got to go - there's simply no value in taking a backup there, not versus the starting WRs' values. You should have 2 RBs and 3 WRs before it makes mathematical sense to have a RB3. Even then you may have hit QB value, TE value, and/or D/ST value that warrants a pick and thus pushes off RB3 more. I've been finding that a TE in 3 or 6 usually falls to me with great value attached, as does a top defense in the 7th (again amazing value). So from the baseline of 2 RB and 3 WR starters you'd maybe look for a #3 RB in the 6th rd, but if you hit a TE and DEF it could easily go into the 8th round before I'd be looking.

 

Look at last year. There were plenty of people that took Thomas Jones or Fred Taylor or MJD as their 3rd RB. And plenty of the guys projected as #3 WRs last year completely flopped, and there are always WRs that break out. If you're in a 12 team league you have 3 RBs that are legit you are way ahead of the game, whether you wind up trading one, get an injury, or your #3 guy busts out.

 

You're trying to make your case by using bias. The idea that you could have a great #3 RB and flops for #3 WRs is entirely countered by the chance that you could have a flop #3 RB and a breakout #3 WR. You can't use a situation like that as justification for a strategy unless it's more likely to happen than the alternatives. #3 RBs are subject to the same flop chances as #3 WRs, so your argument is irrelevant since it relies on luck in making the #3 RB work out. He's as likely not to, so the WR is the superior choice b/c he's a full-time starter and thus a better value.

[Killer Elite 0]

Dude.. just stop. Feel free to wait until the 7th and grab that RB3. And when one of your top 2 backs is facing Baltimore and puts up a whooping 6 points and you lose dont come crying to us.

 

The simple facts are that all positions but RB have weekly potential point production sitting on the waiver wire. But if you are looking for a RB on the waver wire you are expecting to catch lightning in a bottle.

 

Those of us who have played this game for years and years have figured this out. If you want to learn by making your own mistakes then be our guest.

 

Here is what you are talking about doing:

 

Starting Colsten as a #1 WR over Burress. And in doing so your #3RB goes from Brandon Jacobs to Brandon Jackson. If you still dont understand why this is a rook move I cant help ya.

 

And on a final note?: "top defense in the 7th (again amazing value)" You dont understand value, stop throwing that term around. There is no "value" in drafting a Defense in the 7th period. Maybe play a few seasons before you start posting "advice" on these boards. You are clueless.

[tt1010 0]

Fantasy Football is entirely too dynamic to say anything is set in stone. That's why I never understood the people sticking to one draft strategy, no matter what.

 

And because FF is so dynamic, you have to be flexible and deep. RB is the position you want to be the deepest at. Why? Because RBs are gold.

 

No one ever knows how their team is going to shake out after draft day. You don't know who will under/over perform. You don't know who will suffer an injury. The amount of unknowns are staggering, so you have to be prepared.

 

For instance, last year, I drafted SA in the first. We know that story. And I drafted Chambers in the 4th. Total under performance. But still, I made the playoffs. How? I was deep at RB.

 

I traded Dunn for Driver because the other team was thin at RB. I used Taylor to alleviate the pain of SA's injury. I had Gore to support my team. When SA came back, I packaged him in a huge trade in a push for the playoffs.

 

By the end of the season, I had 3 top 12 WRs, 1 top 5 RB and 1 top 12 RB and the number 2 QB. And I only had two starting members from my original draft - Gore and Holt.

 

The only reason I was able to survive an injury to my first pick and an under-performing WR2 was because I had 4 RBs after 6 rounds. There is no other way I would have had the depth or flexibility to do so well.

 

With that said, I will always take what the draft gives me, but RBs are the most desired commodity, period.

[Fozzy4 0]

Here is what you are talking about doing:

 

Starting Colsten as a #1 WR over Burress. And in doing so your #3RB goes from Brandon Jacobs to Brandon Jackson. If you still dont understand why this is a rook move I cant help ya.

 

And on a final note?: "top defense in the 7th (again amazing value)" You dont understand value, stop throwing that term around. There is no "value" in drafting a Defense in the 7th period. Maybe play a few seasons before you start posting advice on these boards. You are clueless.

 

Oh look, more horribly skewed examples being used as justification. In case ya don't know, Brandon Jackson goes in the 7th round pal. You can get one of Deuce, Caddy, or Marion Barber in the 4th instead of Plaxico Burress. Strop trying to spin the situation using bad information.

 

On defenses, you obviously don't understand the importance of the top few. Chicago and Baltimore have more than 50 pts of value over all the other defenses. You can't even get CLOSE to that much point advantage in the 7th round from any other position. All the skill positions are way down below even 20 FFPt drop-offs in round 7, meaning you do not understand the math of fantasy football AT ALL if you don't understand what a steal those 2 D/STs are in that round. You gain more than 3 pts a week advantage doing it, which is a lot more than any other position will afford you at that time in the draft.

 

In other words, shut up and learn how to do some math.

[Killer Elite 0]

RBs are gold.

 

The only reason I was able to survive an injury to my first pick and an under-performing WR2 was because I had 4 RBs after 6 rounds. There is no other way I would have had the depth or flexibility to do so well.

 

With that said, I will always take what the draft gives me, but RBs are the most desired commodity, period.

 

[Killer Elite 0]

Oh look, more horribly skewed examples being used as justification. In case ya don't know, Brandon Jackson goes in the 7th round pal. You can get one of Deuce, Caddy, or Marion Barber in the 4th instead of Plaxico Burress. Strop trying to spin the situation using bad information.

 

On defenses, you obviously don't understand the importance of the top few. Chicago and Baltimore have more than 50 pts of value over all the other defenses. You can't even get CLOSE to that much point advantage in the 7th round from any other position. All the skill positions are way down below even 20 FFPt drop-offs in round 7, meaning you do not understand the math of fantasy football AT ALL if you don't understand what a steal those 2 D/STs are in that round. You gain more than 3 pts a week advantage doing it, which is a lot more than any other position will afford you at that time in the draft.

 

In other words, shut up and learn how to do some math.

 

You said you didnt want to draft a RB until the 7th. You said you should have 2 RB, 3 WR and a QB first. So I used the ADP and thats what I got. Its not skewed. Mock it sometime.

 

Value has nothing to do with point production. It has to do with when you get them and when you could get them. Compare the point production of a RB, WR or QB taken in the 7th vs a RB, WR or QB taken in the 16th and a D taken in the 7th vs a D taken in the 16th and tell me where the "value" is.

 

If you get Chicago or Baltimore in the 8th or 9th then yes thats a great value. In the seventh you are paying the asking price. Its not a value pick at all. They said You want Chicago? That will cost you a 7th rounder, and you said, um ok. Thats not value.

 

I mean some of your quotes are amazing. Let me guess this is your first year? Check this one out: "The loss of pts is guaranteed to hurt you at WR, where the gain in RB3 pts is only available situationally" Really? So now you are telling me that you know for fact that Colsten will out perform Henderson this year? Oh and that no matter who I pick for my #1 and #2 RBs will remain my #1 and #2 RB all year? Nice!

 

Good luck this season bud.. you have a lot to learn.

[Yippie Skippy 0]

Drafting a backup RB in case something goes seriously wrong with a starter is only planning for failure - you're trading away starter value at WR in exchange for limited backup value at RB. You should have 2 RBs and 3 WRs before it makes mathematical sense to have a RB3. Even then you may have hit QB value, TE value, and/or D/ST value that warrants a pick and thus pushes off RB3 more. I've been finding that a TE in 3 or 6 usually falls to me with great value attached, as does a top defense in the 7th (again amazing value).

 

Excuse me...a defense in the 7th round is amazing value?? By your logic a Kicker should be taken ahead of your RB3; after all, he is a starter.

 

At least 50% of the top 24 RBs will miss at least a game to injury. Several will underperform, some will be lost for the season. Week in and week out the team who puts up the highest points at the RB position wins fantasy games and more importantly championships.

 

If you do not plan for failure at the RB position then you better not plan on success either.

 

Your mathematical sense is derived from the theory that your RB1 and RB2 are absolutely going to give you their value. That is not an absolute, it is a variable.

[bigfeet_88 0]

Though your numbers maybe sound on paper, it's too narrowminded an approach and relies on an ideal situation... it overlooks all the variables that make FF so complex. If all your players play the entire year at their expected level regardless of matchup at their average point per game this will work.

 

Anyone who has played for more than a few seasons knows that this is just not a sound strategy. Sh*t happens as they say. Injuries occur, players underperform, players overperform. Match ups do make a difference. Value will drop to you in drafts that are just crazy too pass up.

[jaxjag 43]

I mean some of your quotes are amazing. Let me guess this is your first year? Check this one out: "The loss of pts is guaranteed to hurt you at WR, where the gain in RB3 pts is only available situationally" Really? So now you are telling me that you know for fact that Colsten will out perform Henderson this year? Oh and that no matter who I pick for my #1 and #2 RBs will remain my #1 and #2 RB all year? Nice!

 

This is my point as well. He has convinced himself it's guaranteed because it's what his mathematical model tells him. Garbage in; garbage out... as the old saying goes.

 

I have no problem with math or math models or projections. Use them all the time. I just think, in this case, you're ignoring far too many variables when you project a guys controbution on two weeks apperance.

[Fozzy4 0]

You said you didnt want to draft a RB until the 7th. You said you should have 2 RB, 3 WR and a QB first. So I used the ADP and thats what I got. Its not skewed. Mock it sometime.

 

No, what you said was:

 

Here is what you are talking about doing:

 

Starting Colsten as a #1 WR over Burress. And in doing so your #3RB goes from Brandon Jacobs to Brandon Jackson. If you still dont understand why this is a rook move I cant help ya. wall.gif

 

You said I was taking Colston instead of Burress and getting in return Brandon Jackson instead of Brandon Jacobs. Jacobs and Colston go in the 3rd, Burress in the 4th. In your example, the RB must then also come from the 4th, or your example makes no sense at all. Another potentially better option is to go with a WR from the 7th that I'd be passing on, like perhaps Jerricho Cotchery, then you've at least matched up the rounds. In that case I definitely want a WR1 in rd 3 and Brandon Jackson in 7 instead of Brandon Jacobs as a RB3 and WR Cotchery in 7. If you make the draft picks come from the same 2 rounds (which is fair instead of the unbalanced situation you presented) then it's more than easy to see you should pull the trigger on the WR1 in rd 3.

 

Value has nothing to do with point production. It has to do with when you get them and when you could get them. Compare the point production of a RB, WR or QB taken in the 7th vs a RB, WR or QB taken in the 16th and a D taken in the 7th vs a D taken in the 16th and tell me where the "value" is.

 

This tells me that you will be no further use in our discussions, as you don't understand that value is entirely from point production. You cannot win by getting a player later than his ADP, because ADP does not translate into FFPts. A more valuable player outproduces his peers, and is therefore a better pick than a guy who doesn't do so as well. You gain advantage by drafting players who are most separated from their peers. If TEs had one 100 pt producer and everyone else would produce only 10 pts this season, that one TE would be a steal even in the first round, because he brings a 90 pt advantage with him. Everyone else can only get 10 pts at TE, so you have extra points each week in the bag by getting that TE. That's the essence of value.

 

I mean some of your quotes are amazing. Let me guess this is your first year? Check this one out: "The loss of pts is guaranteed to hurt you at WR, where the gain in RB3 pts is only available situationally" Really? So now you are telling me that you know for fact that Colsten will out perform Henderson this year? Oh and that no matter who I pick for my #1 and #2 RBs will remain my #1 and #2 RB all year? Nice!

 

Good luck this season bud.. you have a lot to learn.

 

What I of course meant is that you know that guy is planned as your starter all year, so however much lower you project the lesser WR, you can count on that entire amount coming into play. You can't do that with the RB3, because his entire point total will absolutely not be in play. That makes him inherently less valuable. For variance in performance, you can talk about it all you want, but it doesn't affect draft strategy. Draft strategy is affected only be projections, because you have no way to know who will over and underperform or by how much. Without knowing that, you assume the projections are on, as it's the only reasonable assumption to work under. For every negative variance you can show, I can show you a positive instance that counters it. The projection expresses the expected average, and therefore is what you use to build strategy on.

[Killer Elite 0]

"You said I was taking Colston instead of Burress and getting in return Brandon Jackson instead of Brandon Jacobs. Jacobs and Colston go in the 3rd, Burress in the 4th. In your example, the RB must then also come from the 4th, or your example makes no sense at all. "

 

OK, try and keep up:

 

I would take Jacobs in the 3rd. Your suggestion is that I take Colston. Because I take Colston instead of Jacobs and I now wait until round 7 to grab a RB I am replacing Jacobs with Jackson. Burress is my #1 WR I would have taken in the 4th. So I have replaced Burress as my #1 WR with Colsten in the 3rd and Jacobs as my #3RB in the 3rd with Jackson in the 7th. Come on man.. its not that tough to figure out. But the point is, its asinine.

 

You just dont get it. Value is perceived not earned. You cant put a number on a player and determine his value. The games haven't been played. If the perceived value of say Colston is that he is a 3rd round pick (which it is) and regardless of how many points you think he will produce you get him in the 4th round, thats a value pick.

 

If I can draft LT, SJax and Gore in the first 3 rounds. By your logic I should pass on Gore because Colston has more value to me as a starter. This is just plain shortsighted and frankly stupid. At drafts end I could trade Gore for Steve Smith and another player. But I have no chance of trading Colston for Gore straight up.

 

Value has absolutely 0% to do with your starting line-up. It has to do with the perceived "VALUE" of the player in your league. How much is he worth to other owners.

 

I give up. Dude.. just go out and lose. Next year come on here and read and maybe you will stand a chance.

 

And again.. welcome to Fantasy Football.

[rebooters 1]

Basically it comes down to ones confidence in their drafting ability and knowing the players they are drafting. I think alot of you have missed the point of the original posters thought:

 

Would you rather start Anquan Boldin/Randy Moss/Lee Evans and so on every week or have Ahman Green/Brandon Jackson/Jamal Lewis on your bench?

 

That's what it comes down to for your third round pick. Would you rather draft a bench player or a starter. Simple enough.

 

While aniticipating injuries I don't draft my back ups right away. I draft wiser in the later rounds. Try to find that "diamond in the rough". Starting guys based on match-ups is too much guess work. Helk, I think Ronnie Brown went for 150+ vs the Bears last year.....who could have predicted that!

 

Like I said, you draft according to your knowledge of who your drafting and the confidence you have in your ability.

I didnt miss the point at all. I have all the confidence in the world when i go into my drafts and I feel that I draft well.

[rebooters 1]

Dude.. just stop. Feel free to wait until the 7th and grab that RB3. And when one of your top 2 backs is facing Baltimore and puts up a whooping 6 points and you lose dont come crying to us.

 

The simple facts are that all positions but RB have weekly potential point production sitting on the waiver wire. But if you are looking for a RB on the waver wire you are expecting to catch lightning in a bottle.

 

Those of us who have played this game for years and years have figured this out. If you want to learn by making your own mistakes then be our guest.

 

Here is what you are talking about doing:

 

Starting Colsten as a #1 WR over Burress. And in doing so your #3RB goes from Brandon Jacobs to Brandon Jackson. If you still dont understand why this is a rook move I cant help ya.

 

And on a final note?: "top defense in the 7th (again amazing value)" You dont understand value, stop throwing that term around. There is no "value" in drafting a Defense in the 7th period. Maybe play a few seasons before you start posting "advice" on these boards. You are clueless.

Im glad you arent in my league because i dont need any more competition from people who think like me. Im sure your success rate is pretty good.

[rebooters 1]

This is my point as well. He has convinced himself it's guaranteed because it's what his mathematical model tells him. Garbage in; garbage out... as the old saying goes.

 

I have no problem with math or math models or projections. Use them all the time. I just think, in this case, you're ignoring far too many variables when you project a guys controbution on two weeks apperance.

ah yes, junk in/junk out.

 

Math models work, if they are accurate. this is the worst damn strategy i have heard in a long while. I remember exactly how long, because I thought this way my very first fantasy season back in 1998. I tried to convince my partner(brand new to ff at the time also) that this would work. Boy did we fall on our faces. Thanks for reminding me how naive i was

 

Here is the deal, you have already heard us experienced guys giving you tons of reasons to backup what we know. One more thing to add to it is if your league allows trading; you must get RB's because like mentioned above, they are GOLD! You can almost rip people off during the season on trades because they drafted with your mindset, and something goes wrong. Not necessarily did their RB1 or RB2 get hurt, they might have underperformed greatly(cadillac of 2006 ring a bell?) Lets say that 3 of your RB's turned out to be good starters each week. Trade one of them for the cadillac team's WR, and the best part is, you always get the better end of the deal because the other guy is desperate and now you have a better Wideout than you could have gotten when you drafted your RB3.

 

GLuck, i hope you arent so dense.

[el gringo 0]

The main point here, as some others have mentioned, is what type of RISK you are taking on with each pick. Each week, it is much easier to count on the production of a running back than a wide receiver, whose numbers depend with quarterback play, the defense that they line up against, weather, etc. Running backs are more likely to perform at a consistent clip.

 

For me, I take a solid running back (depending on the options) based on two factors:

 

1. Depth: to ensure against injury, byes and underperforming

 

2. Trade value: If I have "too much talent" with 3 good backs, I trade one for a stud #1 receiver. I did this last year when I had four of the top 10 backs in the league.

[bwillingham 0]

Settle down Killer Elite and get off your high horse. Who are you to judge the fantasy savvy of another player in an entirely different league with different rules, different scoring, team-owners who might not actually trade alot, etc. As for me, I rarely even draft 3 RBs and i'll tell you why: 1) there are rarely any trades in our league, 2) you can start 1 RB and 4 WRs if you want, 3) if you have the fortune of drafting 2 stud RBs, then you are required to start a TE and we all know how the talent pool dries up pretty quickly.

 

The added value that the 3rd RB would bring me is exactly as the original poster described, practically zilch. He would maybe be a bye-week filler. In my league, I probably wouldn't even need him for that because I could just switch my lineup for the week to 1RB/4WR. And since trades are rare, it makes even less sense for me to pick up a 3rd RB early as trade fodder.

 

Now I'll be the first to say that my season could crash and burn if one of my two RBs goes down due to injury or in one or both underperform, but that is the risk I take and I am comfortable taking that risk every year while other idiots in my legaue draft 3,4 and sometimes even 5 RBs in a 12 roud draft. I just doesn't make sense to me to carry taht much RB depth when so much of it sits on the bench every week.

 

Remember, each league is different and each team owner has his or her preferences. As for me, I prefer to risk it with only 2 RBs on my team and a stable full of WRs to choose from each week...

[GobbleDog 996]

I'd rather have RB depth than WR depth. I'll never understand why some people draft 4 or 5 WRs before the 10th round. WRs rarely get hurt and are generally more reliable (not week to week, but over the whole season) than RBs.

 

Personally, I'm willing to sacrifice my #3 WR and TE positions for RB depth.

[MTSkiBum 1,620]

On defenses, you obviously don't understand the importance of the top few. Chicago and Baltimore have more than 50 pts of value over all the other defenses. You can't even get CLOSE to that much point advantage in the 7th round from any other position. All the skill positions are way down below even 20 FFPt drop-offs in round 7, meaning you do not understand the math of fantasy football AT ALL if you don't understand what a steal those 2 D/STs are in that round. You gain more than 3 pts a week advantage doing it, which is a lot more than any other position will afford you at that time in the draft.

 

In other words, shut up and learn how to do some math.

 

I was only 30 points behind the #1 defense at the end of last year, and i didnt draft a defense till round 16, how, defense by commitee, please draft defenses early while i stock up on RB's you can draft your stud defense that gets 30 points more than mine. it might not be the RB 3 i take in the 5th, or the RB 4 i take in the 7th, it might be the RB 5 i take in the 8th before i ever draft either a defense, QB or a TE that blows up to be a solid starter week in and week out. If you expect to take a RB in the 2nd round, and be able to start him all year long you are gambling, look at the crank score on the front page and see how much turnover there is in every position. Thats why depth is imprortant.

[bigfeet_88 0]

Settle down Killer Elite and get off your high horse. Who are you to judge the fantasy savvy of another player in an entirely different league with different rules, different scoring, team-owners who might not actually trade alot, etc. As for me, I rarely even draft 3 RBs and i'll tell you why: 1) there are rarely any trades in our league, 2) you can start 1 RB and 4 WRs if you want, 3) if you have the fortune of drafting 2 stud RBs, then you are required to start a TE and we all know how the talent pool dries up pretty quickly.

 

The added value that the 3rd RB would bring me is exactly as the original poster described, practically zilch. He would maybe be a bye-week filler. In my league, I probably wouldn't even need him for that because I could just switch my lineup for the week to 1RB/4WR. And since trades are rare, it makes even less sense for me to pick up a 3rd RB early as trade fodder.

 

Now I'll be the first to say that my season could crash and burn if one of my two RBs goes down due to injury or in one or both underperform, but that is the risk I take and I am comfortable taking that risk every year while other idiots in my legaue draft 3,4 and sometimes even 5 RBs in a 12 roud draft. I just doesn't make sense to me to carry taht much RB depth when so much of it sits on the bench every week.

 

Remember, each league is different and each team owner has his or her preferences. As for me, I prefer to risk it with only 2 RBs on my team and a stable full of WRs to choose from each week...

 

So in leagues with no trading, start 1 RB and it is an acceptable risk that one of your 2 starting rbs gets injured or underperforms, this strategy is sound. OK, gotcha.

[mdubz 0]

I always like to be 3 deep at RB. Not just for injury purposes, but in case one of my 2 others backs isn't performing up to par. I know a lot of people that had Gore as their 3rd back last year. That worked out pretty well for them

 

 

i agree with this...you can't just draft two backs in the first few rounds and think they are guaranteed to have great years. see caddy, ronnie brown, shaun, mcgahee, lamont jordan, etc. last year. so taking a 3rd back isn't only for bye week fill in or waiting for injury; it's also an insurance policy for under performers which happens with at least 25-30% of the backs taken in the first couple rounds.

[Sgt_Russia 0]

Here's the flaw I see in your thinking, Fozzy. Math is absolute; FF is not. There is no direct correlation between the two. It MAY turn out exactly as you planned while drafting, and when/if it does, you likely have a good season. More likely, however, the season will play out a whole lot differently than you planned it to. If YOU have to rely on your RB3 to play significant time, yes, your season is likely in trouble (because you waited until the 7th round to get him). If I have to rely on my RB3 to play significant time, my chances of staying successful are better because I picked my RB3 in the 4th round.

 

I'll keep my two RB's sitting on my bench every week, one of which may never see the field for me. But when one of your RB's goes down and you decide you don't want your season to rest on the shoulders of Noah Herron, you'll come calling to an owner like me, asking for a RB in trade.

[GobbleDog 996]

I think this is a great Fantasy Football discussion. Use those mid round picks on RB depth or wait til later? Personally, I'm a RB depth guy. While everyone else is drafting #3/4 WRs and #2 QBs, I'm grabbing RBs. I usually draft 5 RBs by the 9th round.

 

I see the argument - RB depth comes at the expense of slightly better players at the other positions. But to me, the benefits (injury insurance, breakout potential, and trade value) are worth it.

[Cuse9 129]

I didnt miss the point at all. I have all the confidence in the world when i go into my drafts and I feel that I draft well.

 

Exactly my point. No matter how you draft....you're not right or wrong! Everyone has their own strategy. You roll the dice no matter who you pick in any round.

 

"I have all the confidence in the world"

 

That there tells me you get it! I'll assume you don't plan on taking three rb's in a row. The best player available to help you win it all will be picked in the third, fourth, fifth and so on. RB depth is the most important, but I'll never buy into a bench player being more valueable than a top wr or qb.

 

On a side note: How in the hell did anyone have Frank Gore as a #3 rb. That explains why some of you go rb, rb, rb. In my leagues there wasn't a chance in hell you could have gotten Gore as your #3. That's nuts!