Depth: What's So Great About It?

[Fozzy4 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.

 

No... YOU try and keep up.

 

If you would take Jacobs in the 3rd and I have you take Colston, then the 7th rd may be when your RB (Jackson) gets picked. However, Burress is NOT the guy you have instead of Colston - you have some guy in the 7th rd where you'll get your 3rd WR instead of taking Brandon Jackson. Burress would be your #2 if you had Colston - he is on your squad either way, so the difference is NONE. The difference comes in the 7th round, where instead of a WR like Cotchery to round out your 3 starters, you now have Brandon Jackson under my plan. To elaborate, I will draw you an impossible to miss explanation of each rd of the draft through 7:

 

Rd 1: LT2

Rd 2: MJD

Rd 3: Brandon Jacobs/Marques Colston

Rd 4: Plaxico Burress

Rd 5: Donovan McNabb

Rd 6: Joey Galloway

Rd 7: Brandon Jackson/Jericho Cotchery

 

I'm not saying they're good picks, it's merely for illustration.

 

As you should easily see, if you take Colston in the 3rd instead of Jacobs, the only actual difference to your team is that in the 7th you will take a RB instead of your #3 WR. That Plax moves up to being your number 1 receiver if you have Jacobs does not matter at all - he is still starting for your team, and will produce the same points he would as your #2. Which starter he is doesn't matter. That's where your problem comes in - you place some sort of value on Plax moving up to being your #1 WR. There isn't any difference, the difference only shows up in rd 7 where you'll have to take a WR to fill your starting spots if you've got Jacobs. If you have Colston, you don't have to do that, since starting WRs will be full and you'd need a RB3.

 

To get down to the math of why Jacobs is a poor pick as RB3, we notice the only difference in the 2 draft options is the Jacobs+Cotchery combo versus the Colston+Jackson combo. Here's what their projections tell us:

 

Jacobs: 207.6

Cotchery: 107.5

315.1

 

Colston: 145.2

Jackson: 149.2

294.4

 

If you would be using both players as starters, clearly you would want Jacobs and Cotchery. However, they're not all starters: the RBs are backups. As I said earlier, I think about the most usage you can get out of a #3 RB is half his production, equivalent to about 8 starts. That makes the math look like this:

 

Jacobs: 103.8

Cotchery: 107.5

211.3

 

Colston: 145.2

Jackson: 74.6

219.8

 

As you can see, it drastically alters the situation. Now we have Colston and Jackson combining for more production that you'll actually use during the season (bench production is of course useless), and it's entirely because you can't get full use from your RB3.

 

I will further point out that Jacobs is an especially high projection RB for the 3rd round, as Colston is especially poorly projected for a 3rd rd WR. The result is that this should be about the closest a RB3 could get to beating a WR in this situation. If you use for instance Houshmandzadeh, the starting WR combo gains more than 20 projected points, and he's available in the 3rd. If you use any other rd 3 RB, the RB3 side loses huge amounts of projected points. For instance Cedric Benson loses 35+ points to Jacobs, and Marshawn Lynch loses about the same in projection. So the point is that we took the absolute best situation for a RB3 and about the worst you can find (projection-wise) for a WR in rd 3, and pitted them against each other. The WR still wins, which confirms my theory - the WR always will win as long as he is filling an open starting slot and the RB is not.

 

It's also worth noting that if you don't get your #3 RB the 8 starts I just assumed, then the situation becomes even more in favor of the starting WR. The less use the RB3 sees, the smaller the difference between him and the lower RB becomes (if they'd only see use in 4 games, for instance, a 100 point projection difference becomes only ~25 points of real difference to your team).

 

It is not foolproof (nothing is due to randomness) but it does represent the more statistically sound method of generating fantasy points, regardless of what common thinking dictates.

 

Also since you pointed out the Frank Gore thing, I'll simply say there are always exceptions to rules: wildly extreme conditions under which they break. If some absolutely ridiculous RB falls to you in rd 3, you should of course take him. Even at half value for being a backup, he'll do more for your team than a starting WR would (and as mentioned you may be able to trade him for a good WR). Such situations are very rare though, and the rest (i.e. normal situations) easily fall under the explanation I just gave.

[Pimptaddy 0]

Hmmm, last year I had Mcnabb as my starting QB and he went down. I used my depth and had Philip Rivers on the bench and went on to win the title. Depth wins championships!

[Cuse9 128]

Hmmm, last year I had Mcnabb as my starting QB and he went down. I used my depth and had Philip Rivers on the bench and went on to win the title. Depth wins championships!

 

So, his 97 yards and two picks in week 15 helped you in your playoff run...lol!! Hopefully you had the bye that week?!

[Killer Elite 0]

After your draft post your team. I would be interested on how you end up. I dont recommend your strategy, and have failed in a season where I did something similar (my very first year playing Fantasy Football).

 

You clearly are set in your belief that this will actually make you successful this year, so let’s see it.

[Cuse9 128]

After your draft post your team. I would be interested on how you end up. I dont recommend your strategy, and have failed in a season where I did something similar (my very first year playing Fantasy Football).

 

You clearly are set in your belief that this will actually make you successful this year, so let’s see it.

Are you talkin to me or the original poster?

 

Just did a mock...14 Teams.

 

1..Shaun Alexander

2..Marshawn Lynch

3..Larry Fitzgerald

4..Hines Ward

5..Deion Branch

6..Brandon Jackson

7..Vince Young

8..Deshaun Foster

9..Denver D

10..Ronald Curry

11..Matt Schuab

12..Chris Henry (Cin)

13..David Martin...sleeper

14..Craig Davis

15..Noah Herron....would have rather had Morency.

16..Jason Elam

 

I'll take that team for a season

Vince Young

Shaun Alexander

Marshawn Lynch

Larry Fitzgerald

Hines Ward

Deion Branch

David Martin

Jason Elam

Denver D

 

I got Curry as a nice #4 for bye weeks/injury. Henry will be a nice addition after week 8. Davis has good potential in SD. Schuab has a chance to be decent, nice back up.

 

I have a solid wr core from week to week. I didn't sacrafice anything. My back-ups are Brandon Jackson/Noah Herron and Deshaun Foster. Foster is the starter right now and Jackson is the favorite to win the GB job. For not taking a back up rb until rd 6 and 8 I think I came away excellent.

 

However, that's the way the draft fell. I picked seventh, I didn't have to take a qb in rd 6. The other teams between me and my next pick already had qb's. I knew I could wait and get one in round seven.

 

I'd put this team up against any team in a fourteen team league. I don't think you can get much better.

[bwillingham 0]

My hole point is that each league is different and each owner has his or her own risk tolerance level. Since my league allows 1 RB/4 WR starting lineup, each week I will decide which lineup gets me more points 1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1TE or 1QB, 1 RB, 4 WR. If you have a #2 RB with a bad matchup or he isn't performing well and/or a poor TE, then it makes sense to go with the 1 RB, 4 WR set up. What good would a 3rd RB or 4th RB do for me in this situation?

 

Anyway, count me as one of those few owners that thinks having RB depth is overrated, but that is mostly due to my risk tolerance level and the setup of my league...

[tt1010 0]

I think that the whole point is that your post-draft day roster is nothing but potential. Once the season starts, everything changes.

 

So what's the best way to adapt to the changes? RB depth.

 

If your RB1 and RB2 pan out perfectly, then great - you have amazing trade bait, and the RB3 or RB4 who are doing well are actually more valuable than they were in the draft. And now that you have had a chance to see which QB or WR is doing well or looks promising, you have more information and can target players more efficiently. When you draft, you're really just taking an educated guess. But when you trade, you have much better information, and you're making a more efficient selection.

 

If your RB1 and/or 2 get injured, you have depth. Then you can be a waiver wire fiend and trade what you can in order to salvage your season/team.

 

If someone underperforms, you have a replacement readily available. An underperforming RB is deadly - an underperforming WR is unfortunate but can be corrected in more ways.

 

That's my take on RB depth, but there are limits, of course. It's a balancing act, but RBs are weighted much higher, imo.

[jaxjag 43]

Are you talkin to me or the original poster?

 

Just did a mock...14 Teams.

 

1..Shaun Alexander

2..Marshawn Lynch

3..Larry Fitzgerald

4..Hines Ward

5..Deion Branch

6..Brandon Jackson

7..Vince Young

8..Deshaun Foster

9..Denver D

10..Ronald Curry

11..Matt Schuab

12..Chris Henry (Cin)

13..David Martin...sleeper

14..Craig Davis

15..Noah Herron....would have rather had Morency.

16..Jason Elam

 

I'll take that team for a season

Vince Young

Shaun Alexander

Marshawn Lynch

Larry Fitzgerald

Hines Ward

Deion Branch

David Martin

Jason Elam

Denver D

 

I got Curry as a nice #4 for bye weeks/injury. Henry will be a nice addition after week 8. Davis has good potential in SD. Schuab has a chance to be decent, nice back up.

 

I have a solid wr core from week to week. I didn't sacrafice anything. My back-ups are Brandon Jackson/Noah Herron and Deshaun Foster. Foster is the starter right now and Jackson is the favorite to win the GB job. For not taking a back up rb until rd 6 and 8 I think I came away excellent.

 

However, that's the way the draft fell. I picked seventh, I didn't have to take a qb in rd 6. The other teams between me and my next pick already had qb's. I knew I could wait and get one in round seven.

 

I'd put this team up against any team in a fourteen team league. I don't think you can get much better.

 

On paper this looks fine, especially in a 14 team league. But Alexander is coming off injury. Lynch is a rookie and who knows how he'll hold up against bigger/faster NFL players and a longer season. Brandon Jackson (another rookie) could play second fiddle to Morency (or some veteran brought into GB) and Foster could easily play second fiddle to Williams. Will all these things happen? Unlikely, but you could find yourself thin very quickly.

[Striker99 0]

yea..but then I ended up w/ C.Henry TENN as my #3

[urmother 0]

good initial post and most of the replies refuting it are misguided at some level imo. if your projections were spot on then it would definitely be better to take the starting wideout over the bench rb. (and this goes for wr3 over rb3 also... in fact it goes for every starter spot over every bench spot). hell, if we drafted solely on positional value dropoff (based on our projections) most drafts would see chicago's and baltimore's defenses get picked in the first 2 rounds.

 

but projections end up being off a lot. and certain positions historically project better than others. that's why "top" defenses don't tend to have as much value. they're surprisingly difficult to predict (carolina a few years ago ended up mediocre despite #2 draft status, indy was a fairly high take last year, etc.) either baltimore, chicago or both will likely fall to the middle of the pack fantasy-wise this year.

 

when you draft your rb3 before other starting spots you're providing yourself a safety net against injuries, flexibility with bye weeks, allowing for favorable matchup choices, and building up your potential trade possibilities, but more than that you're safeguarding against your own bad predictions. there is a strong rationale to consider drafting some bench spots before starters. in fact, even if your projections were 100% right it would still be incorrect to draft solely based on positional value dropoff. (ie even if the biggest points dropoff was between kickers if you knew you could confidently select the same player a few rounds later you would do better to take a player with a smaller positional advantage that was more likely to get selected that round by another team.) your math isn't wrong by any means, it's just incomplete in and of itself. also, i'm not refuting that it might be better to draft rb rb wr wr wr, just the reasoning you used to come to that conclusion. i've got no problem with rb rb wr wr wr if there's solid value at each spot.

[jaxjag 43]

good initial post and most of the replies refuting it are misguided at some level imo. if your projections were spot on then it would definitely be better to take the starting wideout over the bench rb. (and this goes for wr3 over rb3 also... in fact it goes for every starter spot over every bench spot). hell, if we drafted solely on positional value dropoff (based on our projections) most drafts would see chicago's and baltimore's defenses get picked in the first 2 rounds.

 

but projections end up being off a lot. and certain positions historically project better than others. that's why "top" defenses don't tend to have as much value. they're surprisingly difficult to predict (carolina a few years ago ended up mediocre despite #2 draft status, indy was a fairly high take last year, etc.) either baltimore, chicago or both will likely fall to the middle of the pack fantasy-wise this year.

 

when you draft your rb3 before other starting spots you're providing yourself a safety net against injuries, flexibility with bye weeks, allowing for favorable matchup choices, and building up your potential trade possibilities, but more than that you're safeguarding against your own bad predictions. there is a strong rationale to consider drafting some bench spots before starters. in fact, even if your projections were 100% right it would still be incorrect to draft solely based on positional value dropoff. (ie even if the biggest points dropoff was between kickers if you knew you could confidently select the same player a few rounds later you would do better to take a player with a smaller positional advantage that was more likely to get selected that round by another team.) your math isn't wrong by any means, it's just incomplete in and of itself. also, i'm not refuting that it might be better to draft rb rb wr wr wr, just the reasoning you used to come to that conclusion. i've got no problem with rb rb wr wr wr if there's solid value at each spot.

 

I hope that either you or I am drunk because this reply is complete and utter hypocrisy.

[urmother 0]

I hope that either you or I am drunk because this reply is complete and utter hypocrisy.

 

at some point every semi-coherent ff player learns about or independently comes up with some sort of value-based drafting system. (and OP logically extended his projections to include playing time in his lineup, which is reasonable.) but even ignoring how difficult it is to project playing time in your lineup there are still inherent weaknesses in vbd systems. one (which i alluded to earlier) is that confidence intervals for rb projections are somewhat smaller than for defenses/others. i mentioned some others. i'm not inherently against choosing mostly starters first, just (trying) to show why those strats aren't mathematically necessitated.

[jaxjag 43]

at some point every semi-coherent ff player learns about or independently comes up with some sort of value-based drafting system. (and OP logically extended his projections to include playing time in his lineup, which is reasonable.) but even ignoring how difficult it is to project playing time in your lineup there are still inherent weaknesses in vbd systems. one (which i alluded to earlier) is that confidence intervals for rb projections are somewhat smaller than for defenses/others. i mentioned some others. i'm not inherently against choosing mostly starters first, just (trying) to show why those strats aren't mathematically necessitated.

 

My semi-coherent conclusion is: You agree with the original poster. Then you state that those who differ in opinion are misguided. Then you restate the same reasons every else has of the flaws in his linear thinking.

[urmother 0]

My semi-coherent conclusion is: You agree with the original poster. Then you state that those who differ in opinion are misguided. Then you restate the same reasons every else has of the flaws in his linear thinking.

 

 

oh, you should have told me you just got stuck on the first sentence.

good initial post and most of the replies refuting it are misguided at some level imo.

it was a good original post/conversation starter, but i don't agree with it. and some of the folks replying were correct that the OP wasn't entirely right, but danced around why/didn't focus on the most pertinent reasons imo.

 

we can just chalk it up to you being drunk if you want.

[Fozzy4 0]

I freely admit that there are potential pitfalls to having weak RB depth. However, there are also pitfalls to having weaker starters at other positions to get RB backups. The safety net concept boils down to a gain in backup value as opposed to a gain in starting WR (or other starter) value that I'm arguing for. Essentially I'm saying that I believe having Colston at WR instead of Jericho Cotchery will end up being superior to having Brandon Jacobs at RB3 instead of Brandon Jackson, and I provided math to indicate that it works. For that math to fail, you must assume you will start Jacobs more than 8 times, which is not something that I think is reasonable. If you start him 8 or less times, the starting WR and lesser backup RB are expected to do better for your team than Jacobs and the lower WR would have. The result is that even if you have problems and start Jacobs 8 times from starters being injured or bad matchups, you're still expected to be better off from having that quality WR in the 3rd rd instead - he will have given you a bigger advantage during the year, more extra FFPts than Jacobs can even beat Jackson by in 8 starts. I just laid out a spreadsheet to further explore it, and the Colston combo is actually ahead until the RB3 has to make 11 starts in the year. I sincerely doubt that anyone thinks their #3 will start that often, so it seems safe to say the starter should be the guy you choose: even if you are forced to play Brandon Jackson for 10 games his team up with Colston is projected to be more advantageous to you. As I pointed out before that situation is pretty favorable to the RB3, what with Jacobs very high for a 3rd round RB, and Colston projected (FFToday) very low for a 3rd rd WR. In general we should expect this is the very best a RB3 can look against a starting wide receiver, and in almost every other case the starting WR would afford you a bigger projected advantage. That would mean the #3 RB would have to start even more games than 11 to beat out the starter you could draft instead, and that just isn't gonna happen.

 

So, what do we have? Starters for the win. You can absorb an awful lot of RB3 playtime (up to and including 10 RB3 starts in the example) and still come out ahead with a non-RB starter on your team instead of that 3rd running back you're itching to take.

[Pimptaddy 0]

So, his 97 yards and two picks in week 15 helped you in your playoff run...lol!! Hopefully you had the bye that week?!

 

 

 

Rivers was seventh in QB fantasy points last year. I think a backup QB that is top 7 is considered a good bench. My backup was better than most peoples first pick. Depth wins championships, I see it every year. Guys do not draft reliable backups and they get burnt.

[MTSkiBum 1,605]

Essentially I'm saying that I believe having Colston at WR instead of Jericho Cotchery will end up being superior to having Brandon Jacobs at RB3 instead of Brandon Jackson,

 

 

Crotchery may end up outproducing colston at the end of the year? Jackson may end up outproducing Jacobs? Last years numbers do not equal this years numbers, thats why depth is important.

[Pimptaddy 0]

I freely admit that there are potential pitfalls to having weak RB depth. However, there are also pitfalls to having weaker starters at other positions to get RB backups. The safety net concept boils down to a gain in backup value as opposed to a gain in starting WR (or other starter) value that I'm arguing for. Essentially I'm saying that I believe having Colston at WR instead of Jericho Cotchery will end up being superior to having Brandon Jacobs at RB3 instead of Brandon Jackson, and I provided math to indicate that it works. For that math to fail, you must assume you will start Jacobs more than 8 times, which is not something that I think is reasonable. If you start him 8 or less times, the starting WR and lesser backup RB are expected to do better for your team than Jacobs and the lower WR would have. The result is that even if you have problems and start Jacobs 8 times from starters being injured or bad matchups, you're still expected to be better off from having that quality WR in the 3rd rd instead - he will have given you a bigger advantage during the year, more extra FFPts than Jacobs can even beat Jackson by in 8 starts. I just laid out a spreadsheet to further explore it, and the Colston combo is actually ahead until the RB3 has to make 11 starts in the year. I sincerely doubt that anyone thinks their #3 will start that often, so it seems safe to say the starter should be the guy you choose: even if you are forced to play Brandon Jackson for 10 games his team up with Colston is projected to be more advantageous to you. As I pointed out before that situation is pretty favorable to the RB3, what with Jacobs very high for a 3rd round RB, and Colston projected (FFToday) very low for a 3rd rd WR. In general we should expect this is the very best a RB3 can look against a starting wide receiver, and in almost every other case the starting WR would afford you a bigger projected advantage. That would mean the #3 RB would have to start even more games than 11 to beat out the starter you could draft instead, and that just isn't gonna happen.

 

So, what do we have? Starters for the win. You can absorb an awful lot of RB3 playtime (up to and including 10 RB3 starts in the example) and still come out ahead with a non-RB starter on your team instead of that 3rd running back you're itching to take.

 

 

When an injury occurs you will lose. It happens every year to these teams that are built to be a mile wide and an inch deep. Injuries hit every year and I have seem many teams like yours get owned when their RB gets hurt. Also, by having more backups you cast a larger net for talent. You can target sleepers and breakout players. Alot of times a few of them will out perform the starters. Last years production is not a given to be repeated this year. This fact is lost of alot of owners. Shaun Alexander was thought to be a lock last year and he got hurt. I saw alot of people that drafted like you, rushing to trade and replace the loss. They either failed to trade or weakened themselves at other positions. All of that would have been softened if they would have just taken a good RB 2 and RB 3. Seriously, the receivers are so deep this year as most years that you don't need to go after a top 5 guy. Some of the best performers last year were sleepers and they were taken by owners that wanted depth.

[Pimptaddy 0]

Crotchery may end up outproducing colston at the end of the year? Jackson may end up outproducing Jacobs? Last years numbers do not equal this years numbers, thats why depth is important.

 

 

bingo.

[cblue 0]

RB depth is the way to go, especially when your WR2 tier is so big that you can get one in the next round.

 

I 'm not saying your approach won't work, I'm saying it is more likely to fail.

[jaxjag 43]

oh, you should have told me you just got stuck on the first sentence.

 

it was a good original post/conversation starter, but i don't agree with it. and some of the folks replying were correct that the OP wasn't entirely right, but danced around why/didn't focus on the most pertinent reasons imo.

 

we can just chalk it up to you being drunk if you want.

 

I've already chalked it up to you being drunk or just very inexperienced at FF. And, no, I didn't get hung up on the first sentence. I just thought your remarkable and highlighted point that depth was "safeguarding us against own bad predictions", which somehow was more significant than injury insurance, matchup flexibility, etc., should stand on its own.

[tt1010 0]

I freely admit that there are potential pitfalls to having weak RB depth. However, there are also pitfalls to having weaker starters at other positions to get RB backups. The safety net concept boils down to a gain in backup value as opposed to a gain in starting WR (or other starter) value that I'm arguing for. Essentially I'm saying that I believe having Colston at WR instead of Jericho Cotchery will end up being superior to having Brandon Jacobs at RB3 instead of Brandon Jackson, and I provided math to indicate that it works. For that math to fail, you must assume you will start Jacobs more than 8 times, which is not something that I think is reasonable. If you start him 8 or less times, the starting WR and lesser backup RB are expected to do better for your team than Jacobs and the lower WR would have.

 

So, what do we have? Starters for the win. You can absorb an awful lot of RB3 playtime (up to and including 10 RB3 starts in the example) and still come out ahead with a non-RB starter on your team instead of that 3rd running back you're itching to take.

 

The way I see it, your theory relies on two key aspects that are very, very rare in FF:

 

1) All of your picks either live up to or exceed their expectations. That either means you're the best player ever or you're the luckiest player ever. This never, never, never happens.

 

2) Your roster is exactly the same at the end of the season as it is at the beginning of the season. Which means you made no trades and picked up no players off of the WW. Again, how often does this happen? And how often does the champion win with the exact same roster he drafted?

 

So, yes, the math works out. But the application is flawed because it relies on the above aspects to be true, and they are not.

[steel827 2]

RB depth is crutial. WRs are a dime a dozen and that includes the top guys. Chad, sans those two weeks, was terrible. I had, in a 10 team league, Smith, TJ, Roy Williams, & Coles. I wasn't even competitive because my backs were awful. I had James, Julius & Lewis. I finally has to take Lewis out and play 4 wides and I was awful. Wides are more apt to throw in 3 clunkers in a row and then go off for a week. The week by week inconsistencies are awful. You never know which backs just aren't going to perform. There is not much of a difference between Wayne and Evans. About a point a game. Wayne goes early in the second round while Evans has been going in the 4th or 5th round.

[Fozzy4 0]

When an injury occurs you will lose. It happens every year to these teams that are built to be a mile wide and an inch deep. Injuries hit every year and I have seem many teams like yours get owned when their RB gets hurt. Also, by having more backups you cast a larger net for talent. You can target sleepers and breakout players. Alot of times a few of them will out perform the starters. Last years production is not a given to be repeated this year. This fact is lost of alot of owners. Shaun Alexander was thought to be a lock last year and he got hurt. I saw alot of people that drafted like you, rushing to trade and replace the loss. They either failed to trade or weakened themselves at other positions. All of that would have been softened if they would have just taken a good RB 2 and RB 3. Seriously, the receivers are so deep this year as most years that you don't need to go after a top 5 guy. Some of the best performers last year were sleepers and they were taken by owners that wanted depth.

 

Hmm. I wonder, did you even read my last post at all? My previous post predicts injuries TO occur, and I still do better with the starting WR as long as the #3 RB doesn't have to play 11 or more games during the year. Did you catch that? I PLANNED FOR INJURY and I am still ahead by taking the starting WR, even if a starting RB of mine goes down and my backup has to play 10 whole games. You overvalue RB3s, as do most here. They are not magical, they do not win games in and of themselves, they only produce FFPts... and those extra FFPts over the lower RB3 that they'll give you during 10 or less starts don't equal what you get during the year from a starting WR instead of the worse guy a RB3 pick forces on you. It's not a gut feeling, it's not fancy logic, it's simple math. Just because you have a better guy to plug in for injuries doesn't mean it's a winning situation for you, and I actually just proved that it absolutely isn't. You feel better about it, but you are not better. It's just that no one bothered to figure it out until now.

 

The way I see it, your theory relies on two key aspects that are very, very rare in FF:

 

1) All of your picks either live up to or exceed their expectations. That either means you're the best player ever or you're the luckiest player ever. This never, never, never happens.

 

2) Your roster is exactly the same at the end of the season as it is at the beginning of the season. Which means you made no trades and picked up no players off of the WW. Again, how often does this happen? And how often does the champion win with the exact same roster he drafted?

 

So, yes, the math works out. But the application is flawed because it relies on the above aspects to be true, and they are not.

 

1) Every theory is subject to the exact same problem. Players will and do underperform, overperform, get injured, etc. Since this is a random unpredictable element, my theory is no more subject to it than whatever theories everyone else is using. Someone earlier mentioned the confidence interval for a RB projection is smaller than for other positions. Even if true, it doesn't matter, because the miss is still equally likely to be high or low. That means the average remains the projection, making it the be-all end-all for formulating strategy. Every team can suffer ill luck, and it's not something you can hold against a particular strategy. People are trying to claim that I will lose if I have an RB injury, but I have demonstrated that I continue to earn more FFPts during a season where I have a starting WR than I would if I had drafted a RB3 early, even if that RB3 makes up to 10 starts. My detractors have yet to say anything that alters that at all. They try hard because they don't want it to be true, but in the end I have successfully argued away every contrary point that has been proposed, most especially that I suffer greatly from a RB injury. I do not suffer as greatly for that as you do for having a crappy starting receiver, and that's the plain and simple fact of it.

 

Another simple fact is that my team will be better able to absorb injuries because it averages more starting points per week than yours does to begin with. I am projected for an average of ~3.14 extra pts per week from having that starting WR(Colston). Brandon Jacobs is projected to do 4.86 pts per game better than Brandon Jackson. That would mean in the one configuration you'd average 1.86 pts more each week Jacobs starts than I would for having Brandon Jackson start. However, each week the #3 doesn't start I'd average 3.14 pts more than you because of that wide receiver.

 

There's no way to view that except as advantage to the team configuration with the starting WR instead of a RB3. It takes an awful lot of Brandon Jacobs starts to make up for the better WR, and it will be so rare you would be silly to bank on it.

 

2) How on Earth does my strategy hinge on the roster staying the same? If by that you mean "neither of us threw away Jacobs, Jackson, Colston, or Cotchery," then sure. What do you think the odds are that any of those get thrown away, though? Negligible. Any other roster changes are unimportant since we would under either configuration have the same shot at those acquisitions on the waiver wire.

[Cuse9 128]

On paper this looks fine, especially in a 14 team league. But Alexander is coming off injury. Lynch is a rookie and who knows how he'll hold up against bigger/faster NFL players and a longer season. Brandon Jackson (another rookie) could play second fiddle to Morency (or some veteran brought into GB) and Foster could easily play second fiddle to Williams. Will all these things happen? Unlikely, but you could find yourself thin very quickly.

 

I agree 100% with you. My only point was you don't have to take 3 rbs in a row to obtain good depth. Whether or not I took Jackson with the sixth pick or Thomas Jones with the third, there would be a level of concern. There is always injury risk and the risk of other players taking their job or carries/opportunities.