Azrael wrote:I don't think Crockett will be the vulture he had been in the past. Jordan was the hammer himself in NY.
Ehh...he carried the ball only when Curtis was tired. But when the jets got in the redzone, they gave it to the future hall of famer, my favorite martin
MCG321 wrote:There's just no way I'm taking him over someone already proven as a solid starter.
One of my biggest pet peeves in fantasy football. There's no value in drafting "proven" guys. To me, proven=safe pick. Safe picks are how you lose at fantasy football. (e.g., "some proven guys last year", Taylor, Henry, Faulk, that worked well). I don't know exactly who "proven" refers to in this case. I guess we are talking people who are not studs that have done well in the past. Martin, Dillon, R. Johnson, and Portis come to mind. I'll gladly pass on these guys and take a stud WR, QB, or maybe even TE and pick up Jordan a couple rounds later.
You have a much better chance to win if you draft as many studs as you can early and identify mid-round value that has a pretty good chance of producing the same as the guys taken earlier.
The "proven" theory led a lot of people to draft Tiki Barber and Curtis Martin in the 3rd and 4th round last year. Other players like Thomas Jones and Quentin Griffin were very popular "unproven" picks that went ahead of these other "non-studs" that presented "no value". There are both good examples and bad examples to can justify or disprove the "proven" theory.
It's fine to try to predict breakout players in the middle rounds, but what is wrong with taking "proven" players in the draft? There can be value with any player depending on where they are drafted and it doesn't matter if they are proven are not....
This type of thinking led players to rank Portis in a Redkin's uniform over Shaun Alexander in a Seattle uniform in 2004, myself included.
MCG321 wrote:There's just no way I'm taking him over someone already proven as a solid starter.
One of my biggest pet peeves in fantasy football. There's no value in drafting "proven" guys. To me, proven=safe pick. Safe picks are how you lose at fantasy football. (e.g., "some proven guys last year", Taylor, Henry, Faulk, that worked well). I don't know exactly who "proven" refers to in this case. I guess we are talking people who are not studs that have done well in the past. Martin, Dillon, R. Johnson, and Portis come to mind. I'll gladly pass on these guys and take a stud WR, QB, or maybe even TE and pick up Jordan a couple rounds later.
You have a much better chance to win if you draft as many studs as you can early and identify mid-round value that has a pretty good chance of producing the same as the guys taken earlier.
The "proven" theory led a lot of people to draft Tiki Barber and Curtis Martin in the 3rd and 4th round last year. Other players like Thomas Jones and Quentin Griffin were very popular "unproven" picks that went ahead of these other "non-studs" that presented "no value". There are both good examples and bad examples to can justify or disprove the "proven" theory.
It's fine to try to predict breakout players in the middle rounds, but what is wrong with taking "proven" players in the draft? There can be value with any player depending on where they are drafted and it doesn't matter if they are proven are not....
This type of thinking led players to rank Portis in a Redkin's uniform over Shaun Alexander in a Seattle uniform in 2004, myself included.
I think that's a pretty decent response to Azrael's post,but I think Az has some good points as well.I just think both stances are way too strict,and you have to be able to sway both ways to succeed.Yes,I said it,I'm a bi-drafter.Take the proven guy like Alexander every time,but gamble on Chris Brown or Julius Jones as well.The key to success is flexibility.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by disgruntledjetsfan » Sun Mar 06, 2005 10:38 pm 
