Catch that 'WR's First' article on Rotoworld?

[Mr.Joshua]

http://blogs.rotoworld.com/Fantasy_Foot ... _early.php

Interesting points, especially for me picking at the turn with 12 and 13. Starting a team with 2 out of Fitz, AJ or Calvin is enticing but the flip side is of course my rb options at 36 and 37. Please post your thoughts.....

Also, If I have the choice of the first 2 wr's, would it be that much of a streach to pass on Fitz and go with the other 2? I just feel that Fitz is tied too heavily to who his qb is. AJ is as well to some extent. I think Calvin would be my number 1 due to his stats nomatter who is lined up behind him.....thanks

[Free Bagel]

This comes up pretty much every year here.

I think the biggest mistake people make when talking and mocking about this strategy is picking RBs in rounds 3-4 and then moving on as normal. One thing you have to realize going into this is that those 3rd/4th round RBs have an enormous bust rate, so when I see people picking up a pair of RBs in rounds 3-4 and then moving on to draft a QB, TE, or WR3 after that it makes me cringe. With those super high bust rates you're buying into at RB, you need to take one in at least rounds 3, 4, 5, AND 6. People need to understand that they lose the luxury of filling out their roster with those 5th and 6th rounders.

Another common fallacy is that a pair of early WRs will be more reliable than a pair of early RBs, yet every single year we've talked about this the consensus top 2 WRs have not produced as such, and we're always talking about a different 2 the next year.

[flotsamnjetsam]

This comes up pretty much every year here.

I think the biggest mistake people make when talking and mocking about this strategy is picking RBs in rounds 3-4 and then moving on as normal. One thing you have to realize going into this is that those 3rd/4th round RBs have an enormous bust rate, so when I see people picking up a pair of RBs in rounds 3-4 and then moving on to draft a QB, TE, or WR3 after that it makes me cringe. With those super high bust rates you're buying into at RB, you need to take one in at least rounds 3, 4, 5, AND 6. People need to understand that they lose the luxury of filling out their roster with those 5th and 6th rounders.

Another common fallacy is that a pair of early WRs will be more reliable than a pair of early RBs, yet every single year we've talked about this the consensus top 2 WRs have not produced as such, and we're always talking about a different 2 the next year.

I totally agree with Bagel. I think that not picking at least 1 RB in the 1st 2 rounds is crazy. I never have a set draft strategy, but I'll always take a RB in round 1. Then I'll have 3 by the 4th, 5th round the latest. Obviously you can win going WR/WR, but I think your chances get slimmer. You have almost no room for error with the RB's you pick in the 3rd, 4th, and later rounds (like FB said). During the season, it's pretty rare to find a RB on the WW unless a starter gets injured and the backup went undrafted. WR's are a lot easier to find on the WW. FB mentioned that WR's are inconsistent year to year. I hate their inconsistency week to week. It drives me crazy during the season. I'll stick with the old strategy of drafting RB's early & often. I hope this trend trickles into my redraft $$$ league...more RB's for me!

[dgan]

I agree with these guys. Two major problems with that article:

First, it assumes that everyone in your league will take the best value available. We all know that doesn't happen...3/4 of your league will take the best RB available, even if it could be considered a reach and there is better value at other positions. This means by the time you pick at 24, there will probably be 20 RBs off the board. Most people look at their draft board and say RBs 12-18 are 3rd round value and they assume that is who they'll get. Nope. You're going to get a much lower crop of RBs than what you anticipated, putting you in that position where there is even better value elsewhere than there was at pick 12.

Second, his article is fundamentally flawed. He said there were a bunch of WRs at the top. Then why draft them right away? You want to pick the last players available in a tier, not the first. Half those WRs in that top tier are going to be available to you at pick 24, anyway, so I don't understand why he is so eager to use a first round pick on them.

The only way I would adopt such a strategy is if your scoring structure gave an elite status to a couple of WRs, or if your league owners do not draft RBs the way most do.

[Cowboys 4 life]

It is absolutely crucial to draft a RB in one if not both of the first 2 rounds. I don't care what position you have. Not drafting a RB early is almost certain doom. Sure drafting Brady and Moss in the first 2 rounds a few years ago might have been better than grabbing a RB but how many times does that happen. I would consider Fitz late first then follow up with the best RB in RD 2 but I prefer just grabbing a RB in Rd 1. Teams typically have 1 maybe 2 RB's who can produce enough to warrant a spot vs 2- rarely 3 WR's who are productive. The numbers just make sense to grab a RB in the first 2 rounds or end up with 2 guys like this:
24- Derrick Ward
25- Ryan Grant
26- Knowshon Moreno
27- Willie Parker
28- Jamal Lewis
29- Donald Brown
30- Shonn Green
31- Rashard Mendenhall
32- Larry Johnson

The thing about FFball is you can build your team how you want but you better be able to act on the fly because you really have no idea what is going to happen in a draft. If you choose to go WR WR there then you will likely have the best WR corp in your league but sacrafice tremendously at other positions. If you go WR RB then you will have some balance but not be great at any 1 of the 2 positions. If you go RB RB you still have a chance to recover at WR in the 3rd and 4th.

Take this Mock viewtopic.php?t=433597 Its early but proves the point.

Look at the 11th and 12th picks and their decisions. What you see is the guy who went RB RB still was able to nab 2 possible top 10 WR's with the 3rd and 4th rounder. The guy who grabbed Fitz was forced to grat Pierre and Morris as his other 2 backs I like Pierres upside alot but he does carry some risk and Morris is not going to win you any leagues.

Bottom line is grab a RB with one of those 2 picks.

[moochman]

Depending on league settings, I prefer PPR, I go against the grain here. I look at it this way, it is very difficult in a 12 team league to win from the 12-hole. I feel the best way to do that is to have as much elite level talent as you can get and picking the best two WRs, I would favor a Moss and Fitz combo. Should Brady not get injured again, I would expect Moss to re-emerge as a top WR, and Fitz is sure to get 100 grabs and +10 TDs. Those numbers will out-perform your opponants WRs weekly. The rest of the draft is dicey, but it would be if you were to grab a RB in the first two rounds too. By the time the draft gets back to you the elite WRs will be gone.
I would be okay with starting out my season with Moss, Fitz, and two of Bush, Grant, K Smith, J Stew, Addia, McFaddy. It always seems to me that when you go WR/WR it pressures other owners to take a WR and hope a RB they have their eye on falls back down to them. It's a gamble, but drafting at 12 calls for unconventional drafting.

[Mr.Joshua]

it is 1 ppr if that changes anything...thanks for the solid replys

[flotsamnjetsam]

it is 1 ppr if that changes anything...thanks for the solid replys

That upgrades the WR's for sure, but it upgrades ALL the WR's because their job is to catch passes. It also upgrades the RB's that are great at catching passes. Those are very hard to find. I'd still never pick a WR in the 1st round, and I'd still go RB's early & often.


That's one of the things that's so great about FF. There is no set strategy or way to win. You can draft K/D in the 1st 2 rounds and still win. You'd have to nail just about every draft pick after that and get lucky with WW adds, but it's possible.

[My team is injured]

I agree with moochman with the same caveat of my response being based on PPR scoring. Similar topics come up every year and I lean more towards the drafting WRs high side than most though I don't agree with any blanket, non-dynamic draft strategy.

For each draft spot, I tend to draft based on what I predict to be the point differential from who is available to who I will be able to get later at that position as well as how likely they are to obtain my predicted point totals. After the first X (generally around 5-10) RBs are taken in a given year, there is a group of WRs who I then value above the next tier of RBs. Due to the typical tendencies of drafters to target RBs early, WRs from this group are generally available during and even after this next tier of RBs are being drafted which usually results in me drafting multiple wide receivers high, often enough before I pick up a 2nd RB.

I haven't done any predictions or whatnot for this year yet so I can't really comment on this upcoming season in particular but I'd expect things to be similar with my valuing WRs like fitz, randy, and andre ahead of RBs like jacobs and ronnie brown.

I also think that in most PPR leagues, if you get a top RB (say Adrian Peterson) it often ends up being the case that your next 2 picks shouldn't be RBs as other positions (almost always WR) will offer more value. It also becomes that much less of a need for a 2nd RB as you already have the RB1 slot penciled in for the year (ie. no real chance of benching ADP though he could of course get injured) and just need one out of a hodgepodge of RBs to pan out for the RB2 slot.

[Free Bagel]

If you choose to go WR WR there then you will likely have the best WR corp in your league but sacrafice tremendously at other positions.

See, I'm not even confident that you'll end up with the best WR corp. If you take WRs in the 1st and 2nd, now you're going to look at your team as being set at WR. You'll spend your next large handful of picks on RBs, and then pick up a QB and TE and it might be round 9 or 10 before you finally grab your WR3. So then if (or in recent years...when) one of those two WRs ends up not producing as well you most likely have the worst depth at WR in the league to replace him with.

Here are the finishes of the top two WRs each year (I'm picking the top two based on the two best scoring WRs the year prior):

2007 - Moss and Owens (WR9 and WR10)
2006 - Harrison and Owens (WR2 and WR100)
2005 - Smith and Fitzgerald (WR8 and WR24)
2004 - Moose and Walker (WR37 and WR155)
2003 - Moss and Holt (WR19 and WR7)
2002: Harrison and Owens(WR5 and WR12)

As you can see, even if you had used your first two picks on the top two WRs each of the last 6 years you would have only ended up with a grand total of two top 5 WRs and five top 10 WRs out of those 12 picks, and you never would have ended up with WR1.

Now, you can argue that a RB list would look just as bad, and you'd be right, but if you draft running backs 1st and 2nd and only get one good RB out of it you're still OK, if you draft WRs 1st and 2nd you need them both to be great, which is very unlikely. Now stack on top of that that you need to strike gold with some high bust rate RBs in the middle rounds and you can see the poor odds piling on top of other poor odds.