dgan wrote: mattb47 wrote:
BigBlue2005 wrote:I'm sorry I failed to mention that this strategy was designed for a 10 team league not a 12 team league. So the rankings would work, just not in a 12 team league. Sorry for the confusion.
With 12 team leagues really being the standard...I guess I fail to see why you would want to put in all that time to do a big thought out draft strategy for a much less common 10 team league? It really will fail to apply in most all competitive leagues which they have on this site.
I'm in a 10 team league, so I appreciate the effort you put into it.
Although, I also have reservations. It is the age old controversy of trying to debunk the RB heavy theories. Yes, more RBs bust, so why draft one? Because more RBs bust! What you fail to address in your analysis is that just as many of those 3rd round RBs are going to bust. So even if I take RBs in 3 and 4, one or both may not be worth a crap by season's end. Now I'm relying on those late round RBs? Eww...season ender, right there.
That is why the more people talk about the bust rate of RBs, the more you strengthen the argument to take at least one in the first two rounds. Then, based on your comfort level with that pick, take at least one more in the next two rounds.
Here is the basic issue with any 'No RB' theory. You can always find a serviceable WR if your picks don't work out. You cannot always find even a serviceable, much less regularly productive, RB later on. Consider that of the 32 NFL teams, all the starters, RBBC combos, and half the good backups go drafted. The only ones left are the nobody RBs that happen to come out of nowhere. And unless you are first on the waiver wire or your injuries happen just at the right time, you have a slim chance of landing the 1 or 2 RBs that do that. Your other options are seldom used third down backs and fullbacks who may score a TD a couple times per year.
Contrast that to WR, where nearly every NFL team has 3 serviceable WRs. That's 80 - 90 WRs that you could stick in your lineup and at least know they'll see the field. A couple dozen of those sit on the waiver wire all year long.
So, I like the theory if I knew everyone else was going to go WR and QB heavy. But in most leagues they won't. In my league, for instance, you can get a top 10 WR every year in the 3rd round and a top 10 QB in the 4th or sometimes even 5th. Why should I take a big name WR two rounds before picking a slightly lesser one?
Thanks for the effort...not buying it. Glad it works for you, though...every league is different, so more power to ya.
Thanks for the response and your explanation. Maybe I didn't explain this well enough because I don't think you got the idea I was trying to put out there.
My whole strategy around WR/WR is based on the idea that a team that has a full roster of consistent players is going to outperform over a full season a team that has some great players and some not so great players.
My strategy isn't necessarily centered around drafting 2 WR's first. It's just that by drafting 2 WR's first you are filling the position that is going to score you the 2nd most points on your team with consistent point producers. The idea is that RBs in round 3-7 may be just as big a bust as round 1 or 2 but you are not taking as big of a risk because you are not using your top 2 picks for a possible bust.
In all the years I have been playing fantasy football I have never had all 4 of my rbs in round 3-7 be busts on me. If you do your homework you will be able to grab decent players.
The main point I am trying to stress in this whole WR/WR strategy is that with it, you usually get more points from your team overall and those points come on a more consistent basis.
When you have to use a serviceable WR you end up having a guy whos point totals will look something like this 5 10 2 13 12 2 1 12
Now imagine you have a high 3rd or low 2nd tier RB. Not the best guy in the world, but he will get you 15 carries a game. You are not even guaranteed a single catch from a 3rd tier WR in a game. That is why they are so unstable. But a 3rd tier RB will still get 15 carries a game. That translates into 15 chances for a TD, 15 chances to break out on a play for a large yardage gain, and overall that means that the 3rd tier RB is going to get you more points and get them consistently than a 3rd tier WR.
Not to mention the fact that WR's suffer far less injuries than RBs do.
Here is a full team example of what I am saying. One will be the typical RB RB the other a WR/WR
------------------Team 1---------------Team 2
Now team 1 will be luckly if they have 1 WR they can play every week and the second WR will be so inconsistent that it will have to be switched out for matchups. The problem is no WR is guaranteed to see the ball. So some weeks the WR you start will get you next to nothing, which will cost you games. Team 2 on the other hand has 2 top WRs which will nearly always score above average points. On the RB side team 2 has 2 RBs who will touch the ball 15 times. So the question becomes, who would you rather have as your 3rd tier scorers, a WR that may get some catches or may not, or a goal like RB like lendale white who in every game he plays will get the chance for a td and 15 carries?
This is simply a game of math. A team that scores consistent points by having all stable scoring positions is going to be much less likely to lose games over the season than a team that has positions that are unstable.
Team 1 may have scores through the season that look like the following
70 99 65 115 75 104 80 90 60 110 - These scores reflect the fact that while team 1 has 2 stable running backs ( and this isn't even counting the fact that top RBs are more often busts than top wrs and also that top RBs stand a bigger chance of getting injured than top WRs) that the WRs are very unstable and inconsistent exploding one week and doing nothing the next.
Team 2 would have scores that were more stable due to the RBs always getting around 15 carries and the WRs being very stable. Team 2 would look more like this.
84 100 80 99 74 81 94 78 100 87 - These scores reflect a team that is consistent at every position in scoring with no unstable players. The result is a win percentage around 75-80% as opposed to team 1 which will be closer to 55-65%.
Team 1 has a higher ceiling points wise because if those 3rd tier wrs do come up big they will win pretty much automatically with their stud rbs. But with the high ceiling comes a deep floor as well because 2 out of every 3 times those tier 3 wrs are either going to have below average games or hardly any points at all.
Team 2 on the other hand doesn't have the kind of high ceiling team 1 does, but it also doesn't have a low floor either because those 2 RBs team 2 is using are guaranteed 15 carries a game and the 2 stud WRs will almost always come through with roughly 3 out of every 4 games being above average. It's the ability to make all positions stable consistent producers of points that makes a team win more of its overall games. That is the theory I have created for myself and with all honesty I have never had a season where my record was anything worse than 9-7 and have won 2 out of the last 4 years with a 12-4 record.