Mr. Negative comments on ADP RB's

[wilwhite]

There are always RBs late, even undrafted, that turn out to be pretty good. Last year it was Forsett, Miller, Hill, CJ Anderson, Joique, Ingram and Asiata (all in the top 16).

The problem with that strategy is if you draft guys like Sankey, Ben Tate, TRich, MJD, Ridley and Hyde.

Just like any rounds, strategy isn't as important as good player evaluation.

Strategy is just a lot easier.

 

[DALLAScornhusker]

Opportunity is the driving force behind why these guys blow up from nothing to stardom. The key is knowing about the player and evaluating them before that opportunity strikes. I get in trouble early in drafts by jumping on guys who I feel 'fell' which then throws off my strategy.

 

[TREFF]

There are always RBs late, even undrafted, that turn out to be pretty good. Last year it was Forsett, Miller, Hill, CJ Anderson, Joique, Ingram and Asiata (all in the top 16).

The problem with that strategy is if you draft guys like Sankey, Ben Tate, TRich, MJD, Ridley and Hyde.

Just like any rounds, strategy isn't as important as good player evaluation.

Strategy is just a lot easier.

Well the main problem is that of all those top 16 guys you mentioned, only Miller, Joquie, and Hill, maybe Forsett if you drafted late enough, could've even been worth a shot in the dark at draft time, the rest were BURIED in the depth chart and only got to touch the ball because of injuries or suspensions. And with Ingram and maybe even Hill, they were also gone by mid rounds of must "real" competitive leagues
can't deny that yes those things happen every year, and yes a good evaluator is going to take those stands in the dark, but for the most part that's a savvy waiver wire operator more so than a savvy drafter

 

[averagejoe]

Well keep in mind that I'm (er, I mean, Mr. Negative is) not very enthusiastic about the RB this year. And this list presented above is from ADP and not Mr. Negative's personal rankings.

Looking at the 2014 RB rankings, only 15 RB had 150 points or better.

Just to break that down a bit from standard scoring:

• Only 3 RB had over 250 points > Murray (not happening again; LeVeon; and Lynch. And while even Bell & Lynch seem like locks, there's baggage there.
• Only 3 more RB had over 200 points (but less than 249) > Forte, Foster & Lacy. The only RB I feel secure about is Lacy, and he's on the lower end of this 200 club.
• The next 2 RB are Charles and Forsett who finished with 197 and 189 points respectively. I mention this because we've only dipped 8 RB down and there's already a 100-point difference from #1.
• The next 7 RB had over 150 points but less than 189. Am I supposed to get excited over a mediocre RB that will probably be drafted in the top 3 rounds just so he can manufacture my team a pathetic 150 points?

Or... go QB/TE/WR/WR and then 7 RBs. The way RBs pan out each year that wouldn't be nuts at all.

May not be bad if you draft in the lower half of the first round.
And maybe go TE/WR/WR/RB/RB/QB ?
With so many question marks, red flags, and unproven workloads of these older backs, rookie backs, new starters and the other backs that have not impressed, it may not be a bad idea to try a new strategy this year.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Well keep in mind that I'm (er, I mean, Mr. Negative is) not very enthusiastic about the RB this year. And this list presented above is from ADP and not Mr. Negative's personal rankings.

Just to break that down a bit from standard scoring:

• Only 3 RB had over 250 points > Murray (not happening again; LeVeon; and Lynch. And while even Bell & Lynch seem like locks, there's baggage there.
• Only 3 more RB had over 200 points (but less than 249) > Forte, Foster & Lacy. The only RB I feel secure about is Lacy, and he's on the lower end of this 200 club.
• The next 2 RB are Charles and Forsett who finished with 197 and 189 points respectively. I mention this because we've only dipped 8 RB down and there's already a 100-point difference from #1.
• The next 7 RB had over 150 points but less than 189. Am I supposed to get excited over a mediocre RB that will probably be drafted in the top 3 rounds just so he can manufacture my team a pathetic 150 points?

May not be bad if you draft in the lower half of the first round.
And maybe go TE/WR/WR/RB/RB/QB ?
With so many question marks, red flags, and unproven workloads of these older backs, rookie backs, new starters and the other backs that have not impressed, it may not be a bad idea to try a new strategy this year.

The problem I see with taking a TE in the first is not a one had 180 points, not even Gronk and Gronk may not put up as many points if Brady is suspended for some games.

 

[TKOSpikes]

The problem I see with taking a TE in the first is not a one had 180 points, not even Gronk and Gronk may not put up as many points if Brady is suspended for some games.

Yes, but Gates had 12 TD and 30 points less. Graham had 40 points less. Olsen, 50 points less. So good luck with the inconsistent crapshoot with the rest.

Gronk gives you consistent points weekly at a very inconsistent position.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Yes, but Gates had 12 TD and 30 points less. Graham had 40 points less. Olsen, 50 points less. So good luck with the inconsistent crapshoot with the rest.

Gronk gives you consistent points weekly at a very inconsistent position.

Didn't we already do the math on this? You lose less points picking a lower tier TE then trying to get by with a lower end RB.

 

[TKOSpikes]

Didn't we already do the math on this? You lose less points picking a lower tier TE then trying to get by with a lower end RB.

Consistency goes a long way. Take Michael Bennett's 52 point September. 39 in three other weeks combined and then nothing for nine other games.

Gronk had three duds all year.

Much easier to find consistency at WR/RB lower tiers.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

To be more clear, if you do the math, you come up ahead picking a top tier RB and a low tier TE . Course if you picked Ap last year, then no. However if you feel confident that you can pick a RB that doesn't totally bust, then pick a RB first and a TE later. If you don't feel you can pick a RB that not a bust, go ahead and pick a TE, but in a 12 team league, your going to lose to the team that scored on RB and believe me with 12 teams, more then one will have done just fine with their pick at RB in the first.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Consistency goes a long way. Take Michael Bennett's 52 point September. 39 in three other weeks combined and then nothing for nine other games.

Gronk had three duds all year.

Much easier to find consistency at WR/RB lower tiers.

Last year...OK. Now go back three years and see if that holds up.

 

[TKOSpikes]

Last year...OK. Now go back three years and see if that holds up.

Discounting Gronk's injured seasons and replacing him with Graham, and yes, you'll find the same thing every year. A leader, about three good ones and a handful of inconsistent options. I'm pretty sure Bennett is going on three years in a row with massive Septembers and the widely spaced out production in between many duds.

I'm not talking about taking him over the top six RB and the top threeish WR, but the rest? Dam Skippy. Yhe rest average the same as Gronk, and the 20 somethings are much better options than the rest of TE squad.

Like Wil said, it's all a matter of who you take and when.

 

[TKOSpikes]

Last year...OK. Now go back three years and see if that holds up.

But since ya made me.

2013. Graham 211, Davis 156, Julius 144, Gonzo, Written and Cameron 127-129 and the rest shit.

2012. Graham, Gronk and Gonzo in the 150-135 range. Miller, Written and Olsen hanging on and the rest shit.

 

[TREFF]

But since ya made me.

2013. Graham 211, Davis 156, Julius 144, Gonzo, Written and Cameron 127-129 and the rest shit.

2012. Graham, Gronk and Gonzo in the 150-135 range. Miller, Written and Olsen hanging on and the rest shit.

And back even further is was Gronk, Graham...a big gap. .Gates..and crap

Further still. .Gates and Witten..and crap

Even further. .Shannon Sharpe..and crap

TE has been that way for a LONG time, the times it isn't are the exceptions

 

[Chef99]

I love this thread already, but tell the truth @averagejoe :

Is this Mr. Negative?

 

[HaroldSeattle]

But since ya made me.

2013. Graham 211, Davis 156, Julius 144, Gonzo, Written and Cameron 127-129 and the rest shit.

2012. Graham, Gronk and Gonzo in the 150-135 range. Miller, Written and Olsen hanging on and the rest shit.

Excellent. I see no Gronk in 2013 and where was Graham last year? Let me tell you 138 big ones. You call that consistent? Let me pick a RB that I think has been consistent . Try M. Lynch and tell me how he stacks up. I haven't figured out how to go past last year for FF scoring leaders, but I'm pretty sure Lynch will stack up just fine.

 

[TKOSpikes]

Excellent. I see no Gronk in 2013 and where was Graham last year? Let me tell you 138 big ones. You call that consistent? Let me pick a RB that I think has been consistent . Try M. Lynch and tell me how he stacks up. I haven't figured out how to go past last year for FF scoring leaders, but I'm pretty sure Lynch will stack up just fine.

I'm trying to find where I said anything about Lynch. Except for the part where I said I wouldn't take Gronk over the TOP SIX RB or top threeish WR, you won't find anything.

I'm talking about the back end of the first.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

I'm trying to find where I said anything about Lynch. Except for the part where I said I wouldn't take Gronk over the TOP SIX RB or top threeish WR, you won't find anything.

I'm talking about the back end of the first.

No you said nothing about Lynch. We were talking about consistency. Just the last two years alone you can see that doesn't hold up for the top two TEs, so I wanted to show you a RB that has been more consist, scored way more points and anyone that took Lynch the last two years vs your pick of TE , the team picking Lynch comes out ahead.

When it comes to players, you can never be sure they won't get hurt or have a off year. That includes TEs or RBs and that's my point.

 

[averagejoe]

@TKOSpikes can I ask where you're extracting the fantasy points information?

The TE deal may still not be too bad, Harold. Not sure I have the guts to pull it off come draft time. But there are plenty of WR that are consistent - but only a handful of RB (15 to be exact), and even less TE.

 

[TKOSpikes]

No you said nothing about Lynch. We were talking about consistency. Just the last two years alone you can see that doesn't hold up for the top two TEs, so I wanted to show you a RB that has been more consist, scored way more points and anyone that took Lynch the last two years vs your pick of TE , the team picking Lynch comes out ahead.

When it comes to players, you can never be sure they won't get hurt or have a off year. That includes TEs or RBs and that's my point.

Well you can't be more wrong and generalizing. There are just as many Gronk championships as Lynch ones. It's all about who else you take. I'm not gonna get into a debate about a top tier RB1 vs any position.

 

[TKOSpikes]

@TKOSpikes can I ask where you're extracting the fantasy points information?

The TE deal may still not be too bad, Harold. Not sure I have the guts to pull it off come draft time. But there are plenty of WR that are consistent - but only a handful of RB (15 to be exact), and even less TE.

Fantrax