So after hearing some podcasts

[Brees#1]

It appears no RB is safe to draft in round 3. Patterson should not be drafted before round 5 because some think his ADP is too high for what he will do. The last two years I have taken chances on Fred Jackson, McFadden, and MJD and I do not want to draft a rb who is not a sure bet to outproduce a wide receiver in that range. I will only take the chance on Stacy and handcuff him with Mason if he is there but I have thought of getting him in early second over Marshall, who I like more than Bryant and Green this year.

 

[TREFF]

It appears no RB is safe to draft in round 3. Patterson should not be drafted before round 5 because some think his ADP is too high for what he will do. The last two years I have taken chances on Fred Jackson, McFadden, and MJD and I do not want to draft a rb who is not a sure bet to outproduce a wide receiver in that range. I will only take the chance on Stacy and handcuff him with Mason if he is there but I have thought of getting him in early second over Marshall, who I like more than Bryant and Green this year.

the first two lines of your post tells you all you need to know about these so called experts you've just listened to. To put it nicely, they're intellectually challenged.

What they're truly trying to do, is pick a couple guys, Patterson in this example, and hope they have a crap year, so that they can then go out and say, "Hey we told you! See how great we are? Now sign up for our premium service for even more in depth analysis and answers."
They never bother to mention the 80% of guys they're wrong about.

 

[Brees#1]

This was FF toolbox as far as Patterson is concerned. They also said the lions are splitting carries because of Lomardi. It was a early June podcast but either they haven't made any new ones or Tune-In isn't making them available. It was Fantasy Guru who said Spiller is not worth drafting because he can't carry the load(2011?) and has to be in a timeshare. Then someone else said Ellington is too small to be a 20 carry back and could get hurt. Thats three of the fivebacks that will be drafted in round 3. I already do not want Matthews.

 

[TREFF]

This was FF toolbox as far as Patterson is concerned. They also said the lions are splitting carries because of Lomardi. It was a early June podcast but either they haven't made any new ones or Tune-In isn't making them available. It was Fantasy Guru who said Spiller is not worth drafting because he can't carry the load(2011?) and has to be in a timeshare. Then someone else said Ellington is too small to be a 20 carry back and could get hurt. Thats three of the fivebacks that will be drafted in round 3. I already do not want Matthews.

well they got the Lions part right..they will be splitting carries, but carries plus catches plus dynamic ability make Bush worthy in the that round, or thereabouts. You've just gotta take all that with a grain of salt, and bottom line, you go with your gut, at least you'll have no regrets that way. Or at minimum, I guess, no one to blame but yourself.

 

[averagejoe]

My sister was a rebellious teenager. When she asked for advice, if she didn't like the advice that she was getting, she kept asking until she got the advice she liked.

Steering this to fantasy football, many times, we already have it in our heads who we want to draft. And maybe when we find an expert that also likes "our guy," this gives us some validation. If podcasts and cyber rankings don't have our players ranked high enough, we start to reason that their advice is questionable.

No one can get it right. There's a site that tracks the experts and even the best ones hit on about 65%. And that's the good ones. So most advice (either on podcasts or on cyber rankings) may only have the potential to be slightly above 50% accurate when all is said and done in December.

I like finding information that uses statistics. But even that can be a trap if we focus on positive stats, and not the negative ones. Like I said, sometimes we're our own worst enemy when it comes to FF. Because we want to be right. Sometimes more right than the experts.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Going to hijack this thread,


I was listening on the fantasy sports channel on Sirius XM, and they are pushing the strategy of punting RBs... Yes that is punting RBs... What this means, is that a team avoids picking RBs early on in the draft, and gets the lower end RBs and RBs who may become big...

There reasoning is valid, but I wanted to know what you guys think about the strategy of punting RBs...


The reasons they gave on why to do it:
1. RBs get hurt much more often, and are likely to miss more games than any other fantasy position.
2. Streaming RBs is easier than streaming WR, since game to game WRs are too inconsistent... You know which RBs are going to get the carries before the game...
3. **FOR AUCTIONS** RBs go for the most money, without going for a RB you can afford more everything else...

 

[TREFF]

Going to hijack this thread,


I was listening on the fantasy sports channel on Sirius XM, and they are pushing the strategy of punting RBs... Yes that is punting RBs... What this means, is that a team avoids picking RBs early on in the draft, and gets the lower end RBs and RBs who may become big...

There reasoning is valid, but I wanted to know what you guys think about the strategy of punting RBs...


The reasons they gave on why to do it:
1. RBs get hurt much more often, and are likely to miss more games than any other fantasy position.
2. Streaming RBs is easier than streaming WR, since game to game WRs are too inconsistent... You know which RBs are going to get the carries before the game...
3. **FOR AUCTIONS** RBs go for the most money, without going for a RB you can afford more everything else...

I've tried it with limited success. Made the playoffs easily, but got crushed by teams with the more consistent solid RB's. I'm a much bigger subscriber to getting one stud RB, then going with WR's, and so on. . Filling up the RB's in the middle rounds. . Won more than a couple titles that way.

Also, I strongly disagree with the reasoning that streaming RB's is easier. If you know who is getting the carries, so do the other owners, and your chances of getting that RB more than onc, maybe twice, a year off waivers are slim and none. Everyone is always looking to grab that next RB in line, it's not like you get to pick and choose every week.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I've tried it with limited success. Made the playoffs easily, but got crushed by teams with the more consistent solid RB's. I'm a much bigger subscriber to getting one stud RB, then going with WR's, and so on. . Filling up the RB's in the middle rounds. . Won more than a couple titles that way.

Also, I strongly disagree with the reasoning that streaming RB's is easier. If you know who is getting the carries, so do the other owners, and your chances of getting that RB more than onc, maybe twice, a year off waivers are slim and none. Everyone is always looking to grab that next RB in line, it's not like you get to pick and choose every week.

I agree except for these 2 things...

1. You are more likely to own that player already- If you are solid everywhere, you don't need to be deep there too...

2. Active ownership is necessary for all strategies to be successful, so I don't see this strategy being hurt because of that...

 

[wilwhite]

I always thought "streaming" meant playing guys off waivers based on matchup - like you can do with QBs, TEs and DSTs because only 18-24 of any of those are owned so there are still otherwise sub-par guys you can grab and play for a week.

For RBs, that kind of streaming is hopeless - out of maybe 40 RBs who might get any kind of reasonable touches in a week, 45 are going to be owned. (So you have -5 to pick from, which makes it really hard.)

Maybe by "streaming" Milk meant drafting low-end RBs in the first place and playing them based on matchup, and thereby allowing you to focus on other positions early.

 

[SmokingMonkey]

Going to hijack this thread,


I was listening on the fantasy sports channel on Sirius XM, and they are pushing the strategy of punting RBs... Yes that is punting RBs... What this means, is that a team avoids picking RBs early on in the draft, and gets the lower end RBs and RBs who may become big...

There reasoning is valid, but I wanted to know what you guys think about the strategy of punting RBs...


The reasons they gave on why to do it:
1. RBs get hurt much more often, and are likely to miss more games than any other fantasy position.
2. Streaming RBs is easier than streaming WR, since game to game WRs are too inconsistent... You know which RBs are going to get the carries before the game...
3. **FOR AUCTIONS** RBs go for the most money, without going for a RB you can afford more everything else...

That's OK, I'll stick to building quality depth at BOTH WR and RB. Can't see the value of completely ignoring one for a few rounds, no matter what part of the draft. There's almost always a guy on the board that I value more than the others.

Typically, even on my heaviest RB teams, I'm only carrying about 5. This strategy seems like you'd be in a perpetual cycle of not knowing which RBs to keep stashed on your roster and which injury replacement guy you should be gunning for. Take last year for an example - how many owners jumped ship on guys like Bell, Vereen, Andre Brown, etc in the beginning of the year? How many owners drafted Stacy as a sleeper, only to drop him since he didn't really sniff the field in the first 5 games?

When it comes to my teams, I have to try to have 1 stud RB just for the consistency. Then like Treff said, go ahead and stock up on the middle round guys after you get a few top notch WRs. But to ignore RB until round 4 or 5, and then trying to build a stable of potentially startable RBs with what's left seems like a fool's errand.

I love it when people pass up RBs, thinking that they can grab them later, then I end up with 2-3 bench RBs that are better than their RB2. That's usually when I r*pe and pillage in trades.

 

[SmokingMonkey]

I always thought "streaming" meant playing guys off waivers based on matchup - like you can do with QBs, TEs and DSTs because only 18-24 of any of those are owned so there are still otherwise sub-par guys you can grab and play for a week.

For RBs, that kind of streaming is hopeless - out of maybe 40 RBs who might get any kind of reasonable touches in a week, 45 are going to be owned. (So you have -5 to pick from, which makes it really hard.)

Maybe by "streaming" Milk meant drafting low-end RBs in the first place and playing them based on matchup, and thereby allowing you to focus on other positions early.

Even so, I would think the the bench space you would have to commit to that strategy just for RBs would cripple your WR depth. I guess a lot of it depends on the league set up/scoring format, but I would think you would need at the absolute least, 4 potential RBs to employ that strategy, and I'm not sure there will be capable players left if you are grabbing all the good WRs early, someone else will grab all the good RBs early.

At least that's the case in my experiences in drafts.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I always thought "streaming" meant playing guys off waivers based on matchup - like you can do with QBs, TEs and DSTs because only 18-24 of any of those are owned so there are still otherwise sub-par guys you can grab and play for a week.

For RBs, that kind of streaming is hopeless - out of maybe 40 RBs who might get any kind of reasonable touches in a week, 45 are going to be owned. (So you have -5 to pick from, which makes it really hard.)

Maybe by "streaming" Milk meant drafting low-end RBs in the first place and playing them based on matchup, and thereby allowing you to focus on other positions early.

Thanks Wil. That is what was meant by streaming.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Even so, I would think the the bench space you would have to commit to that strategy just for RBs would cripple your WR depth. I guess a lot of it depends on the league set up/scoring format, but I would think you would need at the absolute least, 4 potential RBs to employ that strategy, and I'm not sure there will be capable players left if you are grabbing all the good WRs early, someone else will grab all the good RBs early.

At least that's the case in my experiences in drafts.

The more solid you are elsewhere the less important depth is. So you can have depth someplace else.

I am not saying I like the strategy. But when they were talking about it it did all make sense.

 

[wilwhite]

Well, if somebody forced me to draft according to ADP, I would definitely go QB/WR/WR/WR/RB/RB/RB/RB/RB/TE.

 

[tlance]

Well, if somebody forced me to draft according to ADP, I would definitely go QB/WR/WR/WR/RB/RB/RB/RB/RB/TE.

Might actually be the play from 12.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Well, if somebody forced me to draft according to ADP, I would definitely go QB/WR/WR/WR/RB/RB/RB/RB/RB/TE.

If you are going to do the strategy, i dont like not having a top 5 TE...

 

[wilwhite]

Meh. The dropoff from the fifth TE to the 10th isn't significant. The first two or three make a difference, but then you gotta start QB/TE/WR/WR or QB/WR/TE/WR.

 

[TREFF]

Meh. The dropoff from the fifth TE to the 10th isn't significant. The first two or three make a difference, but then you gotta start QB/TE/WR/WR or QB/WR/TE/WR.

You could always just take Ebron in the last round and have the #1 TE.

End sarcasm

 

[Brees#1]

Well, if somebody forced me to draft according to ADP, I would definitely go QB/WR/WR/WR/RB/RB/RB/RB/RB/TE.

I actually did this for two years in 2009/2010 but went TE in fourth and RB next two rounds. In 2009 I had the highest scoring team in three of my five leagues. I won two championships and one of them being using this strategy. I had the top seed(and purposely tanked my top seed in another league because I was facing the guy the next round no matter what. I let him win division) in two leagues. The weakest team I had I actually made it to the title game where I then lost. I only went one and done in one of them and it was one of my two Fox Sports leagues(the other being runner-up). In my favorite league at then CBS I was also runner-up but I did not start Grant against Seattle or Jennings(both highly inconsistent that year). I picked up a combo of these RB free agents:RWill, Mendenhall, McCoy. And for receivers I sought after Meachem and Wallace. This year's Wallace could be Markus Wheaton btw as Pittsburgh does not have the no.2 as shored up. I know certainly DHB is not gonna produce and Moore is a no.3 at best. In 2010 I tried this same strategy in three of four leagues but missed the playoffs in one of those due to injuries. And struggled early in another because Brady, DJac, and Davis were all inconsistent starting out and Moss ended up traded and fell completely off the radar. Oh, and DJac was in the two 09 championship leagues. I went 1 and done again with the third of the leagues I went QB/WR/WR/TE. and the league I settled for Schaub as starting qb and then Cassel I ended up being runner up again at Fox Sports in the second league(like 09). I made some trades that year however, I traded Austin and Steve Smith(giants) for Forte and something else(Barber I think). I have not done that strategy though the last three years in my league I run. It has been RB all three years. That QB/WR/TE strategy may not work as well with quality of backs in the fifth round. But then again........Rice, Vereen, Sankey, MJD, Miller have that Grant/TJones potential.