So is this the year to not go heavy on RB?

[Brees#1]

I look at what they're gonna do.

An indication of what they're gonna do is based on past record of consistency, which depends on the qb play or how good they are. For instance, Markus Wheaton is no upgrade without Bryant because he was exposed last year early on. But if Hurns is having back to back 100 yard games with Robinson on the field, that means he is Bortles' second option.

I am actually planning a number two receiver strategy in my draft for my second or third receiver on that I won't look at until round 5(Cobb) or 8-10(where the likes of White, Parker, Thomas are available). So I am planning on not relying on FA for one. And it's easier to do this if I wait to get a qb and get my defense in the early rounds. Only if it's Seattle though, who I would take in 5 or 6.

I think this plan makes sense
1...RB
2...WR or RB
3...Alternate of 2
4...WR or RB
5...QB or WR 2 or 3
6...Defense
7....WR 2 or 3 or QB
8....WR 3 or 4
9....TE
10...WR 4 or 5
11..TE 2
12-15......Handcuffs with a kicker thrown in

When the draft goes on in rounds 7-10 you're going to obviously find better value at WR or QB than RB. TE unless it's Gronk is not even worth drafting until later, including Eiffert who faces the challenge JT and Kelce faced in follow-up seasons. Not going anywhere near him. I would consider JT in mid rounds if he's there. So when it comes to RB if you don't get them early you are relying on unknowns late.

 

[Stomp]

Wow waiting until the 6th to grab a defense seems kinda risky

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Wow waiting until the 6th to grab a defense seems kinda risky

I laughed, but then I did draft a Defense in the 6th in dynasty 2.

 

[ehb5]

An indication of what they're gonna do is based on past record of consistency, which depends on the qb play or how good they are. For instance, Markus Wheaton is no upgrade without Bryant because he was exposed last year early on. But if Hurns is having back to back 100 yard games with Robinson on the field, that means he is Bortles' second option.

I am actually planning a number two receiver strategy in my draft for my second or third receiver on that I won't look at until round 5(Cobb) or 8-10(where the likes of White, Parker, Thomas are available). So I am planning on not relying on FA for one. And it's easier to do this if I wait to get a qb and get my defense in the early rounds. Only if it's Seattle though, who I would take in 5 or 6.

I think this plan makes sense
1...RB
2...WR or RB
3...Alternate of 2
4...WR or RB
5...QB or WR 2 or 3
6...Defense
7....WR 2 or 3 or QB
8....WR 3 or 4
9....TE
10...WR 4 or 5
11..TE 2
12-15......Handcuffs with a kicker thrown in

When the draft goes on in rounds 7-10 you're going to obviously find better value at WR or QB than RB. TE unless it's Gronk is not even worth drafting until later, including Eiffert who faces the challenge JT and Kelce faced in follow-up seasons. Not going anywhere near him. I would consider JT in mid rounds if he's there. So when it comes to RB if you don't get them early you are relying on unknowns late.

There's too much wrong with this to even bother trying to fix it.

 

[Brees#1]

How do you know what someone is gonna do when you pick them up? Give me an example?

 

[HaroldSeattle]

There's too much wrong with this to even bother trying to fix it.

Your new here ehb5, at least some what. Most of know better then to try to follow Brees#1 line of thinking. It's very....Mmm unique.

 

[averagejoe]

Brees, it could be a dangerous thing to conclude that drafting a RB first is a sure thing.
Last season, only 3 of the first 12 RB drafted (on average) actually finished in the top 12. Odds of success were much better for the WR group.

And even in the list of RB that you personally drafted (Ingram, Gore, Gurley), you said the RB that seemed to help you the most was your third RB selected - Gurley. Kind of ruins your RB-first theory if your first RB was limited by, as you mentioned, goal-line defenses.


I won't knock a guy for having a particular draft strategy but purposely identifying POSITIONS by round can be a dangerous plan. Value is more important IMO.

As for targeting the Seahawks in round 6.... ?
Well, they weren't even the top defense last season. They were 5th in standard scoring.
And believe it or not, there were 7 other defenses that finished the year stronger in the last 8 weeks.

You seem to be painting yourself in a corner because your favorites and your positions are most important.

 

[Stomp]

I think this plan makes sense
1...RB
2...WR or RB
3...Alternate of 2
4...WR or RB
5...QB or WR 2 or 3
6...Defense
7....WR 2 or 3 or QB
8....WR 3 or 4
9....TE
10...WR 4 or 5
11..TE 2
12-15......Handcuffs with a kicker thrown in

In a 14 team or smaller league this is a basic outline of how i draft if its larger than 14 the only difference is i make sure i get at least 1 RB and 1 WR in my first 3 picks and will place a little more priority on filling positions like QB, TE, and DST earlier
1 BPA
2 BPA
3 BPA
4 need unless theres a value thats to good to pass on
5 same as 4
6 WR or RB
7 WR or RB
8 BPA start looking at QB and TE here as an option
9 same as 8
10 same as 8 and 9
11 can start considering DST or at this point
12 BPA
13 BPA
14 need can start considering kicker
15 need

 

[HaroldSeattle]

In a 14 team or smaller league this is a basic outline of how i draft if its larger than 14 the only difference is i make sure i get at least 1 RB and 1 WR in my first 3 picks and will place a little more priority on filling positions like QB, TE, and DST earlier
1 BPA
2 BPA
3 BPA
4 need unless theres a value thats to good to pass on
5 same as 4
6 WR or RB
7 WR or RB
8 BPA start looking at QB and TE here as an option
9 same as 8
10 same as 8 and 9
11 can start considering DST or at this point
12 BPA
13 BPA
14 need can start considering kicker
15 need

If I draft early, I'll usually take the best RB IMO. If I draft late usually a WR. Not a set in stone kind of thing, but in my case kind of the norm. After that just depends. Obviously everybody is shooting for BPA thru out the draft.

 

[TREFF]

Im not sure I buy that. Sure sometimes injury leads to RBBC but not always and when it doesnt you can often get a top 10 or 20 RB on the waiver wire. With WR, injury doesnt lead to the same sort of production. Now I will say if nobody has gotten hurt and you need a bye week starter mid season Id rather be looking for a WR on the waiver wire than a RB. But thats because there a lot of WRs with outside CHANCES at a 3/50/1 TD stat line. But you have no idea who they are. And there might not be any that week. There are NOT dozens of quality, sustainably producing WRs on your average competitive WW. If your relying on WW adds to fill your holes (RB or WR) your most likely in a pretty bad spot.

I just want to touch on this, not to debate, but to maybe better explain my thoughts on it, since we're more or less in agreement on the overall point, just this little nuance where we're on different sides.

I said literally dozens, basically, becuase just sheer volume, there are minimum 2, most often 3 WR's on the field for all 32 teams at least 75 percent of the time, there's no chance to score, nor any chance to predict potential success, if a guy isn't a given to be on the field. .just volume alone means there are many more WR's with the opportunity to score points than there are RB's, any given week. So should we find ourselves in the unenviable position if needing to "stream" your flex, let's say there hasn't been any injuries of note to either starting RB's or any big name WR's in the NFL that week, most often it will be easier to find a WR with a reasonable chance of scoring than it will a RB, would it not?

I'm not saying is an exact science by any means, but I have more confidence, should the need arise, grabbing from a pile of Brandon LaFells, or Terrence Williams, than going after Marcel Reece, or Denard Robinson, that's all in trying to say. But I do get where your coming from

 

[ehb5]

I just want to touch on this, not to debate, but to maybe better explain my thoughts on it, since we're more or less in agreement on the overall point, just this little nuance where we're on different sides.

I said literally dozens, basically, becuase just sheer volume, there are minimum 2, most often 3 WR's on the field for all 32 teams at least 75 percent of the time, there's no chance to score, nor any chance to predict potential success, if a guy isn't a given to be on the field. .just volume alone means there are many more WR's with the opportunity to score points than there are RB's, any given week. So should we find ourselves in the unenviable position if needing to "stream" your flex, let's say there hasn't been any injuries of note to either starting RB's or any big name WR's in the NFL that week, most often it will be easier to find a WR with a reasonable chance of scoring than it will a RB, would it not?

I'm not saying is an exact science by any means, but I have more confidence, should the need arise, grabbing from a pile of Brandon LaFells, or Terrence Williams, than going after Marcel Reece, or Denard Robinson, that's all in trying to say. But I do get where your coming from

Yea I think we're on the same page. Id much rather be looking for a WR on the WW even if it a crapshoot. As you said there are more guys with a chance to score.

 

[icefreeze57]

You need RBs but this year it's more of "can I get lucky later because they're all so similar" (after the first few guys)

 

[Brees#1]

Personally it's debatable if picking late first(as the rankins now stand) on if having Nelson in second or Watkins in third is the better option. Or if having both at the expense of Lacy or Charles. Watkins stands above his third round counterparts while Nelson does not really.

Early first, I am just going to hope I am not picking third or fourth and Bell and Gurley get snatched up. However I would take Elliot over Gurley. I mean Gurley's on a unappealing offense, and has no proven handcuff. If Gurley goes down your season goes down and I don't play like that. He does have a injury history too regarding his knees. I would even take Watkins early third which makes my second round option up in the air.

 

[Brees#1]

Brees, it could be a dangerous thing to conclude that drafting a RB first is a sure thing.
Last season, only 3 of the first 12 RB drafted (on average) actually finished in the top 12. Odds of success were much better for the WR group.

And even in the list of RB that you personally drafted (Ingram, Gore, Gurley), you said the RB that seemed to help you the most was your third RB selected - Gurley. Kind of ruins your RB-first theory if your first RB was limited by, as you mentioned, goal-line defenses.


I won't knock a guy for having a particular draft strategy but purposely identifying POSITIONS by round can be a dangerous plan. Value is more important IMO.

As for targeting the Seahawks in round 6.... ?
Well, they weren't even the top defense last season. They were 5th in standard scoring.
And believe it or not, there were 7 other defenses that finished the year stronger in the last 8 weeks.

You seem to be painting yourself in a corner because your favorites and your positions are most important.

They may not be the most points but they are consistent. I mean KC I drafted last year but they did not come on until week 7. After that they went on a run, especially road games. At home they were hard to trust. I will examine the defenses soon from last year. Though a lot of defenses in the top 10 change each year. A good example? The bills, who I drafted last year. Neither Pittsburgh or KC came through for me week 16(started Pittsburgh). But of course I lost that game because of QB.

At least Seattle gives me something that isn't droppable. If I didn't draft them it would be some backend WR 2 or 3 options or RB 3. A bunch of overranked before the gems show up.

 

[averagejoe]

However I would take Elliot over Gurley. I mean Gurley's on a unappealing offense, and has no proven handcuff. If Gurley goes down your season goes down

RE: the "unappealing offense"
What RB led the league last season? Freeman (bad offense). Peterson (bad offense). Dougernaut (bad offense). Do you see a trend here? Add in Gurley, Forte and Lamar Miller who were also on bad-to-mediocre offenses. Generally the best backs to own are the ones that are the focal point of their team's offense.

RE: if Gurley goes down
Your season's in jeopardy no matter who your key player might be - if he goes down. But it also depends on the depth of your team. Not all picks pan out in the top half of the draft. I'm a firm believer that you need to limit the urge to swing for the fences in the bottom half of the draft. Ceilings might be higher. But so might risks. Adding too many of those type of players will crush your depth if you need a bench player to suddenly be productive.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Brees, it could be a dangerous thing to conclude that drafting a RB first is a sure thing.
Last season, only 3 of the first 12 RB drafted (on average) actually finished in the top 12. Odds of success were much better for the WR group.

And even in the list of RB that you personally drafted (Ingram, Gore, Gurley), you said the RB that seemed to help you the most was your third RB selected - Gurley. Kind of ruins your RB-first theory if your first RB was limited by, as you mentioned, goal-line defenses.


I won't knock a guy for having a particular draft strategy but purposely identifying POSITIONS by round can be a dangerous plan. Value is more important IMO.

As for targeting the Seahawks in round 6.... ?
Well, they weren't even the top defense last season. They were 5th in standard scoring.
And believe it or not, there were 7 other defenses that finished the year stronger in the last 8 weeks.

You seem to be painting yourself in a corner because your favorites and your positions are most important.

Dissing the Seahawks Defense? Bit your tongue, they are going to really good this year. In fact I think they'll be the best. Course I'm a homer, but I really like what they have on defense this year.

 

[averagejoe]

Dissing the Seahawks Defense? Bit your tongue, they are going to really good this year. In fact I think they'll be the best. Course I'm a homer, but I really like what they have on defense this year.

Take it from another homer whose city once had a great defense.
There is a drop-off at some point.
Coaches move on (Dan Quinn), players leave, injuries start to pile up.
Next thing you know, it seems like the D isn't clicking anymore.
Might be a hiccup, or it could be start of a tailspin.
Seahawks D have been on top for quite a few years.
Not hoping for any ill will. Just sayin'.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Take it from another homer whose city once had a great defense.
There is a drop-off at some point.
Coaches move on (Dan Quinn), players leave, injuries start to pile up.
Next thing you know, it seems like the D isn't clicking anymore.
Might be a hiccup, or it could be start of a tailspin.
Seahawks D have been on top for quite a few years.
Sorry. Just sayin'.

Mmm OK. Frankly I feel that the real DC is Pete Carroll. That D was good before Quinn and will be after he's gone. The changes they made this year has me hyped up on the D, but guess we'll have to see how it works out.

 

[averagejoe]

They still may be very fantasy relevant, but the law of averages suggests that they slip from the top eventually.
2013 - #1 top D
2014 - 4th fantasy D
2015 - 5th fantasy D

I see a trend here.
And for Brees, using a 6th round pick for D that is losing fantasy momentum is risky IMO.

Plus fantasy owners are nostalgic tho they may not admit it.
A name carries more weight sometimes than statistical facts/numbers.
Seahawks WILL be drafted early because, well, they're the Seahawks!

 

[HaroldSeattle]

They still may be very fantasy relevant, but the law of averages suggests that they slip from the top eventually.
2013 - #1 top D
2014 - 4th fantasy D
2015 - 5th fantasy D

I see a trend here.
And for Brees, using a 6th round pick for D that is losing fantasy momentum is risky IMO.

Plus fantasy owners are nostalgic tho they may not admit it.
A name carries more weight sometimes than statistical facts/numbers.
Seahawks WILL be drafted early because, well, they're the Seahawks!

They have reloaded, Guess time will tell. Not suggesting anyone should use a 6th round pick on the Seahawks D ( unless they are dead set on getting that D), but the Seahawks D will be very good this year, 2013 good IMO.