Shtickless - Unless Being Dead Is A Shtick Topic

Posted by robusk on 9/2/2010 2:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bret2775 on 9/2/2010 2:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by r0b0t on 9/2/2010 2:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bret2775 on 9/2/2010 1:00:00 PM (view original):
I've got my first of 3 drafts in 4 days tonight.  Can't wait!  Sadly, I'm drafting from the 12-spot in all of them.
That's not so bad.
No, not at all, but I'd have liked to draft from somewhere in the middle at least in one of them.
Any research I ever did usually had the 12th pick as the third most valuable and middle picks as the least valuable.
I think they came up with that as a study somewhere. I saw that the likelihood of winning was greatly enhanced by drafting either at the very front or the very back. I think the order was 1 2 10 3 12 but I may be wrong.
9/2/2010 2:45 PM
Posted by r0b0t on 9/2/2010 2:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by robusk on 9/2/2010 2:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by r0b0t on 9/2/2010 2:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tylermathias on 9/2/2010 1:41:00 PM (view original):
Reminds me...I need to review the setup/rules for this league I'm in with his dad and his people.  I know there's stuff that annoys me, and I have to remember to draft appropriately on Sunday.
My money league moved towards allowing a flex position on top of two RB and two WR, so I felt it made RB much more valuable. It also does two points per sack, which changes my defensive preferences.

I was in a league a few years ago where they had IDP and gave a point for every tackle and another point for solo tackles. I think me drafting MLB's early won me that league.
Well, if RB's score a lot more than WR's in that league, then yeah, that really skyrockets RB value.
The scoring settings are standard, but there is a much sharper drop-off at receiver than RB. You're better off having depth at running back than taking a flier on a reciever.
Well, yeah, I realize there is a drop off.  My point was that, if RBs score less than WRs, than because WR is deeper, it makes more sense to play a WR there.  If RBs score more, given less depth, you can play a quality guy there and he will be going against a lesser scoring position.  That is why I have gone away from flex, because if you use it you pretty much have to set up your scoring so that all the flex eligible positions score nearly the same at that depth.  I don't want to have to make 3rd WR's, 3rd RB's and 2nd TE's score the same because it screws up the balance at the first and second levels.
9/2/2010 2:50 PM
Posted by r0b0t on 9/2/2010 2:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by robusk on 9/2/2010 2:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bret2775 on 9/2/2010 2:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by r0b0t on 9/2/2010 2:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bret2775 on 9/2/2010 1:00:00 PM (view original):
I've got my first of 3 drafts in 4 days tonight.  Can't wait!  Sadly, I'm drafting from the 12-spot in all of them.
That's not so bad.
No, not at all, but I'd have liked to draft from somewhere in the middle at least in one of them.
Any research I ever did usually had the 12th pick as the third most valuable and middle picks as the least valuable.
I think they came up with that as a study somewhere. I saw that the likelihood of winning was greatly enhanced by drafting either at the very front or the very back. I think the order was 1 2 10 3 12 but I may be wrong.
I saw something similar that had it:

1
2
12
3
11
9/2/2010 2:51 PM
That would certainly make a lot more sense, and is probably what my actual order of preference would have been this year.
9/2/2010 2:55 PM
Posted by r0b0t on 9/2/2010 2:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by robusk on 9/2/2010 2:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bret2775 on 9/2/2010 2:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by r0b0t on 9/2/2010 2:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bret2775 on 9/2/2010 1:00:00 PM (view original):
I've got my first of 3 drafts in 4 days tonight.  Can't wait!  Sadly, I'm drafting from the 12-spot in all of them.
That's not so bad.
No, not at all, but I'd have liked to draft from somewhere in the middle at least in one of them.
Any research I ever did usually had the 12th pick as the third most valuable and middle picks as the least valuable.
I think they came up with that as a study somewhere. I saw that the likelihood of winning was greatly enhanced by drafting either at the very front or the very back. I think the order was 1 2 10 3 12 but I may be wrong.
Hmm...  I would like to read that if you still have a link to it.
9/2/2010 2:59 PM
Posted by robusk on 9/2/2010 2:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by r0b0t on 9/2/2010 2:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by robusk on 9/2/2010 2:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by r0b0t on 9/2/2010 2:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tylermathias on 9/2/2010 1:41:00 PM (view original):
Reminds me...I need to review the setup/rules for this league I'm in with his dad and his people.  I know there's stuff that annoys me, and I have to remember to draft appropriately on Sunday.
My money league moved towards allowing a flex position on top of two RB and two WR, so I felt it made RB much more valuable. It also does two points per sack, which changes my defensive preferences.

I was in a league a few years ago where they had IDP and gave a point for every tackle and another point for solo tackles. I think me drafting MLB's early won me that league.
Well, if RB's score a lot more than WR's in that league, then yeah, that really skyrockets RB value.
The scoring settings are standard, but there is a much sharper drop-off at receiver than RB. You're better off having depth at running back than taking a flier on a reciever.
Well, yeah, I realize there is a drop off.  My point was that, if RBs score less than WRs, than because WR is deeper, it makes more sense to play a WR there.  If RBs score more, given less depth, you can play a quality guy there and he will be going against a lesser scoring position.  That is why I have gone away from flex, because if you use it you pretty much have to set up your scoring so that all the flex eligible positions score nearly the same at that depth.  I don't want to have to make 3rd WR's, 3rd RB's and 2nd TE's score the same because it screws up the balance at the first and second levels.
I guess my point is that if I had the option of starting Knowshon Moreno or Mike Sims Walker, I'd generally assume Moreno would put up more points for me. That tier of running back is still more valuable to me than a third receiver.
9/2/2010 3:10 PM
Posted by tylermathias on 9/2/2010 2:55:00 PM (view original):
That would certainly make a lot more sense, and is probably what my actual order of preference would have been this year.

I think the reason it's so popular is that you'll be getting one of the top guys at a position at one of those spots. If you pick in the top three, you're probably getting a top running back. If you're picking in the end of the first round, you might have your pick of the quarterback and wide receiver litters. The top guys at these positions haven't had the same risk/reward factor as the guys going in the middle of the round.

Those "sure thing" running backs at the beginning of drafts don't usually fail. And the top wide receivers and quarterbacks have probably been in line with where they were drafted for the last several seasons. You get some guys that come out of nowhere, but those sleepers can be had in the middle rounds by anyone.

9/2/2010 3:15 PM
It essentially just boils down to carries for a RB being much more predictable on a week to week basis than targets are for WRs.
9/2/2010 3:15 PM
Posted by r0b0t on 9/2/2010 3:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by robusk on 9/2/2010 2:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by r0b0t on 9/2/2010 2:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by robusk on 9/2/2010 2:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by r0b0t on 9/2/2010 2:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tylermathias on 9/2/2010 1:41:00 PM (view original):
Reminds me...I need to review the setup/rules for this league I'm in with his dad and his people.  I know there's stuff that annoys me, and I have to remember to draft appropriately on Sunday.
My money league moved towards allowing a flex position on top of two RB and two WR, so I felt it made RB much more valuable. It also does two points per sack, which changes my defensive preferences.

I was in a league a few years ago where they had IDP and gave a point for every tackle and another point for solo tackles. I think me drafting MLB's early won me that league.
Well, if RB's score a lot more than WR's in that league, then yeah, that really skyrockets RB value.
The scoring settings are standard, but there is a much sharper drop-off at receiver than RB. You're better off having depth at running back than taking a flier on a reciever.
Well, yeah, I realize there is a drop off.  My point was that, if RBs score less than WRs, than because WR is deeper, it makes more sense to play a WR there.  If RBs score more, given less depth, you can play a quality guy there and he will be going against a lesser scoring position.  That is why I have gone away from flex, because if you use it you pretty much have to set up your scoring so that all the flex eligible positions score nearly the same at that depth.  I don't want to have to make 3rd WR's, 3rd RB's and 2nd TE's score the same because it screws up the balance at the first and second levels.
I guess my point is that if I had the option of starting Knowshon Moreno or Mike Sims Walker, I'd generally assume Moreno would put up more points for me. That tier of running back is still more valuable to me than a third receiver.
Well, MSW is generally what, like the 15th WR?  KM is somewhere in the 20-25 range for RBs, right?  So, I would think an well designed scoring system should have MSW score more points than KM.  Given that it is a standard scoring system though, which RBs usually own, I too would prefer KM. 

I was more trying to say that I hate the flex and traditional scoring systems.  The number 25 RB should not be drafted ahead of the number 15 WR when both require the same number of starters.
9/2/2010 3:26 PM
Moreno should produce more total yards and touchdowns, however. So in a league like I stated that allows 2 RB, 2RB, and a RB/WR position, it makes having a solid backfield much more valuable.
9/2/2010 3:30 PM
I agree that in a league like that it makes RBs more valuable.

I just don't like it is all.

I like when, for example, the first two rounds of a draft generally have the top 3 at all the offensive positions taken...  and so on.

FF is more fun to me when all positions are equally valued...  don't read "score the same amount of points."

We generally try to set it up so that the difference between the tiers at each position reflect the same difference...  we've even finally gotten to the point where defense is structured that way as well.  **** kickers though.
9/2/2010 3:35 PM
I actually just set up a player ranking sheet for an old friend of mine who is kind of lazy and is in a league similar to the one you mentioned with actually three W/R/T flex options.  I think RB's ended up making up like 45 of the top 50 in terms of value when I populated it.
9/2/2010 3:37 PM
What does it really matter?  Do you hurt the WR's feelings if they arent valued the same as the RB's?  You take the scoring system and you draft based on that.  more fun/less fun...what the **** kinda hippie are you?
9/2/2010 3:39 PM
Nice
9/2/2010 3:43 PM
I just hate the world where Justin Fargas starts and Derrick Mason sits on the waiver wire.
9/2/2010 3:44 PM
â—‚ Prev 1...883|884|885|886|887...1822 Next â–¸
Shtickless - Unless Being Dead Is A Shtick Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.