Now that the drafts are over I can comment on the priest-LJ debate. I grabbed him in the 3rd rd in tonight's Gekko draft.
The top 2 KC RBs scored a combined 32 ppg (481 total) last yr for KC thru wk 16. This included an 8 TD game, unlikely to happen again, and the OL is probably not quite as strong this yr. Cut the 8TD game in half plus another 5% off the top and the top 2 RBs score 29 ppg this yr.
The average beginning NFL feature back missed 2.5 games last yr. Priest is higher than average risk, he missed 7 last yr thru week 16. Let's say over/under is he misses 5 this yr.
If Priest gets 2/3rds of the carries until injured, he scores 19 ppg while LJ scores 10 PPG. For the 5 games in which LJ is the starter he scores 22.5 PPG (less sharing with the #3).
Thus for the season:
Priest scores 190
LJ scores 210
LJ is also more likely to be around for the fantasy playoffs, further boosting his relative value.
Bottom line:
(1) They combine for close to 400 pts, not 500 as several have argued.
(2) LJ has more value than Priest. You heard it here first!
(3) Draft value - LJ should be right there with the other early to mid 3rd rd RBs, while Priest should go late 3rd/ early 4th, and finally ...
(4) ... anyone using a 1st and 3rd/4th rd pick to take both has seriously handicapped themselves. The best they can hope for is that Priest goes down before opening day allowing LJ to have a monster scoring season, averaging 22.5 ppg while using 1 roster spot, rather than averaging 29 ppg with 2 roster spots (a weak 6.5 incremental pts from the flex).
Gekko, 3INTBOY, take your best shot ...
[ September 07, 2005, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
Priest & LJ
-
King of Queens
- Posts: 5262
- Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:00 pm
Priest & LJ
Originally posted by KJ Duke:
(4) ... anyone using a 1st and 3rd/4th rd pick to take both has seriously handicapped themselves. The best they can hope for is that Priest goes down before opening day allowing LJ to have a monster scoring season, averaging 22.5 ppg while using 1 roster spot, rather than averaging 29 ppg with 2 roster spots (a weak 6.5 incremental pts from the flex).Pretty much what I've been arguing all along. Nice work on the analysis.
I'll add these thoughts:
(1) Spending a high pick to handcuff another top selection is an almost surefire recipe for disaster. This method pretty much guarantees that you're going to be weak at WR and/or QB.
(2) We are all hoping our top picks do well and produce. Yes, I took a gamble on Mike Anderson in the main event (3.01) and the Ultimate League (2.07). A risk? Sure! But if Anderson is the starter all season, he's a 1st round-equivalent player that will far surpass the output of the usual suspects (Rudi Johnson and Ahman Green come to mind). My partner and I were in a position to "handcuff" Anderson at pick 5.01 in the main event with Tatum Bell -- probably the next best comp to the Holmes/Johnson situation. We passed on the opportunity, mainly because our "money" is already backing Anderson. We chose to strengthen our team in other areas.
Hedging your bet is one thing. Sacrificing your starting team's strength for a security blanket, on the other hand, is not IMO a prudent move.
(4) ... anyone using a 1st and 3rd/4th rd pick to take both has seriously handicapped themselves. The best they can hope for is that Priest goes down before opening day allowing LJ to have a monster scoring season, averaging 22.5 ppg while using 1 roster spot, rather than averaging 29 ppg with 2 roster spots (a weak 6.5 incremental pts from the flex).Pretty much what I've been arguing all along. Nice work on the analysis.
I'll add these thoughts:
(1) Spending a high pick to handcuff another top selection is an almost surefire recipe for disaster. This method pretty much guarantees that you're going to be weak at WR and/or QB.
(2) We are all hoping our top picks do well and produce. Yes, I took a gamble on Mike Anderson in the main event (3.01) and the Ultimate League (2.07). A risk? Sure! But if Anderson is the starter all season, he's a 1st round-equivalent player that will far surpass the output of the usual suspects (Rudi Johnson and Ahman Green come to mind). My partner and I were in a position to "handcuff" Anderson at pick 5.01 in the main event with Tatum Bell -- probably the next best comp to the Holmes/Johnson situation. We passed on the opportunity, mainly because our "money" is already backing Anderson. We chose to strengthen our team in other areas.
Hedging your bet is one thing. Sacrificing your starting team's strength for a security blanket, on the other hand, is not IMO a prudent move.
-
Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 7222
- Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:00 pm
Priest & LJ
Originally posted by KJ Duke:
Bottom line:
(1) They combine for close to 400 pts, not 500 as several have argued.
(2) LJ has more value than Priest. You heard it here first!
(3) Draft value - LJ should be right there with the other early to mid 3rd rd RBs, while Priest should go late 3rd/ early 4th, and finally ...
(4) ... anyone using a 1st and 3rd/4th rd pick to take both has seriously handicapped themselves. The best they can hope for is that Priest goes down before opening day allowing LJ to have a monster scoring season, averaging 22.5 ppg while using 1 roster spot, rather than averaging 29 ppg with 2 roster spots (a weak 6.5 incremental pts from the flex).
Gekko, 3INTBOY, take your best shot ... 1. i've pointed out that the KC running backs as a whole have produced OVER 500pts each of the last three years. there is no disputing this. it is a FACT.
2. the only significant value lj has is if holmes gets hurt. taking him in the 3rd REALLY handicaps you.
3. again, draft value is only good if holmes get hurt
4. tell that to the over 500pts scored by KC RB each of the last three years. wooohooo!! but, i am cautious about my strategy. i certainly didn't plan to do that (pick holmes). but the only other player i considered was mcgahee (who i took the day before in the DC league). i decided to try something different on the spur of the moment...which is usually not good
Bottom line:
(1) They combine for close to 400 pts, not 500 as several have argued.
(2) LJ has more value than Priest. You heard it here first!
(3) Draft value - LJ should be right there with the other early to mid 3rd rd RBs, while Priest should go late 3rd/ early 4th, and finally ...
(4) ... anyone using a 1st and 3rd/4th rd pick to take both has seriously handicapped themselves. The best they can hope for is that Priest goes down before opening day allowing LJ to have a monster scoring season, averaging 22.5 ppg while using 1 roster spot, rather than averaging 29 ppg with 2 roster spots (a weak 6.5 incremental pts from the flex).
Gekko, 3INTBOY, take your best shot ... 1. i've pointed out that the KC running backs as a whole have produced OVER 500pts each of the last three years. there is no disputing this. it is a FACT.
2. the only significant value lj has is if holmes gets hurt. taking him in the 3rd REALLY handicaps you.
3. again, draft value is only good if holmes get hurt
4. tell that to the over 500pts scored by KC RB each of the last three years. wooohooo!! but, i am cautious about my strategy. i certainly didn't plan to do that (pick holmes). but the only other player i considered was mcgahee (who i took the day before in the DC league). i decided to try something different on the spur of the moment...which is usually not good
Is my "weekend warrior" prep better than your prep?
-
Greenlight30
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 6:00 pm
Priest & LJ
I like the point KJ Duke...great analysis.
-
Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 7222
- Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:00 pm
Priest & LJ
Originally posted by King of Queens:
(1) Spending a high pick to handcuff another top selection is an almost surefire recipe for disaster. This method pretty much guarantees that you're going to be weak at WR and/or QB. Spending a high pick to draft a player who will only have real value if the #1RB gets hurt is an almost surefire recipe for disaster. This method pretty much guarantees that you're going to be weak at RB, WR and/or QB.
(1) Spending a high pick to handcuff another top selection is an almost surefire recipe for disaster. This method pretty much guarantees that you're going to be weak at WR and/or QB. Spending a high pick to draft a player who will only have real value if the #1RB gets hurt is an almost surefire recipe for disaster. This method pretty much guarantees that you're going to be weak at RB, WR and/or QB.
Is my "weekend warrior" prep better than your prep?
-
King of Queens
- Posts: 5262
- Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:00 pm
Priest & LJ
Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
quote:Originally posted by King of Queens:
(1) Spending a high pick to handcuff another top selection is an almost surefire recipe for disaster. This method pretty much guarantees that you're going to be weak at WR and/or QB. Spending a high pick to draft a player who will only have real value if the #1RB gets hurt is an almost surefire recipe for disaster. This method pretty much guarantees that you're going to be weak at RB, WR and/or QB. [/QUOTE]I agree with your amendment. That's why I stayed away from the whole mess (except for the LJ pick at 7.08 in one of the satellites -- ridiculous that he was still there).
quote:Originally posted by King of Queens:
(1) Spending a high pick to handcuff another top selection is an almost surefire recipe for disaster. This method pretty much guarantees that you're going to be weak at WR and/or QB. Spending a high pick to draft a player who will only have real value if the #1RB gets hurt is an almost surefire recipe for disaster. This method pretty much guarantees that you're going to be weak at RB, WR and/or QB. [/QUOTE]I agree with your amendment. That's why I stayed away from the whole mess (except for the LJ pick at 7.08 in one of the satellites -- ridiculous that he was still there).
-
Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 7222
- Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:00 pm
Priest & LJ
Originally posted by King of Queens:
I agree with your amendment. That's why I stayed away from the whole mess (except for the LJ pick at 7.08 in one of the satellites -- ridiculous that he was still there). you might be the smartest one of us all
I agree with your amendment. That's why I stayed away from the whole mess (except for the LJ pick at 7.08 in one of the satellites -- ridiculous that he was still there). you might be the smartest one of us all
Is my "weekend warrior" prep better than your prep?
-
King of Queens
- Posts: 5262
- Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:00 pm
Priest & LJ
Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
quote:Originally posted by King of Queens:
I agree with your amendment. That's why I stayed away from the whole mess (except for the LJ pick at 7.08 in one of the satellites -- ridiculous that he was still there). you might be the smartest one of us all [/QUOTE]We've had this discussion already. The best I can hope for is to achieve "Minion" status.
quote:Originally posted by King of Queens:
I agree with your amendment. That's why I stayed away from the whole mess (except for the LJ pick at 7.08 in one of the satellites -- ridiculous that he was still there). you might be the smartest one of us all
[/QUOTE]We've had this discussion already. The best I can hope for is to achieve "Minion" status.-
Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 7222
- Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:00 pm
Priest & LJ
Originally posted by King of Queens:
Yes, I took a gamble on Mike Anderson in the main event (3.01) and the Ultimate League (2.07). A risk? Sure! But if Anderson is the starter all season, he's a 1st round-equivalent player that will far surpass the output of the usual suspects (Rudi Johnson and Ahman Green come to mind). My partner and I were in a position to "handcuff" Anderson at pick 5.01 in the main event with Tatum Bell -- probably the next best comp to the Holmes/Johnson situation. We passed on the opportunity, mainly because our "money" is already backing Anderson. We chose to strengthen our team in other areas.
Hedging your bet is one thing. Sacrificing your starting team's strength for a security blanket, on the other hand, is not IMO a prudent move. wrong move IMO. Anderson will be 32 in a few weeks and hasn't had over 175 carries in a season since 2000. no way he lasts the whole season. bell will be starting by week 8/9 and most definately in the fantasy playoff weeks. thinking another layer deeper, why would you want the RB who plays against BAL and BUF weeks 14 and 15 anyways?
Yes, I took a gamble on Mike Anderson in the main event (3.01) and the Ultimate League (2.07). A risk? Sure! But if Anderson is the starter all season, he's a 1st round-equivalent player that will far surpass the output of the usual suspects (Rudi Johnson and Ahman Green come to mind). My partner and I were in a position to "handcuff" Anderson at pick 5.01 in the main event with Tatum Bell -- probably the next best comp to the Holmes/Johnson situation. We passed on the opportunity, mainly because our "money" is already backing Anderson. We chose to strengthen our team in other areas.
Hedging your bet is one thing. Sacrificing your starting team's strength for a security blanket, on the other hand, is not IMO a prudent move. wrong move IMO. Anderson will be 32 in a few weeks and hasn't had over 175 carries in a season since 2000. no way he lasts the whole season. bell will be starting by week 8/9 and most definately in the fantasy playoff weeks. thinking another layer deeper, why would you want the RB who plays against BAL and BUF weeks 14 and 15 anyways?
Is my "weekend warrior" prep better than your prep?
-
King of Queens
- Posts: 5262
- Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:00 pm
Priest & LJ
Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
Anderson will be 32 in a few weeksHmm, sounds familiar:
Mike Anderson 9/21/73
Priest Holmes 10/7/73
Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
and hasn't had over 175 carries in a season since 2000. no way he lasts the whole season.Wouldn't the lack of a pounding actually play to Anderson's benefit and make it MORE likely that he would last the season? Some would say that the lack of carries over the past few years will keep him "fresher" this season. Also, he came into the league as an old 28-year-old rookie. He's really not as old and beat up as you think.
Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
bell will be starting by week 8/9 and most definately in the fantasy playoff weeks.There's more to this story of why Bell isn't starting, and might not even be 2nd string. Stay tuned...
Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
thinking another layer deeper, why would you want the RB who plays against BAL and BUF weeks 14 and 15 anyways? We did look at playoff matchups as part of our pre-draft rankings and yes, the BUF/BAL matchups are not in his favor (though the Week 16 OAK matchup most certainly is). Hopefully Anderson gets us to the playoffs. Somehow I have the feeling that these same 18 players won't be on my team come playoff time. I'm counting on snagging one or two "gems" off the waiver wire -- as are you, I am certain.
Anderson will be 32 in a few weeksHmm, sounds familiar:
Mike Anderson 9/21/73
Priest Holmes 10/7/73
Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
and hasn't had over 175 carries in a season since 2000. no way he lasts the whole season.Wouldn't the lack of a pounding actually play to Anderson's benefit and make it MORE likely that he would last the season? Some would say that the lack of carries over the past few years will keep him "fresher" this season. Also, he came into the league as an old 28-year-old rookie. He's really not as old and beat up as you think.
Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
bell will be starting by week 8/9 and most definately in the fantasy playoff weeks.There's more to this story of why Bell isn't starting, and might not even be 2nd string. Stay tuned...
Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
thinking another layer deeper, why would you want the RB who plays against BAL and BUF weeks 14 and 15 anyways?
We did look at playoff matchups as part of our pre-draft rankings and yes, the BUF/BAL matchups are not in his favor (though the Week 16 OAK matchup most certainly is). Hopefully Anderson gets us to the playoffs. Somehow I have the feeling that these same 18 players won't be on my team come playoff time. I'm counting on snagging one or two "gems" off the waiver wire -- as are you, I am certain.