3RR Point/Counterpoint For The Magazine

TURBOUGH · Post by **TURBOUGH** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:53 am

Greg,

You asked for some thoughts on this. I am for it. Since no one else brought up any cons, I did. What would this board be like if everyone agreed with everything said? B O R I N G ! ! !

GOD Loves You · Post by **GOD Loves You** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:09 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
quote:Originally posted by TURBOUGH:
Even rookies like Calvin Johnson could go high if he's drafted by the right team.. [/QUOTE]Anybody but the Bucs, PLEEEASE, not the Bucs.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:53 am

Originally posted by TURBOUGH:
Greg,

You asked for some thoughts on this. I am for it. Since no one else brought up any cons, I did. What would this board be like if everyone agreed with everything said? B O R I N G ! ! !

I agree. All I'm saying is that when you say 4 through 7 are getting hurt it looks like 3RR is affecting a lot of picks. I think we both agree that 7 isn't getting hurt by moving one pick, so 4 through 6 has some merit. But 4 with Alexander dropping doesn't seem so bad to me, but what do I know!!

renman · Post by **renman** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:22 am

Those who think the top three have a MASSIVE advantage (I am not one of them, but I can still make the following point) could argue that whatever negative picks 4-7 might feel would be overcome by the advantage taken away from picks 1-3 that used to hurt teams picking 4-7...

Now this logic is all based on seasons like the last 2 where top picks put up all-time dominant seasons.. this of course will not happen every year...

TamuScarecrow · Post by **TamuScarecrow** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:45 am

I look at 4 and 5 and see a gold mine. Whereas with the serpentine draft, you were "guessing" what 1-3 or 1-4 were going to take, you will "know" what has gone in 4-14 or 5-14 and IMHO, be able to make a pick as though you were picking in the middle and not picking "because he won't be there on the wrap-around". "Want" pick versus a "Have-to" pick. The "have-to" picks are now going to fall to 1-3 spots IMHO.

Route Collectors · Post by **Route Collectors** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:43 pm

Originally posted by Tamuscarecrow:
I look at 4 and 5 and see a gold mine. Whereas with the serpentine draft, you were "guessing" what 1-3 or 1-4 were going to take, you will "know" what has gone in 4-14 or 5-14 and IMHO, be able to make a pick as though you were picking in the middle and not picking "because he won't be there on the wrap-around". "Want" pick versus a "Have-to" pick. The "have-to" picks are now going to fall to 1-3 spots IMHO. I see it the same way with 4 and 5 Rick. I like these slots in 2007. I will stand behind this viewpoint with no waffling. :rolleyes:

3INTBOY · Post by **3INTBOY** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:55 pm

Originally posted by Tamuscarecrow:
I look at 4 and 5 and see a gold mine. Whereas with the serpentine draft, you were "guessing" what 1-3 or 1-4 were going to take, you will "know" what has gone in 4-14 or 5-14 and IMHO, be able to make a pick as though you were picking in the middle and not picking "because he won't be there on the wrap-around". "Want" pick versus a "Have-to" pick. The "have-to" picks are now going to fall to 1-3 spots IMHO. And why is that a good thing? You are forcing 1-3 into a bad hand, and you're glad about it?
Until you own 1-3 and face it, then the unfair advantage will not feel so good?

3'

Leroy's Aces · Post by **Leroy's Aces** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 4:50 pm

Originally posted by Team Legacy:
quote:Originally posted by Nag':
quote:Originally posted by Team Legacy:
I disagree again. 6 of the last 7 years, the top players were drafted as picks at/near the top. Facts are facts. These are not facts Scott. Please see year 2002 and 2004. [/QUOTE]2004 is the ONE year the top player didn't come from a top pick, thus 6 out of 7.

2002, Priest Holmes was the # 1 RB.

Priest was the #2 perfoming RB in 2001, so where do your draftboards say he was drafted? I can't see how he wasn't at/near the top.

I stand by my facts, what are yours? [/QUOTE]The consensus #1 pick in 2002 that year was Faulk, and he got hurt. Green and Alexander were the #2 and #3 picks (in smart leagues), and they underperformed, too.

Feel free to check the facts from actual draft results here:

****://www.myfantasyleague.com/draft_analysis.htm

That shows that the #1 pick had less value in 2002 and 2004, while remaining true to its perceived #1 value in 2003, 2005 and 2006. That is only 60% of the time, assuming you track it for 5 years.

Of course, as Legacy stated, the #1 overall fantasy player should be drafted and this is the key phrase "At/near the top" (of the draft). If you include the top 3 picks as "at/near the top", one of those three should be the #1 player very often. You are including the consensus top 3 running backs or about 10% of all starting running backs. There are probably only 12 running backs that truly "carry the load - 1st, 2nd, 3rd down, goalline and pass-catcher" - so taking the top 3 out of those 12 potential players had damn well better yield the #1 back 6 out of 7 years.

Nag' was referring to the #1 pick busting, and 3RR pretty much killing that fantasy owner's chance of winning his league. It has done just that in 2 out of 5 year, 40% of the time from 2002-2006. That does not make a strong case for 3RR.

I am kind of just playing devil's advocate at this point. With Norv Turner at the helm, LT2 could have 100 catches and 40 TDs before his body vaporizes in week 14 due to overwork.

Nag' · Post by **Nag'** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:13 pm

Originally posted by Leroy's Aces:
The consensus #1 pick in 2002 that year was Faulk, and he got hurt. Green and Alexander were the #2 and #3 picks (in smart leagues), and they underperformed, too.

Feel free to check the facts from actual draft results here:

****://www.myfantasyleague.com/draft_analysis.htm

That shows that the #1 pick had less value in 2002 and 2004, while remaining true to its perceived #1 value in 2003, 2005 and 2006. That is only 60% of the time, assuming you track it for 5 years.

Of course, as Legacy stated, the #1 overall fantasy player should be drafted and this is the key phrase "At/near the top" (of the draft). If you include the top 3 picks as "at/near the top", one of those three should be the #1 player very often. You are including the consensus top 3 running backs or about 10% of all starting running backs. There are probably only 12 running backs that truly "carry the load - 1st, 2nd, 3rd down, goalline and pass-catcher" - so taking the top 3 out of those 12 potential players had damn well better yield the #1 back 6 out of 7 years.

Nag' was referring to the #1 pick busting, and 3RR pretty much killing that fantasy owner's chance of winning his league. It has done just that in 2 out of 5 year, 40% of the time from 2002-2006. That does not make a strong case for 3RR.

I am kind of just playing devil's advocate at this point. With Norv Turner at the helm, LT2 could have 100 catches and 40 TDs before his body vaporizes in week 14 due to overwork. Nice job Dave. The 3RR groupies seem to have selective memory when it comes to remembering 2002 and 2004. As you show, in 2 of the last 5 years there was no top pick dominance - not even an advantage.

Btw, for the sake of accuracy, Faulk DID get hurt in 2002 but was underperforming from the start and did end up playing in 14 games.

[ February 19, 2007, 11:24 PM: Message edited by: Nag' ]

dcc1973 · Post by **dcc1973** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:46 pm

Our local high stakes league decided to try 3RR due to the perceived disadvantage of not getting a top pick. The year we tried it in was 1999. The top two picks that year were Terrell Davis (out for the year in week 4) and Jamal Anderson (out of the year in week 2). 3RR gave a huge edge to the bottom the draft, and the top two finishers were from the last two draft slots. The 3RR experiment lasted all of 1 season.