Draft Champions Leagues In 2014: 35 Rounds?

[Jersey Dawg]

35 at a minimum. I can generally find guys to draft in rounds 36 - 40 if we increased the draft. I think there are far too many injuries to cut back on a draft without waivers during the year. - Pete

[ForLoveOfTheGame]

The more I think about it the more I'd definitely take more picks. Every year I see some RB's become starters that no one even has in these slow drafts.

[RedRyder]

Thanks for posting that Greg. Sure doesn't look like much value in those later rounds. But I like the auto draft idea too.

Looks like plenty of value to me! Especially in a DC when you might need a Jerrel Jerrigan type for a week or two. Those are players that can help you get in the money.

[kjduke]

If I recall correctly, we did 30 in the Gridiron because it was mistakenly published in the rules that way. It was suppose to be 26, like it was in 2012, and I would much prefer that it return to 26.

Mark
Follow Me

Yes, the first year was 26 but when polled pre-draft it was about an even split between those wanting more than 30, and those wanting to go back to 26 ... so I think 30 is a good number going forward for the Gridiron.

[moyer1313]

I really don't understand why "everyone" wants to keep increasing the roster sizes. It isn't just happening here, it is happening at the other places, too.

Roster spots have a value. Adding more roster spots dilutes the value of each roster spot.

If someone makes what you think is a bad pick, don't you want them to pay as big a price for that bad pick as possible?

Why would you want to give them 4 more or 6 more or 9 more picks at the end of the draft to make up for that bad pick?

If you think that drafting 3 Defenses is a waste of a roster spot, then when someone drafts that 3rd Defense, wouldn't you want it to cost them as much as possible?

Having 3 Defenses out of 26 roster spots costs more than having 3 Defenses out of 30 rosters spots or 32 roster spots or 35 roster spots.

Yes, some of your players will get hurt.

But, guess what? The other guy's players get hurt, too.

Build your team to absorb some injuries. If you build your team to absorb injuries better than the other guy does, then that is to your advantage.

So what if some "good" players don't get drafted.

If some "good" players don't get drafted, then that means that your opponents drafted some "bad" players.

Why give your opponents a chance to cover up their mistakes by allowing them to make more draft picks?

I think all Draft Masters type of drafts should be 26 rounds all year round, especially all of the Live Events in Las Vegas.

Make each roster spot as valuable as possible.

Mark
Follow Me

[Sandman62]

Thanks for posting that Greg. Sure doesn't look like much value in those later rounds. But I like the auto draft idea too.

Looks like plenty of value to me! Especially in a DC when you might need a Jerrel Jerrigan type for a week or two. Those are players that can help you get in the money.

Good point. In a DC in which I drafted Cutler, I drafted McCown in round 35.
Also got sporadic decent DC production from Fitzpatrick, Royal, Clay, DBrown, Cassel and Crabtree.

[kjduke]

Mark, that's one way of looking at it. The counterpoint would be that many injuries are hard to predict, so having a shallow roster makes it more likely that the healthier (lucky) team - rather than the best drafted team - could end up winning. I'm not among the camp that wants to push the roster size higher and higher ... but where it is now feels right.

[moyer1313]

Mark, that's one way of looking at it. The counterpoint would be that many injuries are hard to predict, so having a shallow roster makes it more likely that the healthier (lucky) team - rather than the best drafted team - could end up winning. I'm not among the camp that wants to push the roster size higher and higher ... but where it is now feels right.

And I would rather be able to protect against bad luck with injuries by the way I construct my team, which is something I have control over.

I can't do anything to protect my team against someone getting lucky with a lucky pick they make in the 30th or 32nd Round or 35th Round. That is something that is out of my control.

I'd rather remove the luck of the lucky pick made in the latter rounds.

Some of my players will get hurt. So will some of the players on my opponent's teams.

If I protected my team against injuries better, I will do better.

If they do not protect their team against injury, and instead take a bunch of stabs at getting lucky, then they, hopefully, will not do as well.

I'd prefer to remove as much of the luck as possible or in this case, not add more luck by adding more rounds.

Mark
Follow Me

[moyer1313]

Thanks for posting that Greg. Sure doesn't look like much value in those later rounds. But I like the auto draft idea too.

Looks like plenty of value to me! Especially in a DC when you might need a Jerrel Jerrigan type for a week or two. Those are players that can help you get in the money.

Good point. In a DC in which I drafted Cutler, I drafted McCown in round 35.
Also got sporadic decent DC production from Fitzpatrick, Royal, Clay, DBrown, Cassel and Crabtree.

This isn't to pick on either of you two, but just to use McGown and Jerrigan as examples.

Don't you think that McCown and Jerrigan hurt you more often then they helped you? Meaning that they were probably owned by other teams in other drafts that you were in more often then they were owned by you.

Say someone missed the QB run in your draft and then decided, "That is OK. I'll just draft a couple more good players while others are drafting QBs and I'll roll with Cutler as my #1 and some other #20-something QB as his backup."

Shouldn't they be penalized for missing the QB run? Shouldn't they also be penalized for deciding they could get by wih just Cutler, who has now missed games in 4 consecutive seasons, and some weak #20-something backup?

Shouldn't they have to make the tough decision of spending their more valuable 26th Round pick to get McCown or not, rather than their less valuable 30th or 32nd or 35th Round pick?

Getting McCown in the 30th Round or later is like getting him for free and is no decision at all.

Additionally, they were actually rewarded for missing the QB run because they got to draft RBs, WRs, and TEs, while others were "wasting" their picks on QBs because they made the correct decision to draft QBs during the QB run and the correct decision not to rely on Cutler, who has now missed games in 4 consecutve seasons, and a weak #20-something backup.

If they decided to roll with the Cutler/McCown combo and a weak #20-something backup they should have to use their more valuable 26th Round pick on McCown to make up for the fact that they got to draft from a better selection of RBs, WRs, and TEs during the QB run that they missed.

Jernigan scored in just 5 games in the first 14 weeks of the season and a total of 19 points for 14 weeks. He most likely never made it into your starting line-up. His high score was in Week 8 when he scored 5.9 points. Then he scored 13 and 20 points in Weeks 15 and 16.

I'm willing to bet that he helped more of your opponent's teams then he helped your teams.

Drafting Jernigan was a good hedge plan if you drafted Nicks or Cruz, but otherwise wasn't worth the investment in a 26 Round draft.

If someone that didn't draft Nicks or Cruz spent a pick on him in a 26 Round draft, then that is a big plus for you.

If they spent a 32nd Round pick on him, then it really didn't help you that much and may have hurt you.

Fewer Rounds make each pick more valuable.

"Wasted" picks hurt more in a 26 Round draft then they do in a 30 or 32 or 35 Round draft.

Every team is going to suffer injuries, including your opponents.

This is called "Draft Champions" for a reason.

Adding more Rounds just waters down the value of each pick.

I know I am fighting an uphill battle, but I think we are ruining the Draft Champions by adding more Rounds.

Mark
Follow Me

[moyer1313]

If I recall correctly, we did 30 in the Gridiron because it was mistakenly published in the rules that way. It was suppose to be 26, like it was in 2012, and I would much prefer that it return to 26.

Mark
Follow Me

Yes, the first year was 26 but when polled pre-draft it was about an even split between those wanting more than 30, and those wanting to go back to 26 ... so I think 30 is a good number going forward for the Gridiron.

I may not be recalling this correctly, but I think the only reason we polled pre-draft about the number of rounds was because it was published in the rules incorrectly as 30 Rounds instead of the correct number of 26 Rounds as it was in 2012. If it had not been published in the rules incorrectly, then we would not have polled pre-draft. We were stuck with 30 Rounds only because it was incorrectly published that way in the rules.

I think we should do the original, and correct, number of 26 Rounds.

Mark
Follow Me