Draft Day RB Frenzy

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:07 am

As we all know most of the draft picks in the first 35 picks of the draft are RBs. This makes sense. With 14 teams and a requirement to start 2 RBs each week, there are not enough RBs to go around. The frenzy is a result of the owners understanding the player scarcity and drafting accordingly.

Is this the best way to structure a competition?

This scarcity is reflected in the weekly bidding. Anything that hints of a multi-week RB starter gets huge bids from the RB deprived teams while quality WRs (like Colbert) get bids less than 1/2 as much. Understanding this dynamic just puts more pressure on going RB/RB, especially from the later slots where getting a useful RB in round 3 is unlikely.

This turns most of the owners into "stud RB" drafters, even if they would prefer "stud WR", "QB/WR", "RB/WR" from a late slot or "QB/RB". These draft day strategies get the owner 1 useful RB at most and sometimes none at all. This discussion excludes, of course, the LV leagues that ignored Tiki :rolleyes:

I understand that 12 team leagues is probably off the table, although that's my preference.

That seems to only leave changing the roster requirement to bring "strategy" truly back into the game.

The Message board group seems to think that making the contest "hard" is the right thing. But creating a situation where everybody just takes 2 RBs then thinks about what to do next is not making the contest "hard", it is making it predictable.

Here are some solutions:

1. 1 RB + 2 Flex(RB/WR/TE) + 3 WRs

2. Create a RB/TE Flex. Then 1RB + 1 RB/TE + 1 RB/WR/TE + 3 WRs

3. Totally uncharted waters: Add QB to the flex. That would make the QB position MUCH more valuable. Then you could have 2 RBs + 3 WRs + 1 Flex (QB/RB/WR/TE). Draft day would see many new strategies emerge that would include QBs (today most QBs are drafted late).

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:26 am

1. No
2. Creative, but no.
3. I liked the idea in the "other league", but QB's score too much on a relative basis. Sorry, but no.

dgamblnman · Post by **dgamblnman** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:30 am

The Message board group seems to think that making the contest "hard" is the right thing. But creating a situation where everybody just takes 2 RBs then thinks about what to do next is not making the contest "hard", it is making it predictable.

And that isn't hard??? to pick the right RB, then to back it up with the tight QB and WRs.

Yea, the rules makes us make some hard decisions. That is the whole point. Do I take a RB or the better WR? Will I snag the underrated to help me out?? You weigh the options and draft accordingly. If your not in a situation to draft your favorite player, then so be it.

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:30 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
1. No
2. Creative, but no.
3. I liked the idea in the "other league", but QB's score too much on a relative basis. Sorry, but no. Thanks for your articulate addition to the thread. I'm much less interested in your "yes" or "no" than a discussion of the issue.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:40 am

Originally posted by JerseyPaul:
1. 1 RB + 2 Flex(RB/WR/TE) + 3 WRs Expanded comments: No. 2 RB's is a must.

Originally posted by JerseyPaul:
2. Create a RB/TE Flex. Then 1RB + 1 RB/TE + 1 RB/WR/TE + 3 WRs Expanded comments: Creative, but no. Can't picture someone saying that they paid $1,250 to play in a league where owners can start 1 RB and 2 TE.

Originally posted by JerseyPaul:
3. Totally uncharted waters: Add QB to the flex. Original comments valid: I liked the idea in the "other league", but QB's score too much on a relative basis. Sorry, but no.

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:51 am

Without copying the text again...

Why are 2 RBs necessary?

Many, many, many, money leagues today require just 1.

Is the problem I described real or just a problem in my own mind? Is it a problem worth addressing? Are there other solutions?

I guess GG is only interested in debate on his ideas, other ideas are not worth the effort to think about and respond accordingly.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:56 am

Originally posted by JerseyPaul:
Why are 2 RBs necessary? Is the problem I described real or just a problem in my own mind? Is it a problem worth addressing? Are there other solutions?Yes, the problem is in your head. You don't need to go RB/RB to have a chance of winning.

Originally posted by JerseyPaul:
I guess GG is only interested in debate on his ideas, other ideas are not worth the effort to think about and respond accordingly. That's not true. If someone throws out an idea worth discussing (roster size to 19 or league size to 12, I'll invest the time. BTW, I have a "good" one coming later tonight. See you then.

[ November 02, 2004, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

dgamblnman · Post by **dgamblnman** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:08 pm

Create a RB/TE Flex. Then 1RB + 1 RB/TE + 1 RB/WR/TE + 3 WRs

I'm in 2 yahoo leagues like that......

but I would rather have something challenging for something called a championship.