Originally posted by Ted's Cracked Head:
I am concerned that the "3rd round swing" might have a negative effect on slots 4-7.
TCH, I agree, the 4,5,6 using 3RR would be worse than any draft position we have now.
Q
2007 Draft Slots ~ presented by UFS
2007 Draft Slots ~ presented by UFS
Originally posted by Quahogs:
quote:Originally posted by Ted's Cracked Head:
I am concerned that the "3rd round swing" might have a negative effect on slots 4-7.
TCH, I agree, the 4,5,6 using 3RR would be worse than any draft position we have now.
Q [/QUOTE]If the draft were held today those poor guys with 4-6 slots could get stuck with guys like Steven Jackson, Kevin Jones and Brian Westbrook.
The back half, however would have the advantage instead of grabbing guys like Ahman Green, Frank Gore and a struggling Rudi.
Q - If I were setting KDS today, 4-6 would not my last choices by a long shot, I think many would concur ... which would be good news for you and others concerned about those slots --- someone else would grab them, you wouldn't get "stuck" with them IMO.
quote:Originally posted by Ted's Cracked Head:
I am concerned that the "3rd round swing" might have a negative effect on slots 4-7.
TCH, I agree, the 4,5,6 using 3RR would be worse than any draft position we have now.
Q [/QUOTE]If the draft were held today those poor guys with 4-6 slots could get stuck with guys like Steven Jackson, Kevin Jones and Brian Westbrook.
The back half, however would have the advantage instead of grabbing guys like Ahman Green, Frank Gore and a struggling Rudi.
Q - If I were setting KDS today, 4-6 would not my last choices by a long shot, I think many would concur ... which would be good news for you and others concerned about those slots --- someone else would grab them, you wouldn't get "stuck" with them IMO.
2007 Draft Slots ~ presented by UFS
KJ, In retrospect the winning formula is there for every draft position in both formats. All I'm talking about is that 4 and 5 aren't big winners now and that's WITH the 3.04 and 3.05 picks. Now you want to give them 3.11 and 3.10. 3RR levels the end to the front but really gaps down 4 and 5.
Q
Q
2007 Draft Slots ~ presented by UFS
Originally posted by Quahogs:
KJ, In retrospect the winning formula is there for every draft position in both formats. All I'm talking about is that 4 and 5 aren't big winners now and that's WITH the 3.04 and 3.05 picks. Now you want to give them 3.11 and 3.10. 3RR levels the end to the front but really gaps down 4 and 5.
Q I respect the point you're making, I just think that every slot except the top few are better off because those powerhouse teams at the top lose a little bit of their edge.
If given the disadvantage of picking four players later in the 3rd rd from one of those slots, but having the LT and LJ powerhouse teams lose some of there advantage, I'd still like my chance of winning better with those teams coming back to the pack a little bit in terms of built-in advantage. And, as UFS suggested, actual slot preferences in his lges have been all over the board ... I think even more people get a slot they like, and the 4-6 haters don't get stuck with them.
KJ, In retrospect the winning formula is there for every draft position in both formats. All I'm talking about is that 4 and 5 aren't big winners now and that's WITH the 3.04 and 3.05 picks. Now you want to give them 3.11 and 3.10. 3RR levels the end to the front but really gaps down 4 and 5.
Q I respect the point you're making, I just think that every slot except the top few are better off because those powerhouse teams at the top lose a little bit of their edge.
If given the disadvantage of picking four players later in the 3rd rd from one of those slots, but having the LT and LJ powerhouse teams lose some of there advantage, I'd still like my chance of winning better with those teams coming back to the pack a little bit in terms of built-in advantage. And, as UFS suggested, actual slot preferences in his lges have been all over the board ... I think even more people get a slot they like, and the 4-6 haters don't get stuck with them.
2007 Draft Slots ~ presented by UFS
Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by Quahogs:
KJ, In retrospect the winning formula is there for every draft position in both formats. All I'm talking about is that 4 and 5 aren't big winners now and that's WITH the 3.04 and 3.05 picks. Now you want to give them 3.11 and 3.10. 3RR levels the end to the front but really gaps down 4 and 5.
Q I respect the point you're making, I just think that every slot except the top few are better off because those powerhouse teams at the top lose a little bit of their edge.
If given the disadvantage of picking four players later in the 3rd rd from one of those slots, but having the LT and LJ powerhouse teams lose some of there advantage, I'd still like my chance of winning better with those teams coming back to the pack a little bit in terms of built-in advantage. And, as UFS suggested, actual slot preferences in his lges have been all over the board ... I think even more people get a slot they like, and the 4-6 haters don't get stuck with them. [/QUOTE]Nice post ... well said ... "everyone would be better off because it shifts power away from the top picks".
Explain to me how the fourth pick under 3RR would be worse off than the 11 pick now? It IS the 11th pick from rounds 3 thru 18 ... with picks 4 and 25 (instead of picks 11 and 18) in rounds 1 and 2.
The 4th pick under 3RR is better than the 11th pick without 3RR ... and worse than the 4th pick without 3RR!
The 11th pick under 3RR is better than the 11th pick without 3RR ... and worse than the 4th pick without 3RR! Go figure!
The 4th pick under 3RR is worse than the 4th pick under the current system! Good ... it's supposed to be!
It will improve picks 8 - 14 and degrade picks 1 - 7! Picks 1 - 7 will never be worse than 8 - 14 under the current system ... because they ARE picks 8 - 14 under the current system ... with better picks in the first two rounds.
Think about it.
Big Mike
[ November 09, 2006, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: Ugly Yellow Tomatoes ]
quote:Originally posted by Quahogs:
KJ, In retrospect the winning formula is there for every draft position in both formats. All I'm talking about is that 4 and 5 aren't big winners now and that's WITH the 3.04 and 3.05 picks. Now you want to give them 3.11 and 3.10. 3RR levels the end to the front but really gaps down 4 and 5.
Q I respect the point you're making, I just think that every slot except the top few are better off because those powerhouse teams at the top lose a little bit of their edge.
If given the disadvantage of picking four players later in the 3rd rd from one of those slots, but having the LT and LJ powerhouse teams lose some of there advantage, I'd still like my chance of winning better with those teams coming back to the pack a little bit in terms of built-in advantage. And, as UFS suggested, actual slot preferences in his lges have been all over the board ... I think even more people get a slot they like, and the 4-6 haters don't get stuck with them. [/QUOTE]Nice post ... well said ... "everyone would be better off because it shifts power away from the top picks".
Explain to me how the fourth pick under 3RR would be worse off than the 11 pick now? It IS the 11th pick from rounds 3 thru 18 ... with picks 4 and 25 (instead of picks 11 and 18) in rounds 1 and 2.
The 4th pick under 3RR is better than the 11th pick without 3RR ... and worse than the 4th pick without 3RR!
The 11th pick under 3RR is better than the 11th pick without 3RR ... and worse than the 4th pick without 3RR! Go figure!
The 4th pick under 3RR is worse than the 4th pick under the current system! Good ... it's supposed to be!
It will improve picks 8 - 14 and degrade picks 1 - 7! Picks 1 - 7 will never be worse than 8 - 14 under the current system ... because they ARE picks 8 - 14 under the current system ... with better picks in the first two rounds.
Think about it.
Big Mike
[ November 09, 2006, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: Ugly Yellow Tomatoes ]
Hakuna Matata!
-
Ted's Cracked Head
- Posts: 2817
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 6:00 pm
2007 Draft Slots ~ presented by UFS
So the 4th pick under 3RR is worse than the 4th pick under the current system! Good ... it's supposed to be! It should improve picks 8 - 14 and degrade picks 1 - 7! Picks 1 - 7 will never be worse than 8 - 14 under the current system ... because they ARE picks 8 - 14 under the current system ... with better picks in the first two rounds.
Think about it.
Big Mike
Mike, Did you look at the chart on page 8 of this thread?
Slots 12-14 faired better than 1-3 in 2004.
Slots 1-3 better in 2005.
2006 is still up for grabs and only in the past few weeks has picks 1-3 stepped up to the plate. Will they dominate in a few weeks? We will soon find out.
In 2004, Slots 5, 6 and 7 were worse off than 8,9,10 while 12-14 were stellar.
2005 and showed a different picture having picks 1-3 shine but once again 5,6,7 sucked wind.
The only constant using the facts is that Pick 1 has kicked ass the last two years. (maybe 3 now)
I wish we had more years to compare but as of yet, we don't.
I would analyze the data for the past 5 years in the "other" challenge but the data would not be sound because they use 12 teams.
Maybe I will pull data/stats from the past decade, plug it into the NFFC scoring rules, add in adp and try and make some sense of it.
[ November 09, 2006, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Ted's Cracked Head ]
Think about it.
Big Mike
Mike, Did you look at the chart on page 8 of this thread?
Slots 12-14 faired better than 1-3 in 2004.
Slots 1-3 better in 2005.
2006 is still up for grabs and only in the past few weeks has picks 1-3 stepped up to the plate. Will they dominate in a few weeks? We will soon find out.
In 2004, Slots 5, 6 and 7 were worse off than 8,9,10 while 12-14 were stellar.
2005 and showed a different picture having picks 1-3 shine but once again 5,6,7 sucked wind.
The only constant using the facts is that Pick 1 has kicked ass the last two years. (maybe 3 now)
I wish we had more years to compare but as of yet, we don't.
I would analyze the data for the past 5 years in the "other" challenge but the data would not be sound because they use 12 teams.
Maybe I will pull data/stats from the past decade, plug it into the NFFC scoring rules, add in adp and try and make some sense of it.
[ November 09, 2006, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Ted's Cracked Head ]
My mama says she loves me but she could be jiving too! BB King
2007 Draft Slots ~ presented by UFS
crackhead,
KDS/3RR would spread preferences all over the board, so if anyone believes 12-14 is better they can place those preferences accordingly.
Unlike this year, not everyone will stack their KDS in linear fashion 1-14 with slight variation.
Result: far more people have a say in their draft preference, far more get their desired slot, far less get their least desired slot.
IMO ...
a) A lot of guys will still want the highest possible slot, whether that is 1, 3 or 5.
b) A lot of guys will still want to be in the middle since it is the best place to react to a positional run.
c) A lot of guys will want to be near the end because of the advantage in both rds 2 and 3.
End result = If preferences are spread out KDS works more as it was intended, allowing more people to get slots close to what they prefer = more happy drafters = bigger NFFC event
[ November 09, 2006, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
KDS/3RR would spread preferences all over the board, so if anyone believes 12-14 is better they can place those preferences accordingly.
Unlike this year, not everyone will stack their KDS in linear fashion 1-14 with slight variation.
Result: far more people have a say in their draft preference, far more get their desired slot, far less get their least desired slot.
IMO ...
a) A lot of guys will still want the highest possible slot, whether that is 1, 3 or 5.
b) A lot of guys will still want to be in the middle since it is the best place to react to a positional run.
c) A lot of guys will want to be near the end because of the advantage in both rds 2 and 3.
End result = If preferences are spread out KDS works more as it was intended, allowing more people to get slots close to what they prefer = more happy drafters = bigger NFFC event
[ November 09, 2006, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
2007 Draft Slots ~ presented by UFS
Originally posted by Ted's Cracked Head:
Mike, Did you look at the chart on page 8 of this thread?
....
I wish we had more years to compare but as of yet, we don't.
I would analyze the data for the past 5 years in the "other" challenge but the data would not be sound because they use 12 teams.
Maybe I will pull data/stats from the past decade, plug it into the NFFC scoring rules, add in adp and try and make some sense of it. I love numbers ... I really do. 2 or three years is not enough to make any kind of statistical inference.
The NFL is also changing ... so although I like the idea of going back 10 or 20 years ... the RBBC and the more passing by QB's probably won't be that relevant to next years draft.
Since it's 2007 were talking about (not 2006 or 2002). I actually am most comfortable with projections at this point. Although they are not perfect ... it's what I use to draft by ... and it is what I will also use to deturmine draft position advantage. It's just harder to account for bye weeks, 5th receiver impact, FA pickups and injuries.
Seriously if LT and LJ do nothing the next 7 weeks. Does it prove the first picks are not very valuable ... or does it prove that we all overvalued LT and LJ?
Projections just what makes the most sense to me since we don't have 20 years of statistically worthwhile data.
With that said ... I would be interested to see what you came up with if you did something with the last 10 years data ... or ran advantage based on the beginning of the year projections.
Mike
Mike, Did you look at the chart on page 8 of this thread?
....
I wish we had more years to compare but as of yet, we don't.
I would analyze the data for the past 5 years in the "other" challenge but the data would not be sound because they use 12 teams.
Maybe I will pull data/stats from the past decade, plug it into the NFFC scoring rules, add in adp and try and make some sense of it. I love numbers ... I really do. 2 or three years is not enough to make any kind of statistical inference.
The NFL is also changing ... so although I like the idea of going back 10 or 20 years ... the RBBC and the more passing by QB's probably won't be that relevant to next years draft.
Since it's 2007 were talking about (not 2006 or 2002). I actually am most comfortable with projections at this point. Although they are not perfect ... it's what I use to draft by ... and it is what I will also use to deturmine draft position advantage. It's just harder to account for bye weeks, 5th receiver impact, FA pickups and injuries.
Seriously if LT and LJ do nothing the next 7 weeks. Does it prove the first picks are not very valuable ... or does it prove that we all overvalued LT and LJ?
Projections just what makes the most sense to me since we don't have 20 years of statistically worthwhile data.
With that said ... I would be interested to see what you came up with if you did something with the last 10 years data ... or ran advantage based on the beginning of the year projections.
Mike
Hakuna Matata!
2007 Draft Slots ~ presented by UFS
Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by Quahogs:
KJ, In retrospect the winning formula is there for every draft position in both formats. All I'm talking about is that 4 and 5 aren't big winners now and that's WITH the 3.04 and 3.05 picks. Now you want to give them 3.11 and 3.10. 3RR levels the end to the front but really gaps down 4 and 5.
Q I respect the point you're making, I just think that every slot except the top few are better off because those powerhouse teams at the top lose a little bit of their edge.
If given the disadvantage of picking four players later in the 3rd rd from one of those slots, but having the LT and LJ powerhouse teams lose some of there advantage, I'd still like my chance of winning better with those teams coming back to the pack a little bit in terms of built-in advantage. And, as UFS suggested, actual slot preferences in his lges have been all over the board ... I think even more people get a slot they like, and the 4-6 haters don't get stuck with them. [/QUOTE]KJ, I see what you mean about taking 1-3 down a notch.
The thing is I see you robbing Peter(rds1-3) who is rich and can afford it, AND Paul(rds4-5) who ISN'T to pay poor Perry (rds 11-14).
but it seems MOST believe #4/5 have deep pockets
that's cool
Q
quote:Originally posted by Quahogs:
KJ, In retrospect the winning formula is there for every draft position in both formats. All I'm talking about is that 4 and 5 aren't big winners now and that's WITH the 3.04 and 3.05 picks. Now you want to give them 3.11 and 3.10. 3RR levels the end to the front but really gaps down 4 and 5.
Q I respect the point you're making, I just think that every slot except the top few are better off because those powerhouse teams at the top lose a little bit of their edge.
If given the disadvantage of picking four players later in the 3rd rd from one of those slots, but having the LT and LJ powerhouse teams lose some of there advantage, I'd still like my chance of winning better with those teams coming back to the pack a little bit in terms of built-in advantage. And, as UFS suggested, actual slot preferences in his lges have been all over the board ... I think even more people get a slot they like, and the 4-6 haters don't get stuck with them. [/QUOTE]KJ, I see what you mean about taking 1-3 down a notch.
The thing is I see you robbing Peter(rds1-3) who is rich and can afford it, AND Paul(rds4-5) who ISN'T to pay poor Perry (rds 11-14).
but it seems MOST believe #4/5 have deep pockets
that's coolQ
2007 Draft Slots ~ presented by UFS
Originally posted by Quahogs:
KJ, I see what you mean about taking 1-3 down a notch.
The thing is I see you robbing Peter(rds1-3) who is rich and can afford it, AND Paul(rds4-5) who ISN'T to pay poor Perry (rds 11-14).
but it seems MOST believe #4/5 have deep pockets that's cool Q ... and if you can choose whether or not to be Paul, and others believe he is rich, YOU will never have to worry about being poor!
lol, no matter which side of an issue you're on, you always have a good viewpoint Q ... which is why I am still trying to win your vote.
KJ, I see what you mean about taking 1-3 down a notch.
The thing is I see you robbing Peter(rds1-3) who is rich and can afford it, AND Paul(rds4-5) who ISN'T to pay poor Perry (rds 11-14).
but it seems MOST believe #4/5 have deep pockets
that's cool Q ... and if you can choose whether or not to be Paul, and others believe he is rich, YOU will never have to worry about being poor! lol, no matter which side of an issue you're on, you always have a good viewpoint Q ... which is why I am still trying to win your vote.