Flex Player

[Dyv]

Originally posted by Ernol:
Dyv - I think JP is calling me a moron Although I'll take that over what my wife is calling me now that I have spent half the night typing on this board. Let's just say that she is not pleased. It's possible he was calling both of us morons, I'm too stupid to figure it out

Dyv

[Ernol]

Dyv-

Those are after the season facts. Without looking at names, I compared the 6th best WR versus the 25th best RB from last year. It has its own flaws, but 280 vs 163 is a big difference.

As for the 4th WR vs the 5th WR, yes, they are identical. That is because in this hypothetical draft, to keep it simple, I am only swapping the round three RB with the round 2 WR. Sort of like a "what if" the same owner had an option of trading his 3rd RB straight up for the 1st WR.

I see your point as well. It is quite the risk to not have that third back early, mitigated only by the possibility that the third back will bust or also get injured.

In my own draft, I went with 2RBs (picked in 1st and 3rd rounds) with the thought that I would make sure my backup RB for bye weeks and injury were better than the 50 point fullbacks. I felt more comfortable going 2RBs than increasing the likelihood that one or more of my first 3 picks would bust. I also felt a little better knowing that if my 2nd RB went down, it would be less of a loss than if I had picked a 2nd RB in the 2nd round.

On the good side, my backups are Thomas Jones(8th round) and Marshall Faulk (10th round) with a lottery ticket in Chris Perry (12th round). On the bad side, my RB2 whom I selected in the late third round is Fragile Fred

[ultimatefs]

Can someone please loan me there abacus.

[King of Queens]

Are you guys considering the importance of head-to-head here? Screw the extra 29 points, I'm going for the H2H championship in my league.

[Ernol]

Not considering head to head, but here is my thought on that:

(i) Since additional luck factors enter the picture in head to head, I prefer to concentrate on getting most points and hope the head to head record follows.

(ii) With two bye weeks, certainly you have a lesser chance to win those 2 weeks when you do not have a 3rd RB (and thats if you are not able to land an Aaron Stecker or someone like that to get points in short bursts). However, all things equal, it also follows that you have a better chance of winning the non-bye weeks. However, all things are not equal since you also get an additional 29 points.

[Ernol]

More on head to head, running backs are generally known to be more consistent and therefore better for HTH. However, in a league that gives 1pt per reception to WRs, but only .5 pts to RB, I think that may be a misconception. I have not run a lot of numbers on this, but I have just finished looking at Rudi Johnson, one of the more consistent backs, versus Rod Smith. I was looking to compare a WR with similar totals to Rudi. The point differential was only 6 points in Smith's favor (not the 50+ differential you would more likely get compared to a second round WR).

The weekly totals for Rudi Johnson were 13, 8, 10, 18, 7, 18, 14, 13, 16, 7, 34, 7, 13, 19, 11, 28.

The totals for Smith were 15, 14, 19, 7, 10, 6, 16, 36, 12, 6, 18, 12, 18, 19, 19, 14.

Those numbers look fairly similar. Lining them up, Rod Smith won the HTH 9-6 (with one tie).

This is just one example and it is very possible that I chose the one most favorable to WRs, but I think the 1 pt per reception for WRs just makes them much closer in consistency to RBs then in other scoring systems (particularly where the RB only gets .5 pts).

[King of Queens]

Last year we were able to secure three excellent RBs in the first 3 rounds (E.James, D.Davis, C.Martin) because many teams went after WRs. We feel that we got an excellent threesome this year as well (Tomlinson, M.Anderson, C.Williams).

Keep up the good work, Ernol. With this kind of analysis, lots of fellow owners are sure to things your way. At this rate, we'll have years and years of RB-RB-RB to look forward to. Bravo!

[Ernol]

KOQ, don’t you think that the fact that all of the RBs you picked happen to be top 10 RBs had something to do with your win? If you replaced Edge with Culpepper, do you still win? If so, would you then be convinced that QB-RB-RB is the way to go? Replace Martin with Tony Gonzalez, do you win? How about replacing Davis with Mushin Muhammed, do you win? Fact is, you pick 2 top 10 RBs in the second and third rounds, and you are well on your way to winning a title. RB-RB-RB itself had little to do with it.

Of course, the majority of us are not as capable as you think you are in being able to navigate the treacherous waters of RBs to be able to pick 3 top 10 RBs in 3 rounds. For those who can, it really does not matter if you go RB-RB-RB, QB-RB-RB or even TE-RB-RB. The fact that you are able to pick out the greats from the busts puts you miles ahead of everyone else. The analysis above, does not take into account that kind of skill level.

I must say, however, that Dyv's analysis has got me thinking more about the virtues of RB-RB-RB so you may be seeing more about that later, particularly right before next year's draft.

[King of Queens]

Originally posted by Ernol:
How about replacing Davis with Mushin Muhammed, do you win?Got Muhammad in the 8th round.

In all honesty, getting MM was probably a bigger help than the 3 Top 10 RBs.

[King of Queens]

Originally posted by Ernol:
Of course, the majority of us are not as capable as you think you are in being able to navigate the treacherous waters of RBs to be able to pick 3 top 10 RBs in 3 rounds.We'll evaluate after the season. If Anderson and Cadillac are not Top 15 or Top 20 RBs, then I made a mistake. If I was right, well, then call me Captain...