Fantasy Football

[WC64]

I have the first pick in my live draft fantasy football. Who should I take?

I want to take Manning but am I being biased because I am a huge Colts fan? It seems most people take RB's in the first round.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Depends on how your league scores. If a passing TD equals a rushing TD, take Manning. he'll put up the numbers. But if, like some leagues, you get fewer points for throwing a TD pass, you might want to reconsider.

[WC64]

I will have to check that out.

I think my choice is either Manning or Holmes. I have a couple hours to decide.

[sleepyjoeyt]

Priest Holmes (if your scoring is the same as ours).

Given that you couldn't know that, the real issue is this:

How many at each position do you start? How many guys in your league? I'll assume 8 teams in league.

If, for instance, you start 1 quarterback and 2 RBs, then the real question is how much better is the #1 QB (Manning?) as compared to the #8 QB? Is that difference greater than the difference between the #1 RB and the 16th RB (2 RBs per team, 8 teams in league, 16 starting RBs each week).

I do NOT believe in QBs. The league I play in is RB based, as are most teams.

I'd rather have #1 RB and #8 QB (Priest Holmes and maybe Bulger or Brad Johnson) than have the #1 QB and #16 RB (Manning and someone like Eddie George in Dallas).

A great website: fantasyfootball.com.

It costs like $40 for the year, but they give a ton of info and give tips on drafting. They use the theory I tried to explain above, and it works really well. They also give you weekly tip sheets where they rank all fantasy players. Very helpful.

Start off with how many starters their are at each position (total) for the league. Then figure out the points for last year for each of the top (just as an example) 8 QBs. Take the 8th QB (if your league has 8 teams) and say he is worth 0 points and rework the value for each of the 7 values ahead (if the 8th place QB scored 100 points last year and the 1st rated QB scored 135 points, then the 1st rated QB would be worth 35 points.

Do that for every position, and take the player with the highest # when its your turn to pick (until you've selected all your starters).

Of course, you may have to tinker with the numbers some, to factor in what you think people will do this year as compared to last year.

Michael Vick was not in the top 8 Qbs in terms of points last year (injury) but you'd certainly want to tinker with his #s to put him up into your top 8.

Good luck.

[Dynasty]

There is almost no scoring system where Manning should be the #1 overall pick. He's not even the #1 fantasy QB. That would be Culpepper. Manning is at best a mid-second round pick in a 12 team league.

Priest Holmes should go #1 is just about every league. An arguement could be made for LaDanian Tomlinson. There really isn't a strong third candidate.

[WC64]

My league is 10 teams and the following is who starts each week.

QB's - 2
RB's - 2
WR's - 4
TE - 1
DEF - 1
K - 1

I think my choice is going to be Holmes now that I have though about it a lot more and hope Manning is there at 20 if I would even decide to pick him there based on who else was available.

[jwvdcw]

Unlike real football, RBs are the most important in FF. Its simple math: Most leagues start 2 RBs and 1 QB. Figure that 32 teams have QBs who start and play the whole game. Given a 12 team league, that means each team can have a started and a backup who plays every game. However, a lot of nfl teams have RBBCs. And given that there are 24 starting RBS in a fantasy league, each team might not even get two RBs who get the majority of carries for their team.

No QB should be taken until mid 2nd round even if QBs get 6pts/td. There are simply too many good options you can get in round 5. Think of it this way: You could get a stud RB like Holmes with your pick and then still pick up a quality QB like Trent Green, Brett Favre, or Tom Brady in the 5th-7th rounds or you could draft Manning and then be stuck with an RB who probably won't get 50% of his teams' carries like TJ Duckett, Jerome Bettis, or Lamont Jordan in rounds 5-7.

Imo, these guys are the top tier of RBs:

Holmes
LT2
A Green
McCallister
Alexander

Right below them are:

J Lewis
Portis

Most people are taking either Holmes or LT2 with the #1 pick. Each has his concerns: Priest is getting old, LT2 plays for a terrible team. I think the 3 other backs I listed in tier 1 all have less risk than these 2, but slightly less upside as well. So it basically depends on how risky you want to be. Personally, I would try to trade down to pick #5 and take the remaining guy there.

Check out footballguys.net for great advice there.

[ArchAngel71857]

Priest Holmes should go #1 is just about every league. An arguement could be made for LaDanian Tomlinson. There really isn't a strong third candidate.

Agreed. RB's are the bread and butter of any standard Fantasy Football league. A RB who catches TDs and racks up yards on the ground is coveted. If there are 12 teams, you can easily grab Manning with the swing around in round 2-3. Even if he isn't available, you can grab someone like Trent Green in Round 5. Qbs like McNair, McNabb, Culpepper are just as good because they get running TDs as well. If 30 passing TDs=8 RUnning TDs + 22 Passing TDs, then don't pick Manning when you can get the same amount of TDs in a later round and pick up a stud running back right now.


-AA

P.S. You could say Ahman Green for number one. But when Priest Holmes is there, why would you not pick him? Do you want to lose?

[ArchAngel71857]

If you have 2 QB's then no way do you take Manning. Take Holmes. At number 20, you can grab a stud WR, another RB, or a good QB. Leagues are not won by the first two rounds of picking. Its pick in rounds 3-20 that separate the good from the bad.

-AA

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
If you have 2 QB's then no way do you take Manning. Take Holmes. At number 20, you can grab a stud WR, another RB, or a good QB. Leagues are not won by the first two rounds of picking. Its pick in rounds 3-20 that separate the good from the bad.

-AA

[/ QUOTE ]

Note to self...AA will take Priest Holmes #1 if he gets the first pick in the 2+2 football league...could take stud WR at 20...

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[The Armchair]

I wrote the fantasy football section for Pro Football Forecast 2004 (due out in a week or so). Unless you start 2 QBs and 2 RBs, and unless this is a keeper league, take Priest Holmes. Do not, under any circumstances, draft a QB with your first four picks in a 1 QB league, or you'll lose hard.

[ArchAngel71857]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you have 2 QB's then no way do you take Manning. Take Holmes. At number 20, you can grab a stud WR, another RB, or a good QB. Leagues are not won by the first two rounds of picking. Its pick in rounds 3-20 that separate the good from the bad.

-AA

[/ QUOTE ]

Note to self...AA will take Priest Holmes #1 if he gets the first pick in the 2+2 football league...could take stud WR at 20...

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Just what I want you to think. Bwahahaha. I hate having the number one pick. So far my number one picks were Ricky Williams last year and Marshall Faulk the year before. Any league I have won is where I get stuck near the end and have to pick up Jamal Lewis with like the 16th pick (last year), worked out well for me.

-AA

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
If you have 2 QB's then no way do you take Manning.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you start 2 QBs, you should be more likely to take a QB early. In a twelve team league, the top QBs are are good step ahead of the #12 QB. But, they're way ahead of the #24 QB which somebody will be stuck starting in a 2 QB league.

I'd say Culpepper and Manning would have to be first round picks in a league that starts 2 QBs.

But, Holmes and Tomlinson are still better #1 picks.

[WC64]

This league starts 2 QB's and once I thought about it more I took Priest Holmes. I tried to trade down but no one wanted the first pick I guess lol.

[bugstud]

I'll have to try this format, it's deeper and more interesting.

[The Armchair]

You still have to take a RB, especially in a ten-team league. There are 15-20 servicable fantasy QBs, if not more. There are not nearly that many RB. The reason for this is simple: a team can leave a "running back controversy" (to coin a misusage) unresolved and still win; they cannot do the same with a QB controversy.

Here's a quick mental exercise: Take any division. Look at the four teams in it. It is highly unlikely that any division has four bonafide RBs, and that no more than one division has more settled/serviceable QBs than RBs. No, I haven't done this out yet, but that's just how it works year to year.

And I wouldn't have traded down, either, so don't worry about not being able to. If you want, you can always deal Holmes.