What's the best pick to have this year in FF? [Archive]

SossMan

08-10-2005, 08:51 PM

In a 10 team league assuming fairly competant, but not great opponnents.

I like 1-5 much better than 6-10.

Jack of Arcades

08-10-2005, 09:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In a 10 team league assuming fairly competant, but not great opponnents.

I like 1-5 much better than 6-10.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I think that RB is pretty deep this year and you got clowns taking manning and culpepper in the top 10. If you draft in the bottom half, you're pretty much guaranteed to get two good RBs.

2+2 wannabe

08-10-2005, 09:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a 10 team league assuming fairly competant, but not great opponnents.

I like 1-5 much better than 6-10.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I think that RB is pretty deep this year and you got clowns taking manning and culpepper in the top 10. If you draft in the bottom half, you're pretty much guaranteed to get two good RBs.

[/ QUOTE ]

count me as one of those clowns

imported_anacardo

08-10-2005, 09:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a 10 team league assuming fairly competant, but not great opponnents.

I like 1-5 much better than 6-10.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I think that RB is pretty deep this year and you got clowns taking manning and culpepper in the top 10. If you draft in the bottom half, you're pretty much guaranteed to get two good RBs.

[/ QUOTE ]

count me as one of those clowns

[/ QUOTE ]

We're aware. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

nolanfan34

08-10-2005, 09:32 PM

LaDanian Tomlinson.

I actually like the #1 pick a lot this year.

rheaume

08-10-2005, 09:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In a 10 team league assuming fairly competant, but not great opponnents.

I like 1-5 much better than 6-10.

[/ QUOTE ]

peyton manning or priest holmes seem to be the popular 1st picks

fingokra

08-10-2005, 09:33 PM

My league last year I took Manning first, had great WRs, and played the wires with RBs. I won the regular season in easily.

Tyler Durden

08-10-2005, 09:33 PM

my draft starts in about 15 minutes, who should i take w/ the 5th pick in a ten team league?

i think peyton, LT and Shaun Alexander will be gone. So who's next? tyvm

imported_anacardo

08-10-2005, 09:33 PM

These are, to say the least, suboptimal choices.

mmbt0ne

08-10-2005, 09:36 PM

Priest, Edge

imported_anacardo

08-10-2005, 09:40 PM

Edge edge edge edge edge.

morello

08-10-2005, 09:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a 10 team league assuming fairly competant, but not great opponnents.

I like 1-5 much better than 6-10.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I think that RB is pretty deep this year and you got clowns taking manning and culpepper in the top 10. If you draft in the bottom half, you're pretty much guaranteed to get two good RBs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there is enough depth at RB in a 10 team league for Manning to be an easy top 5 pick. You will still get two good RBs, and the difference between Manning and everyone else at QB is huge. Not to mention, Peyton doesn't miss games.

SossMan

08-10-2005, 10:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a 10 team league assuming fairly competant, but not great opponnents.

I like 1-5 much better than 6-10.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I think that RB is pretty deep this year and you got clowns taking manning and culpepper in the top 10. If you draft in the bottom half, you're pretty much guaranteed to get two good RBs.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think that there is a dropoff after the top 5 if you are in the top 5, you are gauranteed to get LT, Alexander, priest, edge, or manning. The 6th-20th picks all look close to the same to me.

The Armchair

08-10-2005, 10:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a 10 team league assuming fairly competant, but not great opponnents.

I like 1-5 much better than 6-10.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I think that RB is pretty deep this year and you got clowns taking manning and culpepper in the top 10. If you draft in the bottom half, you're pretty much guaranteed to get two good RBs.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think that there is a dropoff after the top 5 if you are in the top 5, you are gauranteed to get LT, Alexander, priest, edge, or manning. The 6th-20th picks all look close to the same to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds right to me. McGahee blurs with the other sophomores (and yes, I realize that Willis isn't technically a soph) and all the other unnamed vets have a significant strike against them. I think McGahee is a better #6 than the rest, but that's probably somewhat irrational.

Jack of Arcades

08-10-2005, 10:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a 10 team league assuming fairly competant, but not great opponnents.

I like 1-5 much better than 6-10.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I think that RB is pretty deep this year and you got clowns taking manning and culpepper in the top 10. If you draft in the bottom half, you're pretty much guaranteed to get two good RBs.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think that there is a dropoff after the top 5 if you are in the top 5, you are gauranteed to get LT, Alexander, priest, edge, or manning. The 6th-20th picks all look close to the same to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds right to me. McGahee blurs with the other sophomores (and yes, I realize that Willis isn't technically a soph) and all the other unnamed vets have a significant strike against them. I think McGahee is a better #6 than the rest, but that's probably somewhat irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but I think Priest also has concerns with age and injuries. I think it's more like LT, Shaun, and a lot of the same.

The Armchair

08-10-2005, 10:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Sure, but I think Priest also has concerns with age and injuries. I think it's more like LT, Shaun, and a lot of the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Priest scored 15 TDs in 7.5 weeks last year. That's sickeningly good. If you are concerned about his injuries, that's fine -- just take LJ in the 5th instead of waiting for the 7th or 8th.

The two of them hit the end zone a combined 26 times last year, and that does not include Derrick Blaylock's nine.

Clarkmeister

08-11-2005, 01:04 AM

This is retarded. The #1 pick is always the best pick.

SossMan

08-11-2005, 02:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This is retarded. The #1 pick is always the best pick.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'll assume you were being 'funny', but i changed the title just in case

Clarkmeister

08-11-2005, 10:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is retarded. The #1 pick is always the best pick.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'll assume you were being 'funny', but i changed the title just in case

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I was serious. Drafting first is always best. I wasn't playing grammar cop.

SossMan

08-11-2005, 12:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is retarded. The #1 pick is always the best pick.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'll assume you were being 'funny', but i changed the title just in case

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I was serious. Drafting first is always best. I wasn't playing grammar cop.

[/ QUOTE ]

no it's not. this year it happens to be better than normal because of both the large dropoff from the first to second tier and also the depth of the second tier.

Last year, for example, there wasn't close to a clear choice for the #1 pick, so it made much more sense to have like #4 or 5.

I'm usually a big fan of late first round picks, but this year they suck.

SossMan

08-11-2005, 01:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is retarded. The #1 pick is always the best pick.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'll assume you were being 'funny', but i changed the title just in case

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I was serious. Drafting first is always best. I wasn't playing grammar cop.

[/ QUOTE ]

reasoning?

wayabvpar

08-11-2005, 02:32 PM

I don't mind the later picks- in big (12+) leagues, having 2 of the top 20 players pretty much evens out not having one of the top 5. Depth is a huge key in FF, and the later picks allow you to stock up easier, IMHO. Having a top 5 pick and then having that guy go down to injury totally screws your season; if my #12 pick goes down, I still have another top 15-20 player to help lessen the loss.

SossMan

08-11-2005, 02:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mind the later picks- in big (12+) leagues, having 2 of the top 20 players pretty much evens out not having one of the top 5. Depth is a huge key in FF, and the later picks allow you to stock up easier, IMHO. Having a top 5 pick and then having that guy go down to injury totally screws your season; if my #12 pick goes down, I still have another top 15-20 player to help lessen the loss.

[/ QUOTE ]

honestly, all my leages are 10 team, so I post from that perspective. I agree that the larger the league, the more I would want to be at the end of round 1.

Sluss

08-11-2005, 04:55 PM

After running some mock drafts I think I want picks 1,2,or,5,6,7 (both 10 teams) I don't want to be forced to think about drafting Priest Holmes. I can live with an 8-10, but my best teams come out of these spots.

SossMan

08-11-2005, 05:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
After running some mock drafts I think I want picks 1,2,or,5,6,7 (both 10 teams) I don't want to be forced to think about drafting Priest Holmes. I can live with an 8-10, but my best teams come out of these spots.

[/ QUOTE ]

holmes doesn't scare me so long as i lock up LJ. i could be the starting RB for the chefs and be a first rounder.

Sluss

08-11-2005, 05:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
holmes doesn't scare me so long as i lock up LJ. i could be the starting RB for the chefs and be a first rounder.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to have to blow like a sxith rounder on Johnson because there are enough douches in my league that someone will sap him up in the seventh.

SossMan

08-11-2005, 05:59 PM

I don't mind 'wasting' a 6th rounder if i'm going to get this production:
att yds avg lg TDs
Priest Holmes 196 892 4.6 33 14
Larry Johnson 120 581 4.8 46 9
Derrick Blaylock 118 539 4.6 24 8

that alone can take you to the promised land.