-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
The Official "Complain about being beat by Seattle Defense" Thread
- Thread starter WaterBomb
- Start date
I feel like I've been cheating with how lucky I've gotten this year.
If Marshall gets 12 points in a 1 point PPR league this year, I'll be 4-0 this week and 14-2 for the year, with both losses coming in league C. In the other 3 leagues, I'm near the bottom in points against, but I haven't been totally undeserving of the wins because I'm near the top in points scored as well.
My money league has been fantastic, though. Heading into the monday night games, my 400 points is by far the most in the league, and that's with leaving Dwayne Bowe on the bench weeks 2/4 (another 40 points right there, will never bench him again). The next closest team is 60 points behind me, an average of 15/game. So far it's making up for last season, when I lost Jennings, AP and Forte on the way to the playoffs and started out something like 2-3 despite leading the league in points.
In my opinion, the single most important thing about a fantasy team is consistency. I modeled my money team around players who consistently performed well by drafting Brees, Sproles, White, Harvin, and Bowe. The only real exception to this strategy was taking a risk on Jamaal Charles, a pick I was exceptionally unhappy even during the draft.
A consistent team will beat an explosive team a majority of the time. If you choose a bunch of boom or bust players, like Vick, Cruz, CJ0k, etc, you have the potential to score a lot of points. However, a majority of your team will have to overperform in order for you to get an above average score. I generally don't listen to "fantasy experts," but Matthew Berry has the right idea about several things. In one article before the season, he highlighted that consistent average teams are more likely to win than boom-or-bust teams.
For example, here are my top four players from my smogon auction league team that are the reason that I am soon to be 4-0:
Matt Ryan: 32.46/18.66/22.40/26.76
Percy Harvin: 16.92/21.82/17.26/15.10
Marshawn Lynch: 10.70/19.20/10.40/24.50
Jimmy Graham: 17.50/16.60/9.60/11.10
Combined: 77.58/76.28/59.66/77.46
That's pretty fucking consistent!
On that note, justin in the auction league for unluckiest team of the year. 125+ points every week, but he's lost two games 148-156 and 154-155. He's scored one of the only 4 games above 150 points so far this season, but played two and lost to them both. Ouch.
If Marshall gets 12 points in a 1 point PPR league this year, I'll be 4-0 this week and 14-2 for the year, with both losses coming in league C. In the other 3 leagues, I'm near the bottom in points against, but I haven't been totally undeserving of the wins because I'm near the top in points scored as well.
My money league has been fantastic, though. Heading into the monday night games, my 400 points is by far the most in the league, and that's with leaving Dwayne Bowe on the bench weeks 2/4 (another 40 points right there, will never bench him again). The next closest team is 60 points behind me, an average of 15/game. So far it's making up for last season, when I lost Jennings, AP and Forte on the way to the playoffs and started out something like 2-3 despite leading the league in points.
In my opinion, the single most important thing about a fantasy team is consistency. I modeled my money team around players who consistently performed well by drafting Brees, Sproles, White, Harvin, and Bowe. The only real exception to this strategy was taking a risk on Jamaal Charles, a pick I was exceptionally unhappy even during the draft.
A consistent team will beat an explosive team a majority of the time. If you choose a bunch of boom or bust players, like Vick, Cruz, CJ0k, etc, you have the potential to score a lot of points. However, a majority of your team will have to overperform in order for you to get an above average score. I generally don't listen to "fantasy experts," but Matthew Berry has the right idea about several things. In one article before the season, he highlighted that consistent average teams are more likely to win than boom-or-bust teams.
For example, here are my top four players from my smogon auction league team that are the reason that I am soon to be 4-0:
Matt Ryan: 32.46/18.66/22.40/26.76
Percy Harvin: 16.92/21.82/17.26/15.10
Marshawn Lynch: 10.70/19.20/10.40/24.50
Jimmy Graham: 17.50/16.60/9.60/11.10
Combined: 77.58/76.28/59.66/77.46
That's pretty fucking consistent!
On that note, justin in the auction league for unluckiest team of the year. 125+ points every week, but he's lost two games 148-156 and 154-155. He's scored one of the only 4 games above 150 points so far this season, but played two and lost to them both. Ouch.
He would be stupid to take that trade.
Also Killah that's all fine and dandy but luck certainly plays a part in how that plays out. Many people drafted for consistency like you did, but are still sitting on bad records due to bad luck (like Justin and myself). This only really affects short term streaks though, and consistency will pay its dividends over the course of the season as a whole. I have no doubt Justin will be in the playoffs and I hopefully will be.
Also Killah that's all fine and dandy but luck certainly plays a part in how that plays out. Many people drafted for consistency like you did, but are still sitting on bad records due to bad luck (like Justin and myself). This only really affects short term streaks though, and consistency will pay its dividends over the course of the season as a whole. I have no doubt Justin will be in the playoffs and I hopefully will be.
I will be the first to admit that I've had an incredibly lucky season so far. The point of drafting for consistency is to control your luck, though, or at least as much as you can control.
There are three circumstances where a team can be effected by bad luck. The first two are obvious, and you have no real control over them however you draft: Injuries and points against. High scoring teams can be beaten by higher scoring opponents any day, and generally speaking anytime someone puts a lot of points on you you're probably gonna lose regardless of how good you are. Injuries are inherently random, and while there might be some truth to those "injury prone" guys like Andre or McFadden it's just as likely that these injuries were just a case of circumstance or bad luck.
The third is relatively controllable based on how you draft: Consistency. No player will ever completely avoid having bad games, so any team is going to have off days. However, if you aim for the players that are less likely to score far below what their average might be, rather than someone who might score 20 points but might score 5 points, you are more likely to put up a good enough score to win that week.
You said it yourself, consistency will pay its dividends throughout the entire year and will be what makes and breaks teams. This doesn't mean all good teams must be consistent or that no truly consistent team can have bad luck, simply that being consistent is what puts you in the best position to win any given week.
There are three circumstances where a team can be effected by bad luck. The first two are obvious, and you have no real control over them however you draft: Injuries and points against. High scoring teams can be beaten by higher scoring opponents any day, and generally speaking anytime someone puts a lot of points on you you're probably gonna lose regardless of how good you are. Injuries are inherently random, and while there might be some truth to those "injury prone" guys like Andre or McFadden it's just as likely that these injuries were just a case of circumstance or bad luck.
The third is relatively controllable based on how you draft: Consistency. No player will ever completely avoid having bad games, so any team is going to have off days. However, if you aim for the players that are less likely to score far below what their average might be, rather than someone who might score 20 points but might score 5 points, you are more likely to put up a good enough score to win that week.
You said it yourself, consistency will pay its dividends throughout the entire year and will be what makes and breaks teams. This doesn't mean all good teams must be consistent or that no truly consistent team can have bad luck, simply that being consistent is what puts you in the best position to win any given week.
It isn't over yet....and in any case having no Nicks and a limited Jackson, LeShoure and Forte kinda hurts :(
I know. It's called Waivers .-. And I'm not actually -_-
I would like to share my hilarious fantasy football experience so far this season.
Points For
Me (1st place): 560.56
2nd place: 467.38
Last place: 332.04
This is a 93.18 point differential after just 4 weeks. Basically, I am outscoring the 2nd best team by 23.3 points per week. I am also outscoring the lowest scoring team by 57.13 points per week.
Points Against
Me (1st place): 560.50
2nd place: 492.58
Last place: 360.72
I am getting scored against at a rate of more than 16.98 points per game than the next highest scored against team. I am getting scored against at a rate of more than 49.945 points per game than the least scored against team.
So, with my +.06 point differential, where do I end up?
5th place out of 12 with a 2-2 record.
What have we learned from this? Point differentials are pretty accurate! Also, my luck is terrible!
Points For
Me (1st place): 560.56
2nd place: 467.38
Last place: 332.04
This is a 93.18 point differential after just 4 weeks. Basically, I am outscoring the 2nd best team by 23.3 points per week. I am also outscoring the lowest scoring team by 57.13 points per week.
Points Against
Me (1st place): 560.50
2nd place: 492.58
Last place: 360.72
I am getting scored against at a rate of more than 16.98 points per game than the next highest scored against team. I am getting scored against at a rate of more than 49.945 points per game than the least scored against team.
So, with my +.06 point differential, where do I end up?
5th place out of 12 with a 2-2 record.
What have we learned from this? Point differentials are pretty accurate! Also, my luck is terrible!
of course youre going to get destroyed. how did you manage to draft such a terrible team?
As a person who wins fantasy football all the time and never drafts QBs until he has drafted at least 2 RBs and 1 WR here are some things to remember:
1) You only start 1 QB per week, so there is a smaller demand for the position.
2) Even the QBs ranked below the top 12 (12 team league) will give you 20 points.
3) Every team starts 2 RBs per week.
4) RBs below the top 24 are lucky to get you 2 points.
5) You still need a 3rd RB to fill in for the 2 bye weeks and possible injuries of your starting RBs.
Many times, I try to completely fill out all of the starters at RB and WR before even considering QB. I'd much rather have Arian Foster + MJD and a mediocre QB like Roethlisberger, RGIII or Joe Flacco instead of a top tier QB and garbage RBs. The point differential between elite QBs and mediocre RBs is a lot smaller than the difference between elite RBs and mediocre RBs. Especially when it comes to weekly consistency.
Edit: Not saying those guys are mediocre QBs in the NFL, but before the season started nobody was really looking forward to drafting any of them before Round 8 or so.
1) You only start 1 QB per week, so there is a smaller demand for the position.
2) Even the QBs ranked below the top 12 (12 team league) will give you 20 points.
3) Every team starts 2 RBs per week.
4) RBs below the top 24 are lucky to get you 2 points.
5) You still need a 3rd RB to fill in for the 2 bye weeks and possible injuries of your starting RBs.
Many times, I try to completely fill out all of the starters at RB and WR before even considering QB. I'd much rather have Arian Foster + MJD and a mediocre QB like Roethlisberger, RGIII or Joe Flacco instead of a top tier QB and garbage RBs. The point differential between elite QBs and mediocre RBs is a lot smaller than the difference between elite RBs and mediocre RBs. Especially when it comes to weekly consistency.
Edit: Not saying those guys are mediocre QBs in the NFL, but before the season started nobody was really looking forward to drafting any of them before Round 8 or so.
In general, I agree with you that quarterbacks are less valuable than running backs. However, your reasoning is pretty flawed.
The most important thing to look at is what I highlighted in my post yesterday: consistency. Look back at the past quarterbacks drafted in the first round. How many busts do you see? The only busts that comes to mind are Mike Vick, being drafted in the first round last season, and Tom Brady, who got injured the first game of 2008. How many busts were there at RB last season? Jamaal Charles and Rashard Mendenhall went in the first round, Darren McFadden and Peyton Hillis in the second, etc. It is essentially a fact that RBs are more likely to get injured than quarterbacks are, and are more volatile in their year to year production.
Quarterbacks are the kings of consistency from year in to year out, especially the elite ones. A quarterback round 1 is the safest bet there is.
Another important thing to remember, however, is that elite players don't only come early in the draft. Look at the top RBs this season. Ignoring Spiller, who likely will be relegated to a backup role, here are some of the top 10 RBs in the league: Marshawn Lynch at #6, drafted in the 2nd round; Jamaal Charles at #3, drafted in the 2nd or 3rd round; Alfred Morris, largely undrafted or drafted very late; Stevan Ridley, drafted in the 6th-7th round; Reggie Bush, drafted in the 4th-5th round; Trent Richardson, drafted in the 2nd-3rd round; Adrian Peterson drafted in the 2nd-3rd round; etc. The RBs drafted in the first round are basically as follows: Foster/Rice at #s 1-2, no surprise there; McCoy at ~#15; Forte, injured; CJ0k, with a third of the production Foster has had; Darren McFadden, ranked around #20; Demarco Murray, who hasn't fared much better. Early drafts might have gotten MJD in the first round before his prolonged holdout, and he's sitting right about the #10 spot.
You say you'd vastly prefer Foster/MJD over an elite QB and average RB. What about Darren McFadden/Fred Jackson? Chris Johnson/Ryan Mathews? These are both RB pairs that people might have picked up in rounds 1 or 2, and I guarantee those who drafted these guys aren't feeling too hot now.
Look at the top QBs drafted this season. Only Matt Stafford is outside the top 10 in scoring from the position. Brees, Brady, and Cam are near the top, while Rodgers is still in the top 10 despite playing excellent defenses in the 49ers/Bears/Seahawks. Matt Ryan is ranked #2, and was the 6th QB drafted coming into the season. There have been some surprises in the top 10, like the obvious RG3 at #1, but Stafford has been the only QB in the first several rounds even remotely bust worthy (unless someone jumped on Vick early, which is distinctly possible). Drafting a mediocre QB and hoping it works out is pretty risky! I doubt many people had Andy Dalton, Ryan Fitzpatrick, or Carson Palmer above Michael Vick, Tony Romo, and Phillip Rivers on their draft boards, yet each of those three are doing worse than the former trio.
I used to also be vehemently against drafting early QBs for essentially the reasons you listed, but I've since recognized it as a legitimate strategy if you play your cards right.
The most important thing to look at is what I highlighted in my post yesterday: consistency. Look back at the past quarterbacks drafted in the first round. How many busts do you see? The only busts that comes to mind are Mike Vick, being drafted in the first round last season, and Tom Brady, who got injured the first game of 2008. How many busts were there at RB last season? Jamaal Charles and Rashard Mendenhall went in the first round, Darren McFadden and Peyton Hillis in the second, etc. It is essentially a fact that RBs are more likely to get injured than quarterbacks are, and are more volatile in their year to year production.
Quarterbacks are the kings of consistency from year in to year out, especially the elite ones. A quarterback round 1 is the safest bet there is.
Another important thing to remember, however, is that elite players don't only come early in the draft. Look at the top RBs this season. Ignoring Spiller, who likely will be relegated to a backup role, here are some of the top 10 RBs in the league: Marshawn Lynch at #6, drafted in the 2nd round; Jamaal Charles at #3, drafted in the 2nd or 3rd round; Alfred Morris, largely undrafted or drafted very late; Stevan Ridley, drafted in the 6th-7th round; Reggie Bush, drafted in the 4th-5th round; Trent Richardson, drafted in the 2nd-3rd round; Adrian Peterson drafted in the 2nd-3rd round; etc. The RBs drafted in the first round are basically as follows: Foster/Rice at #s 1-2, no surprise there; McCoy at ~#15; Forte, injured; CJ0k, with a third of the production Foster has had; Darren McFadden, ranked around #20; Demarco Murray, who hasn't fared much better. Early drafts might have gotten MJD in the first round before his prolonged holdout, and he's sitting right about the #10 spot.
You say you'd vastly prefer Foster/MJD over an elite QB and average RB. What about Darren McFadden/Fred Jackson? Chris Johnson/Ryan Mathews? These are both RB pairs that people might have picked up in rounds 1 or 2, and I guarantee those who drafted these guys aren't feeling too hot now.
Look at the top QBs drafted this season. Only Matt Stafford is outside the top 10 in scoring from the position. Brees, Brady, and Cam are near the top, while Rodgers is still in the top 10 despite playing excellent defenses in the 49ers/Bears/Seahawks. Matt Ryan is ranked #2, and was the 6th QB drafted coming into the season. There have been some surprises in the top 10, like the obvious RG3 at #1, but Stafford has been the only QB in the first several rounds even remotely bust worthy (unless someone jumped on Vick early, which is distinctly possible). Drafting a mediocre QB and hoping it works out is pretty risky! I doubt many people had Andy Dalton, Ryan Fitzpatrick, or Carson Palmer above Michael Vick, Tony Romo, and Phillip Rivers on their draft boards, yet each of those three are doing worse than the former trio.
I used to also be vehemently against drafting early QBs for essentially the reasons you listed, but I've since recognized it as a legitimate strategy if you play your cards right.
Funny that you bring up consistency and then say my logic is flawed by bringing up inconsistent RBs. I was bashing people for spending so much money on (drafting early) Fred Jackson and Chris Johnson. Chris Johnson has been terrible since he got his big contract and everybody saw it coming. Fred Jackson is already old and has never started an entire season in his career. Ryan Mathews is super injury prone. McFadden is super injury prone.
You are right. QBs are consistent. All of the top 20 QBs will get you around 20 points. Why take an elite one early for an extra 5 points per week? An elite RB will get you an extra 20 points per week.
How many RBs get drafted late and put put up 20 points per week? This year Alfred Morris is basically the only surprise we have. There are 20 QBs out there that will give you 20 points per week. Why waste a high pick getting one in the first round? If you want to win you have to take the risk on a RB. Period.
Also, looking at your team, the only reason you are performing well is because you took one of those "late round (low auction price)" QBs with Matt Ryan.
You are right. QBs are consistent. All of the top 20 QBs will get you around 20 points. Why take an elite one early for an extra 5 points per week? An elite RB will get you an extra 20 points per week.
How many RBs get drafted late and put put up 20 points per week? This year Alfred Morris is basically the only surprise we have. There are 20 QBs out there that will give you 20 points per week. Why waste a high pick getting one in the first round? If you want to win you have to take the risk on a RB. Period.
Also, looking at your team, the only reason you are performing well is because you took one of those "late round (low auction price)" QBs with Matt Ryan.
The thing is that almost all running backs are inconsistent. The only safe bets going into the season were the top 3! Each and every other running back had something negative about them, and while some have maintained their play (ie AP/MJD) none of the other top backs could be considered safe picks. The only other running backs even worthy of being considered among these guys include Sproles and Lynch, who are on pace for a similarly productive season as they had last year. That's far fewer consistent RBs than inconsistent RBs.
You're also under the assumption that every non-elite quarterback is the same, which is patently false. Last year, only 5 quarterbacks were elite and put up 20+ points a game, and everyone else fell way short of that line! Here are some averages for you, using ESPN scoring (which is flawed for non-QBs but pretty accurate for QBs) from last season:
"Elite" QBs #1-5: 22.5 points/week (Rodgers*, Brees, Brady, Stafford, Newton)
"2nd level" QBs #6-9: 16.3 points/week (Eli, Romo*, Ryan, Rivers)
"Borderline starter" QBs #10-13: 13.5 points/week (Sanchez, Vick*, Roethlisberger*, Fitzpatrick)
*These players missed one or more games, dragging the average down some. Adjusted averages are as follows:
"Elite" QBs #1-5: 22.8 points/week (Rodgers*, Brees, Brady, Stafford, Newton)
"2nd level" QBs #6-9: 16.6 points/week (Eli, Romo*, Ryan, Rivers)
"Borderline starter" QBs #10-13: 14.4 points/week (Sanchez, Vick*, Roethlisberger*, Fitzpatrick)
Exactly 5 quarterbacks averaged 20+ points/week. Exactly 9 quarterbacks averaged 15+ points/week.
This season so far has been somewhat of an anomaly with the high passing statistics. Still, only 4 QBs have passed for 20+ points/game (RG3, Ryan, Brees, and Roethlisberger, with Brady/Newton fairly close), while an additional 11 have passed for 15+ points/game. As the season goes on, several of the overperformers will likely normalize back down, and we'll see something like 4-5 elite starters and an additional 5-6 15+ points/week starters.
I couldn't for the life of me find the yahoo scoring for last season, and without the scoring system we use for the smogon leagues I can't really compare the QBs to the RBs. On ESPN, the elite guys are averaging right at about 15 points/week, while the borderline starters (~#24) are averaging right at about 8-9 points/week. This is a difference similar to the difference between elite and borderline quarterbacks.
I have four fantasy teams this season, and I am 6-2 in the leagues where I drafted an RB first round and 8-0 where I drafted a QB in the first round. In the smogon leagues, I am ranked #7/#3 in total points, while in the other two I am ranked #1 (by a large margin) and #3 (by a small margin). I am not trying to profess that one drafting strategy is superior to the other, simply that going QB early is a legitimate strategy.
You're also under the assumption that every non-elite quarterback is the same, which is patently false. Last year, only 5 quarterbacks were elite and put up 20+ points a game, and everyone else fell way short of that line! Here are some averages for you, using ESPN scoring (which is flawed for non-QBs but pretty accurate for QBs) from last season:
"Elite" QBs #1-5: 22.5 points/week (Rodgers*, Brees, Brady, Stafford, Newton)
"2nd level" QBs #6-9: 16.3 points/week (Eli, Romo*, Ryan, Rivers)
"Borderline starter" QBs #10-13: 13.5 points/week (Sanchez, Vick*, Roethlisberger*, Fitzpatrick)
*These players missed one or more games, dragging the average down some. Adjusted averages are as follows:
"Elite" QBs #1-5: 22.8 points/week (Rodgers*, Brees, Brady, Stafford, Newton)
"2nd level" QBs #6-9: 16.6 points/week (Eli, Romo*, Ryan, Rivers)
"Borderline starter" QBs #10-13: 14.4 points/week (Sanchez, Vick*, Roethlisberger*, Fitzpatrick)
Exactly 5 quarterbacks averaged 20+ points/week. Exactly 9 quarterbacks averaged 15+ points/week.
This season so far has been somewhat of an anomaly with the high passing statistics. Still, only 4 QBs have passed for 20+ points/game (RG3, Ryan, Brees, and Roethlisberger, with Brady/Newton fairly close), while an additional 11 have passed for 15+ points/game. As the season goes on, several of the overperformers will likely normalize back down, and we'll see something like 4-5 elite starters and an additional 5-6 15+ points/week starters.
I couldn't for the life of me find the yahoo scoring for last season, and without the scoring system we use for the smogon leagues I can't really compare the QBs to the RBs. On ESPN, the elite guys are averaging right at about 15 points/week, while the borderline starters (~#24) are averaging right at about 8-9 points/week. This is a difference similar to the difference between elite and borderline quarterbacks.
I have four fantasy teams this season, and I am 6-2 in the leagues where I drafted an RB first round and 8-0 where I drafted a QB in the first round. In the smogon leagues, I am ranked #7/#3 in total points, while in the other two I am ranked #1 (by a large margin) and #3 (by a small margin). I am not trying to profess that one drafting strategy is superior to the other, simply that going QB early is a legitimate strategy.