So here’s a question that I don’t hear anyone address: If Fitzmagic has been a top 10-15 fantasy QB everywhere he’s been… and this is the best team he’s been on… and he scores a few TDs with his legs… then why shouldn’t we consider drafting him in a 1 QB league over Brady, Stafford, Tua, and some of the other QBs in that range? Feels like he’s being devalued by name and some interceptions, which are all noise covering up a good floor and decently high ceiling. Perfect to pair with a Fields for example, but everyone is pointing to other QBs. Am I missing something?
You are not. I have him in a tier ahead of QBs like Daniel Jones, Roeth, etc. in my rankings that came out over the weekend. Same tier as Matt Ryan and Baker. Prob would rank him higher purely on some of what you said but he's not expensive so don't really need to.
Brady doesn't belong on that list. Best team he's ever been on, scores a few QB sneak TDs every year, he has QB1 overall in his range of outcomes (think 2013 Peyton Manning)
The drumbeat in out of Jags camp seems to be favoring Marvin Jones over Laviska. I know Laviska is miles ahead in TPRR and nearly a decade younger ... Have preseason reports swayed your confidence on him at all, or are you still expecting the breakout?
I would never say I'm expecting a breakout, so that's sort of the thing here where the preseason reports don't really sway me. Marvin looking good is in some ways great for Viska in that it provides some cover and he doesn't have to be the guy from Day 1. But if he's as good as I think he is, Marvin Jones isn't going to suddenly dominate targets or do other things that prevent him from being a star. Jones might be productive too, but doesn't have the same ceiling, and they basically play different positions in how they will be deployed and what the team is hoping to get out of them. So if Jones is creating plays down the field, it could be really nice for Viska's ability to eat underneath and make plays that way, especially if Chark isn't healthy/right.
Thanks, again, for responding to my questions and highlighting your answers in a separate post. I really appreciate it!
As an addendum, I noticed while playing around with Fantasy Pros' ADP tables just how low some of the young RBs are on ESPN. This is noisy, so take with a grain of salt, but check these out: Michael Carter - 124; A.J. Dillon - 126; Trey Sermon - 139. To get a hopefully more accurate projection of these players specifically, I took the median ADP of the other four sites exclusive of ESPN (which I would advise not fully trusting). Even at their revised, higher ADPs, each appear gettable in rounds 7/8 and on. This appears to be more ammo for the Zero RB approach and makes me more confident taking Cook in round 1 and laying off RB until I have 4-5 WRs selected.
Another point: two of Ben's threshold-tier WRs, Boyd and Deebo, are going at picks 91 and 99, respectively, and not much higher on other platforms. So, if looking at a strong bench/last WR in a robust WR build, these guys could be there in rounds 8/9. Looking forward to putting all this to use in a few days. Hope this is helpful to others drafting soon!
P.S. For those wondering, the 11th round and after appears to be the sweet spot for the QBs I specifically asked Ben about, at least in 1-QB leagues: Fields has an ADP in the 13th round; Lance's is at about the same spot. Lawrence and Tua also have average ADPs anywhere from the 11th to 13th. Since I have the short turn between 10/11, that appears to be the sweet spot for grabbing one of these guys so that I don't miss altogether. Again, I'm obliged to add, it's ADP, so not an exact science, and the draft could go differently--but I like this plan in the abstract.
I am in a 10 team one-keeper league where every keeper is basically just worth your first round pick. I am deciding between Saquon and Kelce. I have the 6th pick, who I expect to be Diggs or Ekeler/JT. Would you keep Saquon or Kelce?
Gretch, love your work. You are Shawn are clearly the 2 best fantasy minds in the industry.
Quick 2 questions: On the latest episode of Stealing Bananas Jamey says Flores LOVES Gaskin. What do you make of that after the 1st preseason game, where it seems it will be an RBBC?
Are you buying the Trey Sermon hype from Trent Williams? I heard Waldman say that we should take a lineman's opinion more seriously re: the RBs in their own backfield because 1) they are smart 2) they are intimately aware of the skill/decision making on each run
wHAT yall think im in a 12 team league were we start 3 WRs and 2 flex that are RB/WR/TE - and it is full point PPR how many WRs do i need to take through 10 rounds ?
Agree with Chris here, I'd be targeting at least 7 WRs through that point and might have 8. If I didn't have 8, I'd be looking at a high upside rookie still in Round 11 or Round 12, ideally Rondale Moore.
Yea i agree with all of that. I just think since i could really have an edge starting 5 WRs every week and 5 really good ones. In my league maybe 1 or 2 other people will even come close to how WR heavy i go. But i guess my biggest question is how to attack tight end cause having 5 really good WRs and a really good TE is could make a difference. But i got pick 7 idk if waller or kittle get back to me in the 3rd so its tough.
Always a sucker for a good mailbag - following up to Andy's question, I'm in same dilemma but in a 2 WR 1 Flex 0.5 PPR. When I run a VORP analysis on my rankings, RB and TE still seem to come out well ahead in the first 2 rounds. Am I reading too much in to the season long data projections and not putting enough weight in to the fact that WR is less fragile? I was all in on Zero RB until I figured out that you were running under the assumption of 3 WR 1 Flex and PPR.
VORP is always going to overvalue RB projections and undervalue WR. The whole concept of Value-Based Drafting was a central part of Shawn's original Zero RB piece (it was titled "Zero RB, Antifragility, and the Myth of Value-Based Drafting"). VORP relies on accurate projections but projections aren't remotely accurate, both because of different bust rates across positions and also because we should think probabilistically with a range of outcomes for each player. I've talked about this in a few different places, including the post where I presented my projections and a post that I called something like "Overused fantasy analysis," so I'd suggest checking those out for more info, but one big part of why projections are fragile that I haven't mentioned yet is locking in team volume is very tough to do, which is just the first step to a projection. When you wind up with these very exact figures where the VORP for two different options is within 10 or 20 points, it's always smart to consider how things could shift such that those figures would be inaccurate, and the team volume being off is one option, a failure to hit opportunity or usage assumptions is one, and then obviously efficiency is tough to project too and is another. It's definitely true that a projection is a best guess and should be treated as something like our most likely outcome, but VORP tends to believe that best guess has a pretty good chance of happening — let's say it sort of assumes the outcome will be right or fairly close to right more than 50% of the time, such that it makes sense to weigh those VORPs and trust you'll come out profitable over the long haul — but I would argue it's our best guess but in some cases only like 25% likely to happen, at best, and there are all these other wide ranges of possibilities that each have smaller percentages of hitting but add up to where we could say "this projection has a greater chance of being wrong in these ways than it does of being right." If you think of it that way, it becomes easier to recognize how VORP can lead you to conclusions that could be right sometimes but also could be very wrong others and probably aren't making you any more accurate in the big picture.
This is such a important shift in how to view rankings, and once processed, would completely upend how you draft, how you think about drafting, how you assign weight to rankings, how you think about players, how you think about projections associated with players, how you think about teams, how you think about fantasy football. This is so pure.
Gretch: Playing Chess. Will: Losing at Checkers. Thank you for the thoughtful analysis as always. Definitely have read all your other stuff and listened to all podcasts so I wanted to make sure my question was well thought out too.
How much analysis do you do on the schedule? Particularly the playoff matchups? I found this article on SuperFlex QB strategy from 4for4 (https://www.4for4.com/2021/preseason/superflex-draft-strategy-modified-zero-qb) but I wonder how much defenses and matchups change from year to year and can we reliably look at defensive metrics from last year and apply them to this year?
Not nearly as much as I should. I do think there's value here. Defensive metrics don't tend to be particularly stable, but offensive ones do, and team strength is an important part of schedule. So the way I'd use the schedule is target the potential for shootout type games targeting opponents that want to play aggressively on offense, looking at game environment (late-season dome games vs. cold weather outdoor cities), and then teams that look to be bad and lose a lot of games that don't project to have great defenses either. If they have a good defense, it's probably low-scoring games, but if they are bad but even if their defense looks sort of average, the inability for the opposing offense to sustain drives is going to probably ensure plenty of play volume for the offense you're targeting. And winning teams score more points obviously so more TD potential and all that.
Predicting all of this can obviously be hard but I think it's worthwhile to make some guesses and there are teams with several interesting matchups in important parts of the season where it makes sense to assume at least some of those could play out as favorable fantasy environments.
So here’s a question that I don’t hear anyone address: If Fitzmagic has been a top 10-15 fantasy QB everywhere he’s been… and this is the best team he’s been on… and he scores a few TDs with his legs… then why shouldn’t we consider drafting him in a 1 QB league over Brady, Stafford, Tua, and some of the other QBs in that range? Feels like he’s being devalued by name and some interceptions, which are all noise covering up a good floor and decently high ceiling. Perfect to pair with a Fields for example, but everyone is pointing to other QBs. Am I missing something?
You are not. I have him in a tier ahead of QBs like Daniel Jones, Roeth, etc. in my rankings that came out over the weekend. Same tier as Matt Ryan and Baker. Prob would rank him higher purely on some of what you said but he's not expensive so don't really need to.
Brady doesn't belong on that list. Best team he's ever been on, scores a few QB sneak TDs every year, he has QB1 overall in his range of outcomes (think 2013 Peyton Manning)
The drumbeat in out of Jags camp seems to be favoring Marvin Jones over Laviska. I know Laviska is miles ahead in TPRR and nearly a decade younger ... Have preseason reports swayed your confidence on him at all, or are you still expecting the breakout?
I would never say I'm expecting a breakout, so that's sort of the thing here where the preseason reports don't really sway me. Marvin looking good is in some ways great for Viska in that it provides some cover and he doesn't have to be the guy from Day 1. But if he's as good as I think he is, Marvin Jones isn't going to suddenly dominate targets or do other things that prevent him from being a star. Jones might be productive too, but doesn't have the same ceiling, and they basically play different positions in how they will be deployed and what the team is hoping to get out of them. So if Jones is creating plays down the field, it could be really nice for Viska's ability to eat underneath and make plays that way, especially if Chark isn't healthy/right.
Thanks, again, for responding to my questions and highlighting your answers in a separate post. I really appreciate it!
As an addendum, I noticed while playing around with Fantasy Pros' ADP tables just how low some of the young RBs are on ESPN. This is noisy, so take with a grain of salt, but check these out: Michael Carter - 124; A.J. Dillon - 126; Trey Sermon - 139. To get a hopefully more accurate projection of these players specifically, I took the median ADP of the other four sites exclusive of ESPN (which I would advise not fully trusting). Even at their revised, higher ADPs, each appear gettable in rounds 7/8 and on. This appears to be more ammo for the Zero RB approach and makes me more confident taking Cook in round 1 and laying off RB until I have 4-5 WRs selected.
Another point: two of Ben's threshold-tier WRs, Boyd and Deebo, are going at picks 91 and 99, respectively, and not much higher on other platforms. So, if looking at a strong bench/last WR in a robust WR build, these guys could be there in rounds 8/9. Looking forward to putting all this to use in a few days. Hope this is helpful to others drafting soon!
P.S. For those wondering, the 11th round and after appears to be the sweet spot for the QBs I specifically asked Ben about, at least in 1-QB leagues: Fields has an ADP in the 13th round; Lance's is at about the same spot. Lawrence and Tua also have average ADPs anywhere from the 11th to 13th. Since I have the short turn between 10/11, that appears to be the sweet spot for grabbing one of these guys so that I don't miss altogether. Again, I'm obliged to add, it's ADP, so not an exact science, and the draft could go differently--but I like this plan in the abstract.
I am in a 10 team one-keeper league where every keeper is basically just worth your first round pick. I am deciding between Saquon and Kelce. I have the 6th pick, who I expect to be Diggs or Ekeler/JT. Would you keep Saquon or Kelce?
Gretch, love your work. You are Shawn are clearly the 2 best fantasy minds in the industry.
Quick 2 questions: On the latest episode of Stealing Bananas Jamey says Flores LOVES Gaskin. What do you make of that after the 1st preseason game, where it seems it will be an RBBC?
Are you buying the Trey Sermon hype from Trent Williams? I heard Waldman say that we should take a lineman's opinion more seriously re: the RBs in their own backfield because 1) they are smart 2) they are intimately aware of the skill/decision making on each run
wHAT yall think im in a 12 team league were we start 3 WRs and 2 flex that are RB/WR/TE - and it is full point PPR how many WRs do i need to take through 10 rounds ?
Agree with Chris here, I'd be targeting at least 7 WRs through that point and might have 8. If I didn't have 8, I'd be looking at a high upside rookie still in Round 11 or Round 12, ideally Rondale Moore.
That’s a lot of potential WRs. Maybe 7 but it’s hard to say and depends on when the value falls of a cliff.
Yea i agree with all of that. I just think since i could really have an edge starting 5 WRs every week and 5 really good ones. In my league maybe 1 or 2 other people will even come close to how WR heavy i go. But i guess my biggest question is how to attack tight end cause having 5 really good WRs and a really good TE is could make a difference. But i got pick 7 idk if waller or kittle get back to me in the 3rd so its tough.
Always a sucker for a good mailbag - following up to Andy's question, I'm in same dilemma but in a 2 WR 1 Flex 0.5 PPR. When I run a VORP analysis on my rankings, RB and TE still seem to come out well ahead in the first 2 rounds. Am I reading too much in to the season long data projections and not putting enough weight in to the fact that WR is less fragile? I was all in on Zero RB until I figured out that you were running under the assumption of 3 WR 1 Flex and PPR.
VORP is always going to overvalue RB projections and undervalue WR. The whole concept of Value-Based Drafting was a central part of Shawn's original Zero RB piece (it was titled "Zero RB, Antifragility, and the Myth of Value-Based Drafting"). VORP relies on accurate projections but projections aren't remotely accurate, both because of different bust rates across positions and also because we should think probabilistically with a range of outcomes for each player. I've talked about this in a few different places, including the post where I presented my projections and a post that I called something like "Overused fantasy analysis," so I'd suggest checking those out for more info, but one big part of why projections are fragile that I haven't mentioned yet is locking in team volume is very tough to do, which is just the first step to a projection. When you wind up with these very exact figures where the VORP for two different options is within 10 or 20 points, it's always smart to consider how things could shift such that those figures would be inaccurate, and the team volume being off is one option, a failure to hit opportunity or usage assumptions is one, and then obviously efficiency is tough to project too and is another. It's definitely true that a projection is a best guess and should be treated as something like our most likely outcome, but VORP tends to believe that best guess has a pretty good chance of happening — let's say it sort of assumes the outcome will be right or fairly close to right more than 50% of the time, such that it makes sense to weigh those VORPs and trust you'll come out profitable over the long haul — but I would argue it's our best guess but in some cases only like 25% likely to happen, at best, and there are all these other wide ranges of possibilities that each have smaller percentages of hitting but add up to where we could say "this projection has a greater chance of being wrong in these ways than it does of being right." If you think of it that way, it becomes easier to recognize how VORP can lead you to conclusions that could be right sometimes but also could be very wrong others and probably aren't making you any more accurate in the big picture.
This is such a important shift in how to view rankings, and once processed, would completely upend how you draft, how you think about drafting, how you assign weight to rankings, how you think about players, how you think about projections associated with players, how you think about teams, how you think about fantasy football. This is so pure.
Gretch: Playing Chess. Will: Losing at Checkers. Thank you for the thoughtful analysis as always. Definitely have read all your other stuff and listened to all podcasts so I wanted to make sure my question was well thought out too.
How much analysis do you do on the schedule? Particularly the playoff matchups? I found this article on SuperFlex QB strategy from 4for4 (https://www.4for4.com/2021/preseason/superflex-draft-strategy-modified-zero-qb) but I wonder how much defenses and matchups change from year to year and can we reliably look at defensive metrics from last year and apply them to this year?
Not nearly as much as I should. I do think there's value here. Defensive metrics don't tend to be particularly stable, but offensive ones do, and team strength is an important part of schedule. So the way I'd use the schedule is target the potential for shootout type games targeting opponents that want to play aggressively on offense, looking at game environment (late-season dome games vs. cold weather outdoor cities), and then teams that look to be bad and lose a lot of games that don't project to have great defenses either. If they have a good defense, it's probably low-scoring games, but if they are bad but even if their defense looks sort of average, the inability for the opposing offense to sustain drives is going to probably ensure plenty of play volume for the offense you're targeting. And winning teams score more points obviously so more TD potential and all that.
Predicting all of this can obviously be hard but I think it's worthwhile to make some guesses and there are teams with several interesting matchups in important parts of the season where it makes sense to assume at least some of those could play out as favorable fantasy environments.