Dynasty Rebuilding Strategy (1 Viewer)

[mlbnfl]

Without really making this about my team and more of a general discussion, I have taken over a zealots dynasty team. It was pretty terrible and I have since made it even worse (for this years discussion anyways). There is an owner that has three first rounders (originally owned by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th highest scorers so far) while my original pick is all but guaranteed to be the top pick.

Now just asking about the theory of it, if you are rebuilding a team do you tend to try to get the uber stud and hope he works out, or would you try to have more opportunities to "hit" on a player with perhaps lesser guarantee on them becoming a stud? I guess it might depend on the complexion of the team but Im talking pretty much absolute overhaul teams that you know will take atleast 2-4 years to even be decent. I realize that most leagues dont have a team with three late 1sts to go after but just consider the theory.

 

[JbizzleMan]

Rebuilding? I would personally go for multiple picks.

 

[LittlePhatty]

There is an owner that has three first rounders (originally owned by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th highest scorers so far) while my original pick is all but guaranteed to be the top pick.

Are you thinking of trading your top pick to this owner for the 3 late first-rounders?In general I'd rather have the 3 late picks instead of the top 1.

 

[Nicolas Cocaign]

I think the late first round picks are so hit or miss, that you're better off going with the #1 overall pick.

What I would od is try to trade the #1 overall to another team for a good young player + their #1 pick.

 

[fruity pebbles]

I'd take the 3 late picks especially in an idp league. Of the top players right now- MJD, Chris Johnson, AP, RR, Gore, Charles, Andre, Calvin, Fitz, Austin, Roddy, Jennings.... who else? How many of these guys were top 5 picks in leagues- of the 12 only 4 of them.

 

[moderated]

I'd take the 3 late picks especially in an idp league. Of the top players right now- MJD, Chris Johnson, AP, RR, Gore, Charles, Andre, Calvin, Fitz, Austin, Roddy, Jennings.... who else? How many of these guys were top 5 picks in leagues- of the 12 only 4 of them.

that's not really a good way to look at it. How many late 1st round picks actually pan out to be tier 1 or 2 fantasy players? Not a very high percentage. Cherry picking the best ones doesn't really tell a realistic story.i would much rather have the #1 pick then the 12/13/14 picks in a rookie draft.

 

[fruity pebbles]

I'd take the 3 late picks especially in an idp league. Of the top players right now- MJD, Chris Johnson, AP, RR, Gore, Charles, Andre, Calvin, Fitz, Austin, Roddy, Jennings.... who else? How many of these guys were top 5 picks in leagues- of the 12 only 4 of them.

that's not really a good way to look at it. How many late 1st round picks actually pan out to be tier 1 or 2 fantasy players? Not a very high percentage. Cherry picking the best ones doesn't really tell a realistic story.i would much rather have the #1 pick then the 12/13/14 picks in a rookie draft.

Depends on the league and scoring. TE dominant scoring league with a heavy IDP bias id def take he late picks.

 

[Go deep]

Well, if you want advice from the defending Zealots master(me) , i would go for young up and coming players. If you have any studs, trade them for multiple picks/prospects. Unless they are very young(Jahvid Best JStew, Desean Jackson, etc.)

Try trading for players who wont have much value now. A guy like Lynch would have been perfect two weks ago, but players like Felix Jones, Chris Wells, Vincent Jackson or Sidney Rice would make nice acquisitions.

For more examples, go to my dynasty rankings(in my sig), and look for players who have higher 2011 scores than current dynasty scores.

 

[Zoomanji]

multiple late picks

 

[Concept Coop]

I'd take the 3 late picks especially in an idp league. Of the top players right now- MJD, Chris Johnson, AP, RR, Gore, Charles, Andre, Calvin, Fitz, Austin, Roddy, Jennings.... who else? How many of these guys were top 5 picks in leagues- of the 12 only 4 of them.

that's not really a good way to look at it. How many late 1st round picks actually pan out to be tier 1 or 2 fantasy players? Not a very high percentage. Cherry picking the best ones doesn't really tell a realistic story.i would much rather have the #1 pick then the 12/13/14 picks in a rookie draft.

And it's not even close, in my mind. Think of the roster spots you have to give up, while waiting for 3 guys to potentially become relevant. The waiver wire is your good friend, while you are rebuilding. It is hard to milk it, when you have so many protected roster spots.

 

[Go deep]

I'd take the 3 late picks especially in an idp league. Of the top players right now- MJD, Chris Johnson, AP, RR, Gore, Charles, Andre, Calvin, Fitz, Austin, Roddy, Jennings.... who else? How many of these guys were top 5 picks in leagues- of the 12 only 4 of them.

that's not really a good way to look at it. How many late 1st round picks actually pan out to be tier 1 or 2 fantasy players? Not a very high percentage. Cherry picking the best ones doesn't really tell a realistic story.i would much rather have the #1 pick then the 12/13/14 picks in a rookie draft.

And it's not even close, in my mind. Think of the roster spots you have to give up, while waiting for 3 guys to potentially become relevant. The waiver wire is your good friend, while you are rebuilding. It is hard to milk it, when you have so many protected roster spots.

Zealots have 53 man rosters, so roster spots are not really an issue. I still agree that i would rather have the 1.1 than multiple late firsts, but it is close, and depends on who is coming out that year.

 

[fruity pebbles]

what is zealot scoring?

 

[squistion]

One can make a persuasive argument for keeping the top pick, but for a rebuilding team I would go for the three first rounders instead. The lower picks are more likely to be a bust, but if you are a decent judge of talent you might get lucky (picked up Chris Johnson his rookie year with one of three first rounders I had). It certainly is more fun as it will allow you to wheel-and-deal, and you might be able to package two of the first rounders to move up in the first, or trade one of the picks for a servicable WR. Certainly riskier but with more options.

 

[Warhogs]

I have two zealots teams. What is your team and league? I would like to look at the team to see how bad it is.

In zealots you can always build the IDP side of the ball if you follow things closely and are willing to spend some zbucks to pick up players. RB of course is tough to fill and even though you only start 1 QB I think it is the 2nd toughest position to fill due to the large roster sizes. Great WR are tough to come by but mediocre WR are a dime a dozen.

Typically in the last few picks of round 1 you are looking at lower tier RB, 2nd tier QB, bottom of tier 1 WR and IDP.

I prefer to have that early first round pick to get a strong rookie RB but then I love to load up on picks in rounds 2 and 3 and get multiple shots of the players in the 13-36 range.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Really depends on the draft.

I was in a situation a few years back where I took over a last place team in a 16-team dynasty with the 1st pick - I traded down to the 3rd, 8th and 15th. The top player in the draft was Reggie Bush, I got Deangelo Williams at 3 (I whiffed with Leinart at 8, and don't recall who I took at 15). Never regretted trading down from top spot - never was a huge fan of Reggie Bush as an impact fantasy player.

I did such a great job that I had the 1st pick the next year also. Different scenario though - Adrian Peterson was the top pick, and looked like a perennial top RB. I kept the pick, Peterson was great, Williams eventually earned playing time (and I had a bunch of FAs really pan out), adn I have been in 3 straight championship games.

So - uber stud, on the right team - Keep the top pick

Weak, but deep draft class - trade down for multiple picks, but I would not trade out of the top-5.

 

[moderated]

Really depends on the draft.I was in a situation a few years back where I took over a last place team in a 16-team dynasty with the 1st pick - I traded down to the 3rd, 8th and 15th. The top player in the draft was Reggie Bush, I got Deangelo Williams at 3 (I whiffed with Leinart at 8, and don't recall who I took at 15). Never regretted trading down from top spot - never was a huge fan of Reggie Bush as an impact fantasy player.I did such a great job that I had the 1st pick the next year also. Different scenario though - Adrian Peterson was the top pick, and looked like a perennial top RB. I kept the pick, Peterson was great, Williams eventually earned playing time (and I had a bunch of FAs really pan out), adn I have been in 3 straight championship games.So - uber stud, on the right team - Keep the top pickWeak, but deep draft class - trade down for multiple picks, but I would not trade out of the top-5.

trading down when you can still stay at the top and get more picks is fine, but trading out of the top of the draft to get late crapshoot 1sts is a bad move IMO.I guess for guys in heavy IDP scoring it can work, but i've found IDP hasn't gained much if any traction over the years and those type of leagues are in a small minority.

 

[Unwrittenlaw]

Multiple late rd 1st picks is the way to rebuild - do your research

A Hernandez/M Williams/A Dixon/Bradford/Gresham look like really good picks right now over guys like Spiller/Matthews

 

[Go deep]

Multiple late rd 1st picks is the way to rebuild - do your researchA Hernandez/M Williams/A Dixon/Bradford/Gresham look like really good picks right now over guys like Spiller/Matthews

I would rather have Mathews or Spiller over any 3 of those guys. Also, you forgot Mccluster, he might end up being the best pick after the top 10.

 

[Unwrittenlaw]

Multiple late rd 1st picks is the way to rebuild - do your researchA Hernandez/M Williams/A Dixon/Bradford/Gresham look like really good picks right now over guys like Spiller/Matthews

I would rather have Mathews or Spiller over any 3 of those guys. Also, you forgot Mccluster, he might end up being the best pick after the top 10.

depends how many teams in the league, but if it were 14 or 16, I think you would crazy not to take 3 of those guys over Mathews/Spiller

 

[Go deep]

Multiple late rd 1st picks is the way to rebuild - do your researchA Hernandez/M Williams/A Dixon/Bradford/Gresham look like really good picks right now over guys like Spiller/Matthews

I would rather have Mathews or Spiller over any 3 of those guys. Also, you forgot Mccluster, he might end up being the best pick after the top 10.

depends how many teams in the league, but if it were 14 or 16, I think you would crazy not to take 3 of those guys over Mathews/Spiller

I only play in 12 team leagues. Even in a 14 teamer, i couldnt imagine i would give up Mathews for Gresham, Williams and Bradford. Actually, i know i wouldnt.

 

[PranksterJD]

Multiple late rd 1st picks is the way to rebuild - do your researchA Hernandez/M Williams/A Dixon/Bradford/Gresham look like really good picks right now over guys like Spiller/Matthews

I would rather have Mathews or Spiller over any 3 of those guys. Also, you forgot Mccluster, he might end up being the best pick after the top 10.

depends how many teams in the league, but if it were 14 or 16, I think you would crazy not to take 3 of those guys over Mathews/Spiller

I'm not sure about that, but the real problem is that the picks used for those three players have such a low success rate. In hindsight, Spiller **might** be worth less than Mike Williams/Hernandez/Dixon.... but the picks used to get the latter three just as easily could have netted James Starks, Joe McKnight, and Eric Decker. Basically the worst you were going to do with the Spiller pick is Spiller.Personally, I'd trade every pick I had for a top 3 selection, regardless of the draft class or the makeup of my team or league. I want "nucleus" players, as F&L like to call them, and the percentage of hitting one of those guys is astronomically higher in the top 3 picks.

 

[Go deep]

Multiple late rd 1st picks is the way to rebuild - do your research

A Hernandez/M Williams/A Dixon/Bradford/Gresham look like really good picks right now over guys like Spiller/Matthews

I would rather have Mathews or Spiller over any 3 of those guys. Also, you forgot Mccluster, he might end up being the best pick after the top 10.

depends how many teams in the league, but if it were 14 or 16, I think you would crazy not to take 3 of those guys over Mathews/Spiller

I'm not sure about that, but the real problem is that the picks used for those three players have such a low success rate. In hindsight, Spiller **might** be worth less than Mike Williams/Hernandez/Dixon.... but the picks used to get the latter three just as easily could have netted James Starks, Joe McKnight, and Eric Decker. Basically the worst you were going to do with the Spiller pick is Spiller.Personally, I'd trade every pick I had for a top 3 selection, regardless of the draft class or the makeup of my team or league. I want "nucleus" players, as F&L like to call them, and the percentage of hitting one of those guys is astronomically higher in the top 3 picks.

I know you were just making a point, which i agree with, but i dont think you should have included Starks. I would take him with an early/mid 2nd if i were doing a rookie draft right now.

 

[PranksterJD]

Multiple late rd 1st picks is the way to rebuild - do your research

A Hernandez/M Williams/A Dixon/Bradford/Gresham look like really good picks right now over guys like Spiller/Matthews

I would rather have Mathews or Spiller over any 3 of those guys. Also, you forgot Mccluster, he might end up being the best pick after the top 10.

depends how many teams in the league, but if it were 14 or 16, I think you would crazy not to take 3 of those guys over Mathews/Spiller

I'm not sure about that, but the real problem is that the picks used for those three players have such a low success rate. In hindsight, Spiller **might** be worth less than Mike Williams/Hernandez/Dixon.... but the picks used to get the latter three just as easily could have netted James Starks, Joe McKnight, and Eric Decker. Basically the worst you were going to do with the Spiller pick is Spiller.Personally, I'd trade every pick I had for a top 3 selection, regardless of the draft class or the makeup of my team or league. I want "nucleus" players, as F&L like to call them, and the percentage of hitting one of those guys is astronomically higher in the top 3 picks.

I know you were just making a point, which i agree with, but i dont think you should have included Starks. I would take him with an early/mid 2nd if i were doing a rookie draft right now.

I hesitated on Starks ( partially because I knew you were in on this conversation :X ), though most people would take Mike Williams with an early/mid 2nd right now, and that was the comparison being used. For everyone else, feel free to substitute Demian Williams, Emmanuel Sanders, or Colt McCoy as guys who would have been valid picks at Mike Williams' spot.

 

[AcerFC]

Big Black Dot for later

My team in hyper active may be going this route sooner than later

 

[Sinn Fein]

Multiple late rd 1st picks is the way to rebuild - do your researchA Hernandez/M Williams/A Dixon/Bradford/Gresham look like really good picks right now over guys like Spiller/Matthews

I would rather have Mathews or Spiller over any 3 of those guys. Also, you forgot Mccluster, he might end up being the best pick after the top 10.

depends how many teams in the league, but if it were 14 or 16, I think you would crazy not to take 3 of those guys over Mathews/Spiller

Hard to say - WRs and TEs are all over the waiver wire even in big leagues - I have Marshall, Austin, and Colston (and Rice) in a 16-team league, and they were all picked up on waivers at one point. Top RBs are much harder to find in big leagues.

 

[Phantom Knight]

Rebuilding? I would personally go for multiple picks.

Ditto. The exception for me would be if a known uber-stud was coming out. But my dynasty drafts show that there are many misses in the first round. I'd rather have 3 shots than the first shot!

 

[KentGraham10]

If you are certain you are out of it, I wouldn't hesitate trading away veterans for draft picks. Yes, that means Reggie Wayne, TO, and LT. In my 12 team IDP Dynasty League, I decided to start off the process of trading away veterans early because I had the best depth in the league (most bench points) but I am only 1-3. So even if I somehow have a chance to turn it around, I'm not really hurting my team b/c of my depth.

FYI this is my first year doing Fantasy Football in about seven years, but I tried similar strategies on Madden and it ALWAYS works. Although Madden =/= FF, the idea of accumilating draft picks and doing a good job 'scouting' rookies doesn't change

 

[mlbnfl]

Seems to be no true consensus on this topic. Guess there isnt really a right way. Youd look like a genius if you traded for three picks and hit all, look like a doofus if you missed all and the top pick was a stud. Ill have to think it over a lot more to see if I even want to look into something like this.

 

[SSOG]

Personally, in a normal year and in a 12-team league or bigger, I'd much rather have the #1 overall than a trio of late firsts. In a 10-teamer, it'd be a much tougher decision, because I think a lot of quality players fall into the 7-8 spot, but I generally thing the 10-12 range is a pretty barren wasteland.

Of course, it's important to remember that next year isn't a normal year. There's a good chance that there's a lockout next season. I think it's possible that a lot of talented underclassmen might opt to return to college for another year rather than risk negotiating the uncertain labor situation, which could potentially make the 2011 draft especially weak and the 2012 draft especially strong. I wouldn't be trading anything right now, and I'd be doing a lot of homework on the lockout. I think the real shark play might not be trading 2011 picks for more 2011 picks, I think it might be trading 2011 picks for 2012 picks. Plus, since most people discount future picks, you could probably pick up a bigger bounty of 2012 picks than you could of 2011 picks.

 

[Gamma1210]

Zealots are very RB heavy leagues. Take the #1 pick and build from there, top RBs are impossible to trade for.

 

[mlbnfl]

Personally, in a normal year and in a 12-team league or bigger, I'd much rather have the #1 overall than a trio of late firsts. In a 10-teamer, it'd be a much tougher decision, because I think a lot of quality players fall into the 7-8 spot, but I generally thing the 10-12 range is a pretty barren wasteland.Of course, it's important to remember that next year isn't a normal year. There's a good chance that there's a lockout next season. I think it's possible that a lot of talented underclassmen might opt to return to college for another year rather than risk negotiating the uncertain labor situation, which could potentially make the 2011 draft especially weak and the 2012 draft especially strong. I wouldn't be trading anything right now, and I'd be doing a lot of homework on the lockout. I think the real shark play might not be trading 2011 picks for more 2011 picks, I think it might be trading 2011 picks for 2012 picks. Plus, since most people discount future picks, you could probably pick up a bigger bounty of 2012 picks than you could of 2011 picks.

Cant do that in zealots but certaintly something interesting to think about for most leagues,

 

[Twilight]

Zealots are very RB heavy leagues. Take the #1 pick and build from there, top RBs are impossible to trade for.

Yep. In general in Zealots, you have about 4 non-reach RBs go first, then a group of 1st round QB/WRs and "Reach RBs". For every Chris Johnson in the "reach" RBs, there are 3 Torains, Irons and Chris Henrys. The 1st overall has a MUCH higher chance of making your team competitive in the Zealot's environment.

 

[corpcow]

There is an owner that has three first rounders (originally owned by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th highest scorers so far) while my original pick is all but guaranteed to be the top pick.

Are you thinking of trading your top pick to this owner for the 3 late first-rounders?In general I'd rather have the 3 late picks instead of the top 1.

I disagree. I prefer multiple picks if they're middle, but at the late 1st it's tough to find the same premier talent. It's also important to know your league, how they draft, who they value, what positions are valuable, etc. In some leagues I'm in, it's much harder to find stud WRs and LBs because of the scoring (PPR plus various other bonuses for WRs, and something like 3 pts per tackle scoring). In my primary format (non-PPR, 16 team IDP with QB/RB heavy scoring), people consistently reach for RBs and QBs. This means two things - first, it's a lot harder to find RB talent with those late picks, but also there's some elite WR value to be had in the middle of the 1st. E.g., Dez Bryant went 1.05, 1.06 and 1.08 in these leagues. In almost all cases - especially with a top 5 pick - it's better to trade that near the draft, when people start to covet a player. It's one thing to sell something that "might" be a top 5 pick, it's another to fall in love with a particular player during a time where all attention is on them. (Conversely, it's why I always try to buy draft picks now). Consider that there's usually a tier that ends around 1.04-1.05. There's usually another tier around 1.10-1.12. My general rule is that one pick in the top 5 should get me 2 picks in the next tier. Of course it depends on the quality of the draft and the dropoff etc, but I would normally value a top tier pick much more than three picks in the third tier...

 

[SSOG]

Another key point to consider is the psychological value of a "first rounder". The words "first rounder" carry value completely independent of the actual value of the pick itself. While pick 1.12 and pick 2.01 should theoretically have nearly identical values, pick 1.12 typically costs a lot more than pick 2.01 because it's a "first rounder" and 2.01 is a "second rounder". Instead of trying to buy late 1st rounders, I would much rather focus my attention on early 2nd rounders. They're worth almost as much, but they come at a fraction of the cost.

 

[thriftyrocker]

Another key point to consider is the psychological value of a "first rounder". The words "first rounder" carry value completely independent of the actual value of the pick itself. While pick 1.12 and pick 2.01 should theoretically have nearly identical values, pick 1.12 typically costs a lot more than pick 2.01 because it's a "first rounder" and 2.01 is a "second rounder". Instead of trying to buy late 1st rounders, I would much rather focus my attention on early 2nd rounders. They're worth almost as much, but they come at a fraction of the cost.

Except guys with late 1sts are much more likely to sell. A team making a playoff push is going to put up his 1st to try and get that Hines Ward or LT or maybe someone like Peyton Hillis in order to push him over the hump. Someone with an early 2nd will hold it trying to get lucky with youth next year. If you're buying an early 2nd, you're probably giving up upside commensurate with the value of a 2nd, because that's what the rebuilder is looking for.

 

[Cassius]

Black dot. Interesting topic.

 

[SSOG]

Another key point to consider is the psychological value of a "first rounder". The words "first rounder" carry value completely independent of the actual value of the pick itself. While pick 1.12 and pick 2.01 should theoretically have nearly identical values, pick 1.12 typically costs a lot more than pick 2.01 because it's a "first rounder" and 2.01 is a "second rounder". Instead of trying to buy late 1st rounders, I would much rather focus my attention on early 2nd rounders. They're worth almost as much, but they come at a fraction of the cost.

Except guys with late 1sts are much more likely to sell. A team making a playoff push is going to put up his 1st to try and get that Hines Ward or LT or maybe someone like Peyton Hillis in order to push him over the hump. Someone with an early 2nd will hold it trying to get lucky with youth next year. If you're buying an early 2nd, you're probably giving up upside commensurate with the value of a 2nd, because that's what the rebuilder is looking for.

I was talking about a strictly draft picks for draft picks swap. If the #1 overall pick is worth X late 1sts, then it might be worth 1.5 * X early seconds, despite the fact that late firsts are not 50% more valuable than early seconds.

 

[grateful zed]

you need a stud, trade everything for #1.

 

[Lash]

the #1 overall and it's not even close

you can trade it for much more predraft than the 1.12/1.13/1.14, if you are set on trading it

probably like the 1.05 and a great player

especially since there are so FEW RBs next draft, people will fall over themselves to give you what you want for it

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I've been in Zealots leagues since '04 and have made just about every boneheaded move that can be imagined. I've come to one conclusion: there is no right answer to your question. However, (hopefully) learning from my myriad of mistakes here are some thoughts:

1. Top RBs are gold & next to impossible to get without giving another up. So if you're going to have the 2011 #1 & think Mark Ingram is the Second Coming, stay put - instead of trading it for multiple picks - & take him unless someone absolutely blows you away with an offer. I would, however, trade the #1 for young established players - Rivers, Ray Rice, Andre Johnson.

2. Wherever your pick ends up, don't reach or draft for "need". I know it sounds dumb, but pick the best player. If that means taking a beastly LB at 2.01 instead of some RB who may not get through camp, so be it. Which ties into.....

3. If you're in a total rebuild, you needs good players everywhere. In Zealots you start 17 players; at most, 3 of them can be RBs. I've competed well in Z leagues with a strong core of IDPs and WRs, while having trash at RB.

4. It's easy to fall into Eternal Rebuild mode. Try to have a plan. After all, the real point of playing in a league is to win it. I think some fall too much in love with the building aspect (I've been extremely guilty of this).

5. Not everyone on your roster has to be 22 years old, especially at QB, WR, & LB. 5 years ago, guys like Ray Lewis & London Fletcher were too old - they're still tackle machines today. QBs far outscore every other position - if you're starting Alex Smith or Derek Anderson, you are at an extreme disadvantage each week. Don't be afraid to go get a guy like Manning, Brady, or Brees if the opportunity presents itself. They'll still be productive by the time your team should be competitive. You'll have to give up some of your rebuilding pieces to get them, but you won't have to worry about QB for a long time allowing you to concentrate elsewhere.

6. As mentioned above, you can build the defensive side of your team (half of your starters) relatively cheaply. At LB & DB, I like the high tackle guys more than the big play guys. They may not get you the blow up scores, but being able to book 8-10 points every week is better IMO. I had Ed Reed in one league and he drove me crazy. Sure, at the end of the year his numbers looked good. But if you looked at his week-to-week scoring, he'd go 1 pt, 3 pts, 20 pts. That 20 pointer was great, but he cost me those other two weeks. If I was going to have a big play guy, he'd be my #3 starter at LB or DB. DL, on the other hand, I think you want the big sack guys. They score so little in Zealots that it's worth it.

7. Get to know your leaguemates. I'm in one Zealots league where literally half of the league will not trade. Other leagues are full of riverboat gamblers.

Good luck to you.

Which league are you in?

 

[Go deep]

I've been in Zealots leagues since '04 and have made just about every boneheaded move that can be imagined. I've come to one conclusion: there is no right answer to your question. However, (hopefully) learning from my myriad of mistakes here are some thoughts:

1. Top RBs are gold & next to impossible to get without giving another up. So if you're going to have the 2011 #1 & think Mark Ingram is the Second Coming, stay put - instead of trading it for multiple picks - & take him unless someone absolutely blows you away with an offer. I would, however, trade the #1 for young established players - Rivers, Ray Rice, Andre Johnson.

2. Wherever your pick ends up, don't reach or draft for "need". I know it sounds dumb, but pick the best player. If that means taking a beastly LB at 2.01 instead of some RB who may not get through camp, so be it. Which ties into.....

3. If you're in a total rebuild, you needs good players everywhere. In Zealots you start 17 players; at most, 3 of them can be RBs. I've competed well in Z leagues with a strong core of IDPs and WRs, while having trash at RB.

4. It's easy to fall into Eternal Rebuild mode. Try to have a plan. After all, the real point of playing in a league is to win it. I think some fall too much in love with the building aspect (I've been extremely guilty of this).

5. Not everyone on your roster has to be 22 years old, especially at QB, WR, & LB. 5 years ago, guys like Ray Lewis & London Fletcher were too old - they're still tackle machines today. QBs far outscore every other position - if you're starting Alex Smith or Derek Anderson, you are at an extreme disadvantage each week. Don't be afraid to go get a guy like Manning, Brady, or Brees if the opportunity presents itself. They'll still be productive by the time your team should be competitive. You'll have to give up some of your rebuilding pieces to get them, but you won't have to worry about QB for a long time allowing you to concentrate elsewhere.

6. As mentioned above, you can build the defensive side of your team (half of your starters) relatively cheaply. At LB & DB, I like the high tackle guys more than the big play guys. They may not get you the blow up scores, but being able to book 8-10 points every week is better IMO. I had Ed Reed in one league and he drove me crazy. Sure, at the end of the year his numbers looked good. But if you looked at his week-to-week scoring, he'd go 1 pt, 3 pts, 20 pts. That 20 pointer was great, but he cost me those other two weeks. If I was going to have a big play guy, he'd be my #3 starter at LB or DB. DL, on the other hand, I think you want the big sack guys. They score so little in Zealots that it's worth it.

7. Get to know your leaguemates. I'm in one Zealots league where literally half of the league will not trade. Other leagues are full of riverboat gamblers.

Good luck to you.

Which league are you in?

I think this is the case in most Zealot leagues.I agree with most of what you are saying. However, other than LB's, i wouldnt invest too much into IDP's. The only exception might be the top 5-8 DE's. After them, the rest is a huge crapshoot.

I have been in Zealots from the begining, and am in 4 leagues(ChrisBills 2, 5, 28, and 47). I have built 4 good teams by recycling players for prospects/picks. I think it is a big advantage if you can avoid getting stuck with a player while his value falls off the cliff.

Another tip, if you dont think your team is a serious plyoff contender by week 5-6, maybe consider trading older players for picks. Picks are easiest to get during the season when guys are trying to piece together a playoff team. Even if you dont like rookie picks, you can trade them as the draft gets close for at least twice what you paid for them.

 

[doubletrouble]

I am going through the "re-building" mode with my RBs...I have six 1st and a 2nd and some young talent on my squad now...

Traded DWill, Forsett, DMac, Bowe for 1st and other pieces...

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Another tip, if you dont think your team is a serious plyoff contender by week 5-6, maybe consider trading older players for picks. Picks are easiest to get during the season when guys are trying to piece together a playoff team. Even if you dont like rookie picks, you can trade them as the draft gets close for at least twice what you paid for them.

This is a good point and is even more true for good teams having a run of bad luck. My best team on paper in Zealots is 0-4, due to injuries and bad weekly management (my bench points are ridiculous). I'm loaded at QB (4 starters) & WR (8 of the top 36), ok at RB. I'm not in rebuild mode at all but this week I traded Thomas Jones, Mike Vick, and NY Steve Smith for all of the other team's 2011 draft picks (minus his 3rd, which I already had from a previous trade). So now I have 2 picks in every round of the '11 rookie draft. I doubt I'll keep them all because, as you say, picks seem to get more valuable as we near April and I'll be looking to hadd some vets for a run next year. The trade gives me lots of flexibility for a team that in most years would be contending.

 

[lynx4ben]

Last year I traded 1.2 (mathews) for 6 & 8. Both tates. I made the trade pre NFL draft but in hindsight I'm going to stand pat with the top pick at least nil I'm on the clock.

 

[Go deep]

Last year I traded 1.2 (mathews) for 6 & 8. Both tates. I made the trade pre NFL draft but in hindsight I'm going to stand pat with the top pick at least nil I'm on the clock.

You might not have been questioning this move had Ben Tate stayed healthy. He could very easily be putting up the numbers Foster is right now.