High Ceiling/High Upside Rosters? Worth the risks? (1 Viewer)

[DawnBTVS]

Always love reading Ryan Hester's High Floors vs. High Ceilings articles every year and I know the optimal mix is of both high floors and high ceilings.

With all the discussion about value based drafting and ADP and such, has anybody had success with going purely high ceiling or high upside rosters? Did you have to go unconventional drafting to accomplish this tactic? Is it worth the possibility of going 'Stud Theory' or has it generally backfired in your attempts to pull it off?

I'm thinking of something like trying to put a roster where in a 6 Points per TD you'd have let's say Pick 4 and get: Antonio Brown (4), Amari Cooper (21), Drew Brees (28), Greg Olsen (45), Adrian Peterson (52), Doug Martin (69), DeSean Jackson (76), and Derrick Henry (93).

One pitfall I'm running into is that you potentially have a 'weak' on paper RB group (or WR group if you target RBs) but that's part of the boom/bust of doing this method out, right?

 

[Ilov80s]

Always love reading Ryan Hester's High Floors vs. High Ceilings articles every year and I know the optimal mix is of both high floors and high ceilings.

With all the discussion about value based drafting and ADP and such, has anybody had success with going purely high ceiling or high upside rosters? Did you have to go unconventional drafting to accomplish this tactic? Is it worth the possibility of going 'Stud Theory' or has it generally backfired in your attempts to pull it off?

I'm thinking of something like trying to put a roster where in a 6 Points per TD you'd have let's say Pick 4 and get: Antonio Brown (4), Amari Cooper (21), Drew Brees (28), Greg Olsen (45), Adrian Peterson (52), Doug Martin (69), DeSean Jackson (76), and Derrick Henry (93).

One pitfall I'm running into is that you potentially have a 'weak' on paper RB group (or WR group if you target RBs) but that's part of the boom/bust of doing this method out, right?

There are only like 9-12 good RBs so any team that starts with AB,Julio, OBJ is likely to have weak looking RBs. That's just how it is. At that point, I almost just say embrace it and go zero RB. Starting something like Brown, Gronk, Sammy is a super upside play that could payoff big. 

 

[-OZ-]

There are only like 9-12 good RBs so any team that starts with AB,Julio, OBJ is likely to have weak looking RBs. That's just how it is. At that point, I almost just say embrace it and go zero RB. Starting something like Brown, Gronk, Sammy is a super upside play that could payoff big. 

I'm just not wrapping my head around Antonio being "high ceiling". Imo he's high floor.  

But going with brown at the 4, then gronk, arob (or Sammy, your pick), Hyde, diggs, luck, Henry... I could get behind that concept.

 

[Ilov80s]

I'm just not wrapping my head around Antonio being "high ceiling". Imo he's high floor.  

But going with brown at the 4, then gronk, arob (or Sammy, your pick), Hyde, diggs, luck, Henry... I could get behind that concept.

Brown is both. He's one year removed from an 1800 yard season. 

 

[-OZ-]

Brown is both. He's one year removed from an 1800 yard season. 

I'll buy that he's both.  He's probably the most consistent player in the league. He hasn't had a bad year since his rookie year, although 2012 was certainly down and he was injured.  To me he's the ultimate high floor. If I'm looking for a sure thing in the first, he's my guy. 

 

[Biabreakable]

Always love reading Ryan Hester's High Floors vs. High Ceilings articles every year and I know the optimal mix is of both high floors and high ceilings.

With all the discussion about value based drafting and ADP and such, has anybody had success with going purely high ceiling or high upside rosters? Did you have to go unconventional drafting to accomplish this tactic? Is it worth the possibility of going 'Stud Theory' or has it generally backfired in your attempts to pull it off?

I'm thinking of something like trying to put a roster where in a 6 Points per TD you'd have let's say Pick 4 and get: Antonio Brown (4), Amari Cooper (21), Drew Brees (28), Greg Olsen (45), Adrian Peterson (52), Doug Martin (69), DeSean Jackson (76), and Derrick Henry (93).

One pitfall I'm running into is that you potentially have a 'weak' on paper RB group (or WR group if you target RBs) but that's part of the boom/bust of doing this method out, right?

The thing about drafting for upside (higher ceiling) is that it works out great when the player actually performs close to that ceiling, and when they don't.. it doesn't.

Some examples of this that have burned me in recent years are Sammy Watkins (injured) and Devantae Parker (not focused on details) but I am still all in on both players again this year.

To give an example, I have Parker projected for more points than Larry Fitzgerald in 2017 and I have been drafting Parker ahead of Fitzgerald. However no question that Fitzgerald is the safer option with similarly high upside. I can definitely see myself regretting this choice later on in the season.

Peterson seems like a great gamble that could pay off big time, but I am very leery of the Saints tendency to split time with other RBs and they have some other good ones.

The players that you list for the most part seem like solid bets rather than high upside guys to me, or both high floors and high ceilings in Brown, Cooper, Brees, Olsen.

There is more risk with the later players you list, but that is going to be the case with any other option you might consider as well. Peterson and Martin were the top 2 RB in 2015 and if things break right for them, could again be top 12 RB. I actually like Martins chances of that a bit better than Peterson because of the Saints RBBC tendencies. Martin has been the man for the Bucs when healthy before. 

Jackson is a bit boom bust but can have some great weeks. A good example of a high upside play I think.

Derrick Henry needs Murray to get out of his way to make a big impact. If that does happen for a number of possible reasons I do think Henry could be very good though. For all the moves the Titans have made upgrading at the WR position, I still see this being a team that wants to run the ball. I don't think their method changes that much in 2017. The receivers are more of a work in progress developing for 2018 plans in my opinion. 

DeMarco Murray had twice the number of red zone rushing attempts as Henry but Henry was more efficient in this situation.

Murray 40 rushing attempts 88 yards 2.2 ypc 8 TD 12 1st downs 16 targets 12 receptions 58 yards 4.8 ypr 3 TD
Henry 21 rushing attempts 95 yards 4.5 ypc 1 TD  9 1st downs    3 targets  2 receptions    18 yards 9.0 ypr

If this shifts to a more even split, stands to reason that half of those 11 TD by Murray could go Henrys way, even if Murray is healthy all year.

 

[DawnBTVS]

Great stuff, Biabreakable. That's one I'm battling as guys like Antonio Brown, Amari Cooper, and Drew Brees are obvious high floors but as a result their ceilings are (IMO) also potentially higher while trying to combine that with guys who may potentially put up elite production if given the opportunity.

I've tried the concept before and have had some players hit e.g. Roddy White in 2008 but whiffed on Mewelde Moore thinking he had a chance at exceeding his 2005 numbers in his first year at Pittsburgh. Usually I can finish in the top half of leagues but struggle when it comes to playoff time (either just missing out or getting bounced early).

Other scenarios I've leaned towards is trying to get a couple dominant RBs, elite QB & TE, then go for WRs who have potential to put up 1,100+ yard seasons (e.g. DeSean Jackson) but that seems to carry a greater boom/bust factor compared to going Stud WRs and then potential late RBs who can hit in the right situation/dig through the WW pool during the season.

 

[need2know]

Always love reading Ryan Hester's High Floors vs. High Ceilings articles every year and I know the optimal mix is of both high floors and high ceilings.

With all the discussion about value based drafting and ADP and such, has anybody had success with going purely high ceiling or high upside rosters? Did you have to go unconventional drafting to accomplish this tactic? Is it worth the possibility of going 'Stud Theory' or has it generally backfired in your attempts to pull it off?

I'm thinking of something like trying to put a roster where in a 6 Points per TD you'd have let's say Pick 4 and get: Antonio Brown (4), Amari Cooper (21), Drew Brees (28), Greg Olsen (45), Adrian Peterson (52), Doug Martin (69), DeSean Jackson (76), and Derrick Henry (93).

One pitfall I'm running into is that you potentially have a 'weak' on paper RB group (or WR group if you target RBs) but that's part of the boom/bust of doing this method out, right?

If you start wr you pretty much have to go zero RB and your RBS will look weak.  But the truth is after the first couple of tiers of RBS are gone, they are all the same.  You might as well get the high end QB and te early.  There are even less high end QBs and tes....if you can't get a top 3 guy you might as well wait on those too

 

[Dan Hindery]

Always love reading Ryan Hester's High Floors vs. High Ceilings articles every year and I know the optimal mix is of both high floors and high ceilings.

With all the discussion about value based drafting and ADP and such, has anybody had success with going purely high ceiling or high upside rosters? Did you have to go unconventional drafting to accomplish this tactic? Is it worth the possibility of going 'Stud Theory' or has it generally backfired in your attempts to pull it off?

I'm thinking of something like trying to put a roster where in a 6 Points per TD you'd have let's say Pick 4 and get: Antonio Brown (4), Amari Cooper (21), Drew Brees (28), Greg Olsen (45), Adrian Peterson (52), Doug Martin (69), DeSean Jackson (76), and Derrick Henry (93).

One pitfall I'm running into is that you potentially have a 'weak' on paper RB group (or WR group if you target RBs) but that's part of the boom/bust of doing this method out, right?

I'm working on an article now about how to quantify upside and try to put some actual numbers on how much upside guys have. Hopefully it'll answer some of these questions in depth.

Bigger picture, I think there's a couple things worth considering in deciding how much risk you want to take chasing upside.

First, it depends on what type of league it is. If it's just a 10 or 12 teamer where 6 teams make the playoffs, it might not make as much sense to take a bunch of risks. You're really just trying to finish in the top 1/6th, get a bye and hope for the best over two weeks of playoffs. If it's a big tournament, then it makes more sense to try to go for a bunch of upside and chase the top prizes. You're shooting for a top 1% type of team in these big tourneys and probably have to swing for the fences a few times to get there.

Second, I think sometimes if you chase too much upside, you actually limit your realistic upside. For example, let's assume just for sake of argument there are a some players we identify as having a 25% of hitting big and 75% of having mediocre value (Derrick Henry probably fits this category). If you draft four of those guys in the first 8 rounds, it's a huge longshot that all are going to hit (1 in 256). Even hitting on 2 of the 4 would happen way less than half of the time. If you hit on just one of the four, you're probably breaking even because you've invested four relatively premium picks and thus probably made your roster weaker somewhere else. 

 

[beerbuff]

If you start wr you pretty much have to go zero RB and your RBS will look weak.  But the truth is after the first couple of tiers of RBS are gone, they are all the same.  You might as well get the high end QB and te early.  There are even less high end QBs and tes....if you can't get a top 3 guy you might as well wait on those too

Doing mocks this year I totally agree with your statement. Unless you can get one of the top 4 RB's it really doesn't make sense to go for a RB until round 4. I would only go after only one top TE or QB though. There are plenty of RB's in and after round 4 that have lower floors but high ceilings that you can go after, Mixon, McCaffrey, Coleman, Cook, Woodhead, Abdullah, Martin, Perine as examples and a whole host of what are current #2's that could easily become #1's on teams like KC, Oakland, San Francisco, Indy, Green Bay that you can draft late to take a flyer on. Ideally I'd like to have my second WR no lower than Watkins, Allen, Snead or Diggs. Having a good base with my WR's and QB/TE and upside with my RB's.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

I'm working on an article now about how to quantify upside and try to put some actual numbers on how much upside guys have. Hopefully it'll answer some of these questions in depth.

Bigger picture, I think there's a couple things worth considering in deciding how much risk you want to take chasing upside.

First, it depends on what type of league it is. If it's just a 10 or 12 teamer where 6 teams make the playoffs, it might not make as much sense to take a bunch of risks. You're really just trying to finish in the top 1/6th, get a bye and hope for the best over two weeks of playoffs. If it's a big tournament, then it makes more sense to try to go for a bunch of upside and chase the top prizes. You're shooting for a top 1% type of team in these big tourneys and probably have to swing for the fences a few times to get there.

Second, I think sometimes if you chase too much upside, you actually limit your realistic upside. For example, let's assume just for sake of argument there are a some players we identify as having a 25% of hitting big and 75% of having mediocre value (Derrick Henry probably fits this category). If you draft four of those guys in the first 8 rounds, it's a huge longshot that all are going to hit (1 in 256). Even hitting on 2 of the 4 would happen way less than half of the time. If you hit on just one of the four, you're probably breaking even because you've invested four relatively premium picks and thus probably made your roster weaker somewhere else. 

blackdot

 

[Ruffrodys05]

To answer the OP's title question..........ALWAYS WORTH THE RISK. (as long as you're waiver wire savvy.......)

 

[DawnBTVS]

Went with 3 different Mock Drafts (12 Team, 6 Pt Per TD, PPR, 1/2/3/1/1/1 Lineups) trying out different tactics. I was curious how my roster construction would go for a potential High Ceiling/High Upside tactic. I used the Draft Dominator Desktop/Online thing for this.

Trial 1: Zero RB Method - Pick #4
QBs: Aaron Rodgers (28), Ryan Tannehill (165)
RBs: Dalvin Cook (93), Doug Martin (100), Duke Johnson (141), Terrance West (148)
WRs: Julio Jones (4), Brandin Cooks (21), Martavis Bryant (45), Randall Cobb (69), Jeremy Maclin (76), Allen Hurns (117), Cole Beasley (124), Nelson Agholor (189)
TEs: Kyle Rudolph (52), Evan Engram (172)
K: Mason Crosby (196)
DEF: Seattle (213)
Season = 134.27 FPPG

Trial 2: Zero WR Method - Pick #9 *Done with more weight to High Upside*
QBs: Tom Brady (33), Alex Smith (136)
RBs: Devonta Freeman (9), DeMarco Murray (16), Christian McCaffrey (40), Theo Riddick (105), C.J. Prosise (153)
WRs: DeSean Jackson (57), Randall Cobb (64), Corey Coleman (81), Ted Ginn (129), Kamar Aiken (160), Cooper Kupp (177), Nelson Agholor (208)
TEs: Delanie Walker (88), Jack Doyle (112)
K: Justin Tucker (201)
DEF: Carolina (184)
Season = 131.06 FPPG

Trial 3: Standard VBD/Late QB Method - Pick #1 *Done with more weight to High Upside*
QBs: Blake Bortles (168), Alex Smith (169)
RBs: David Johnson (1), Lamar Miller (25), Christian McCaffrey (48), Joe Mixon (49), Terrance West (120)
WRs: Jarvis Landry (24), Eric Decker (73), Kenny Britt (96), Mike Wallace (97), Marqise Lee (121), Chris Conley (144), Will Fuller (145)
TEs: Kyle Rudolph (72), Evan Engram (216)
K: Stephen Gostkowski (192)
DEF: Carolina (193)
Season = 132.56 FPPG

Interesting stuff here. Not a whole lot of difference between each 'mock' roster.

 

[fightingillini]

I'm working on an article now about how to quantify upside and try to put some actual numbers on how much upside guys have. Hopefully it'll answer some of these questions in depth.

Bigger picture, I think there's a couple things worth considering in deciding how much risk you want to take chasing upside.

First, it depends on what type of league it is. If it's just a 10 or 12 teamer where 6 teams make the playoffs, it might not make as much sense to take a bunch of risks. You're really just trying to finish in the top 1/6th, get a bye and hope for the best over two weeks of playoffs. If it's a big tournament, then it makes more sense to try to go for a bunch of upside and chase the top prizes. You're shooting for a top 1% type of team in these big tourneys and probably have to swing for the fences a few times to get there.

Second, I think sometimes if you chase too much upside, you actually limit your realistic upside. For example, let's assume just for sake of argument there are a some players we identify as having a 25% of hitting big and 75% of having mediocre value (Derrick Henry probably fits this category). If you draft four of those guys in the first 8 rounds, it's a huge longshot that all are going to hit (1 in 256). Even hitting on 2 of the 4 would happen way less than half of the time. If you hit on just one of the four, you're probably breaking even because you've invested four relatively premium picks and thus probably made your roster weaker somewhere else. 

Great post.

I would love to see your article on quantifying upside, since it isn't very easy to do since there are so many variables in play.  For example, WR upside is usually going to be directly correlated to his QB upside, since the best way to get WR upside is to have the passing pie be bigger than expected.

The one thing that is missing in the FBG premium content is......say a projection bracketed by a upside/downside by say 1.645 standard deviations (this would cover 90% of the players range).  I would love to do mocks where I try and figure out what is the correct blend of safe picks and high upside guys.

I also wonder......could you show upside in relation to ADP?  The higher the realistic upside a player has, the higher their ADP will be.

 

[Biabreakable]

Went with 3 different Mock Drafts (12 Team, 6 Pt Per TD, PPR, 1/2/3/1/1/1 Lineups) trying out different tactics. I was curious how my roster construction would go for a potential High Ceiling/High Upside tactic. I used the Draft Dominator Desktop/Online thing for this.

Trial 1: Zero RB Method - Pick #4
QBs: Aaron Rodgers (28), Ryan Tannehill (165)
RBs: Dalvin Cook (93), Doug Martin (100), Duke Johnson (141), Terrance West (148)
WRs: Julio Jones (4), Brandin Cooks (21), Martavis Bryant (45), Randall Cobb (69), Jeremy Maclin (76), Allen Hurns (117), Cole Beasley (124), Nelson Agholor (189)
TEs: Kyle Rudolph (52), Evan Engram (172)
K: Mason Crosby (196)
DEF: Seattle (213)
Season = 134.27 FPPG

Trial 2: Zero WR Method - Pick #9 *Done with more weight to High Upside*
QBs: Tom Brady (33), Alex Smith (136)
RBs: Devonta Freeman (9), DeMarco Murray (16), Christian McCaffrey (40), Theo Riddick (105), C.J. Prosise (153)
WRs: DeSean Jackson (57), Randall Cobb (64), Corey Coleman (81), Ted Ginn (129), Kamar Aiken (160), Cooper Kupp (177), Nelson Agholor (208)
TEs: Delanie Walker (88), Jack Doyle (112)
K: Justin Tucker (201)
DEF: Carolina (184)
Season = 131.06 FPPG

Trial 3: Standard VBD/Late QB Method - Pick #1 *Done with more weight to High Upside*
QBs: Blake Bortles (168), Alex Smith (169)
RBs: David Johnson (1), Lamar Miller (25), Christian McCaffrey (48), Joe Mixon (49), Terrance West (120)
WRs: Jarvis Landry (24), Eric Decker (73), Kenny Britt (96), Mike Wallace (97), Marqise Lee (121), Chris Conley (144), Will Fuller (145)
TEs: Kyle Rudolph (72), Evan Engram (216)
K: Stephen Gostkowski (192)
DEF: Carolina (193)
Season = 132.56 FPPG

Interesting stuff here. Not a whole lot of difference between each 'mock' roster.

This is interesting and with a set of projections you can likely fill many different combinations that amount to the same result. 

Of course some of these projections for the specific players are likely more accurate than others.

I have more confidence in Trail 1 delivering on those projections than the other two tries.

I don't understand why you would describe trial two as a zero RB method when your first two picks are RB? That looks closer to stud RB theory to me although you did draft Brady before your 3rd RB.

 

[DawnBTVS]

This is interesting and with a set of projections you can likely fill many different combinations that amount to the same result. 

Of course some of these projections for the specific players are likely more accurate than others.

I have more confidence in Trail 1 delivering on those projections than the other two tries.

I don't understand why you would describe trial two as a zero RB method when your first two picks are RB? That looks closer to stud RB theory to me although you did draft Brady before your 3rd RB.

Trial 1 was the 0 RB Method (WR-WR-QB-WR-TE) and Trial 2 was a 0 WR Method (RB-RB-QB-RB-WR). I wanted to see what a roster would look like for a team trying to emphasize RB and an elite QB/potentially elite TE method.

I had to deviate a little with the 0 WR Method simply due to the 3 WR Starters requirement as it's tougher to pull off than 0 RB.

 

[Biabreakable]

Trial 1 was the 0 RB Method (WR-WR-QB-WR-TE) and Trial 2 was a 0 WR Method (RB-RB-QB-RB-WR). I wanted to see what a roster would look like for a team trying to emphasize RB and an elite QB/potentially elite TE method.

I had to deviate a little with the 0 WR Method simply due to the 3 WR Starters requirement as it's tougher to pull off than 0 RB.

Oh I see. I just read that wrong. Not accustomed to the term zero WR I guess.

In a start 3 WR league avoiding early WR picks requires some very good sleeper picks at that position in later rounds. 

I definitely don't like the results of the second combination as much as the other two despite the total numbers being close.

 

[DawnBTVS]

Yeah, with this tactic I think an optimal strategy hews closer to the 0 RB Strategy while valuing a good mix of 'most likely' vs. 'high upside'. I did another test mock of that, this time with the 11th pick in the mock draft.

QBs: Tom Brady (35), Carson Wentz (158)
RBs: Joe Mixon (62), Doug Martin (86), Terrance West (110), Jonathan Stewart (155), Jamaal Charles (179), C.J. Prosise (206)
WRs: Amari Cooper (11), Dez Bryant (14), Larry Fitzgerald (38), DeVante Parker (59), Cole Beasley (107), Ted Ginn (134)
TEs: Hunter Henry (83), Jason Witten (131)
K: Justin Tucker (182)
DEF: Houston (203)
Season FPPG: 132.09

What I like is you can basically get a dominant "core" between 2-3 WRs, a Stud QB, a potential Stud TE (or even TEBC), and still get some solid starting RBs with later gambles who may/may not pay off while working the waiver wire during the season at a position that usually sees more change via injury.

 

[Biabreakable]

The above team looks pretty solid.

Not sure how the Chargers and Cowboys schedules line up but Witten is nice value at that pick I think.

 

[Ack88]

The one detail that has received scant attention in this thread is waiver wire budget/process. As an example, if you play in a smaller league and/or have generous ww options, playing the high upside card is optimal. As an example, one of my leagues is a ten teamer with a salary cap. The cap goes immediately from $165 to $185 after the auction as a means to create trading opportunities. 

In this type of format- play the high upside card liberally. Remember, in leagues like this, it really amounts to 12-13 weeks of H2H play, similar to daily fantasy leagues. You look to stock your roster on a week to week basis with upside. The benefit here is that a generous ww system and/or free agent budget allows for lots of week to week moves to fill gaps. If you can, on a week to week basis place yourself in position to win by having an initial draft of high upside players, the inevitable mistakes you make are easier to cover than in your larger leagues where the fa pool is shallow. 

 

[DawnBTVS]

Yeah, the more I'm doing mock drafts the more I'm thinking this could be a potential league winning strategy this year. A lot of this will depend on how extreme you want to be as far as swinging for the home run towards the WR 4-6 and RB 3-6 tiers but if you can land a few RBs who have starting roles and guys who should get some play (especially in PPR leagues, think guys like Danny Woodhead, Duke Johnson, or Theo Riddick) can quickly give you some solid depth that can stay afloat week to week against opponents.

The top level teams in one of my leagues (4 PT Per TD Passing, 1 PPR) generally averaged between 140-143 FPPG for the season.

RB2s in a 12 Team League are projected around 11-12 FPPG but waiting for guys like Terrance West, Duke Johnson, or Danny Woodhead can give you around 10-11 FPPG at a much cheaper cost.

Just using Dodd's projections I wanted to compare a 'conventional' team vs. the tactic I have in mind. Not a massive difference although Team 1 would probably have the safer floor/look potentially better on paper as an overall team strength.

Team ADP/Typical 'Perfect Draft' Example 1/2/3/1/1/1 Standard PPR -- PICK #6 *This starting group assumes you wait on QB and build up stronger bench 'depth' at RB and possibly WR*

QB: Eli Manning (19.72)
RBs: Devonta Freeman (17.62), DeMarco Murray (14.97)
WRs: Julio Jones (19.27), Doug Baldwin (16.97), Jarvis Landry (14.99)
TEs: Delanie Walker (11.79)
FLEX: Golden Tate (14.50)
Total: 129.83 FPPG

Team ADP/High Upside Example 1/2/3/1/1/1 -- PICK #6 *This starting group assumes you target a strong 'Starters' group with more boom/bust bench picks later*

QB: Tom Brady (23.81)
RBs: Isaiah Crowell (14.43), Christian McCaffrey (12.59)
WRs: Julio Jones (19.27), Michael Thomas (16.89), Amari Cooper (17.13)
TEs: Travis Kelce (14.21)
FLEX: Davante Adams (13.07)
Total: 131.40 FPPG

 

[DawnBTVS]

The one detail that has received scant attention in this thread is waiver wire budget/process. As an example, if you play in a smaller league and/or have generous ww options, playing the high upside card is optimal. As an example, one of my leagues is a ten teamer with a salary cap. The cap goes immediately from $165 to $185 after the auction as a means to create trading opportunities. 

In this type of format- play the high upside card liberally. Remember, in leagues like this, it really amounts to 12-13 weeks of H2H play, similar to daily fantasy leagues. You look to stock your roster on a week to week basis with upside. The benefit here is that a generous ww system and/or free agent budget allows for lots of week to week moves to fill gaps. If you can, on a week to week basis place yourself in position to win by having an initial draft of high upside players, the inevitable mistakes you make are easier to cover than in your larger leagues where the fa pool is shallow. 

Great point.

It always seems like there are a dozen to two dozen names who appear off the waiver wire/free agent pool that produce starter level numbers for a week or more. You can also afford to take more risks on those types of players if you have a strong foundation of starters and can mix & match on potentially generous fantasy matchups (e.g. targeting Oakland's Pass Defense).