Moss and Welker as WR1 and WR2... (1 Viewer)

[The Jacket]

I was shocked when Moss was available to me at 1.09 last night in a 12-team start-up dynasty draft I'm in, so I jumped on him. I then took a RB at 2.04 to give me options at the third pick. I had to sleep so I setup a pre-draft list for 3.04 (third-round reversal), and it included a bunch of names from Colston to Fitzgerald to Grant. Near the bottom was Welker.

It's a PPR league. I'm a fan of Welker as a strong WR2. But I find myself disappointed that I've got New England's top two passing options, and am praying that I get more big weeks out of them than one-good/one-bad weeks. I'd be all right if last year repeated itself, but I don't see it, and I can't help but wonder if I should've taken one of the guys I had ranked slightly lower -- maybe JLewis, DMac.

Thoughts?

 

[cjack]

I was shocked when Moss was available to me at 1.09 last night in a 12-team start-up dynasty draft I'm in, so I jumped on him. I then took a RB at 2.04 to give me options at the third pick. I had to sleep so I setup a pre-draft list for 3.04 (third-round reversal), and it included a bunch of names from Colston to Fitzgerald to Grant. Near the bottom was Welker.It's a PPR league. I'm a fan of Welker as a strong WR2. But I find myself disappointed that I've got New England's top two passing options, and am praying that I get more big weeks out of them than one-good/one-bad weeks. I'd be all right if last year repeated itself, but I don't see it, and I can't help but wonder if I should've taken one of the guys I had ranked slightly lower -- maybe JLewis, DMac. Thoughts?

I'd be concerned with Moss at 1.09 in a dynasty draft, but be glad you have Welker instead of JLewis. Personally, McFadden would look pretty good there. In all honestly, I've never done a dynasty draft, but I'm guessing you want to avoid players that only have a couple of years left.

 

[Al Toon's Mole]

I was shocked when Moss was available to me at 1.09 last night in a 12-team start-up dynasty draft I'm in, so I jumped on him. I then took a RB at 2.04 to give me options at the third pick. I had to sleep so I setup a pre-draft list for 3.04 (third-round reversal), and it included a bunch of names from Colston to Fitzgerald to Grant. Near the bottom was Welker.It's a PPR league. I'm a fan of Welker as a strong WR2. But I find myself disappointed that I've got New England's top two passing options, and am praying that I get more big weeks out of them than one-good/one-bad weeks. I'd be all right if last year repeated itself, but I don't see it, and I can't help but wonder if I should've taken one of the guys I had ranked slightly lower -- maybe JLewis, DMac. Thoughts?

It could be worse but it's not exactly what you want out of a Dynasty startup. Your best option is to hope that after a week or two, that you can move of one them to a panicking owner. Moss would hold more trade value for you, but could actually be still good for another 2 years. Do your best to see how owners seem to react to their own draft and exploit the ones who worry early. Draft picks and/or players to strengthen your roster are crucial in Dynasty leagues.Good Luck!

 

[The Man with the Plan]

Redraft Leagues - Sure why not?

Dynasty Leagues - No way.

 

[Brutis]

Redraft Leagues - Sure why not? Dynasty Leagues - No way.

I won my 14 team dynasty league last year with Moss and Welker as my #1 and #2 wr. Ofcourse it helped I had brady at qb too.

 

[Tanner9919]

I was shocked when Moss was available to me at 1.09 last night in a 12-team start-up dynasty draft I'm in, so I jumped on him. I then took a RB at 2.04 to give me options at the third pick. I had to sleep so I setup a pre-draft list for 3.04 (third-round reversal), and it included a bunch of names from Colston to Fitzgerald to Grant. Near the bottom was Welker.It's a PPR league. I'm a fan of Welker as a strong WR2. But I find myself disappointed that I've got New England's top two passing options, and am praying that I get more big weeks out of them than one-good/one-bad weeks. I'd be all right if last year repeated itself, but I don't see it, and I can't help but wonder if I should've taken one of the guys I had ranked slightly lower -- maybe JLewis, DMac. Thoughts?

you could do worse! I had Jim Kelly, Andre Reed, James Lofton on my team at the same time back in 1991..didn't win a title, finished below .500..when the team does poorly, your fantasy team will follow suit..and bye weeks will be a killer..

 

[Avery]

I'm a proponent of not overthinking it and taking the player who you think will score the most fantasy points weather they are on the same team or not. This discussion usually surrounds RB/QB combos.

I wouldn't shoot for it and WR/WR combo might be a bit scary for you have much of your fantasy hopes riding on one team (What if Brady goes down?) but if you think Moss/Welker were the best picks where you drafted, go for it!

To put it another way, if you drafted another WR2 instead of Welker do you believe that the other guy will get you fewer or more points? If the answer is fewer, draft Welker.

 

[cjack]

I'm a proponent of not overthinking it and taking the player who you think will score the most fantasy points weather they are on the same team or not. This discussion usually surrounds RB/QB combos.I wouldn't shoot for it and WR/WR combo might be a bit scary for you have much of your fantasy hopes riding on one team (What if Brady goes down?) but if you think Moss/Welker were the best picks where you drafted, go for it!To put it another way, if you drafted another WR2 instead of Welker do you believe that the other guy will get you fewer or more points? If the answer is fewer, draft Welker.

That's generally the line of thinking I would follow, the question is whether you think you should diversify. Similar to an investment portfolio, you could just pick your best projected stocks, but if they're both oil stocks, then they will likely rise and fall together. Some people would rather hedge their bets in the event of adverse conditions, like Brady going down, or like New England relying more on the run, for example.

 

[travdogg]

Nothing wrong with 2 WR's from the same team. I won my league in 06' with a Harrison/Wayne combo. I'm not sure Welker is going to be a top-15 WR again, but you could do a lot worse as a WR2.

 

[The Jacket]

I'm a proponent of not overthinking it and taking the player who you think will score the most fantasy points weather they are on the same team or not. This discussion usually surrounds RB/QB combos.I wouldn't shoot for it and WR/WR combo might be a bit scary for you have much of your fantasy hopes riding on one team (What if Brady goes down?) but if you think Moss/Welker were the best picks where you drafted, go for it!To put it another way, if you drafted another WR2 instead of Welker do you believe that the other guy will get you fewer or more points? If the answer is fewer, draft Welker.

This was essentially my thinking when setting up the pre-draft list. It's a little unfortunate that both Bengals WRs, Colston and Fitzgerald were four of the six picks before mine, but what can ya do. Some VERY surprising guys, like Earnest Graham, also went before my pick, so in some ways I'm actually relieved to get Welker, because the guys after him (SSmith, BMarshall) are questionable at best in my personal opinion.Thanks for the reassurance. GO PATS!

 

[gianmarco]

Been a study done on this already here and shows that two WR's from the same team are actually MORE consistent than 2 other comparable WR's. I wouldn't think twice about owning Moss/Welker, Fitz/Boldin, CJ/Housh, Wayne/Harrison, or even Cotchery/Coles. You take the BPA, period.

ETA--Moss is only 31. I hardly think he only has 2 more yrs left. Are you guys really saying at the age of 33, he won't be able to do much? TO is 35 and look what he still did last year. Harrison finished as the #1 WR in 2006 at the age of 34. Using those #'s, Moss EASILY has 4-5 yrs left (this year at age 31, then 32, 33, 34, and maybe 35). His age is being WAY overemphasized by many people. Do you guys also think Wayne and Chad Johnson are old at age 30? In 1 yr, they will be where Moss is right now.

 

[cjack]

Been a study done on this already here and shows that two WR's from the same team are actually MORE consistent than 2 other comparable WR's. I wouldn't think twice about owning Moss/Welker, Fitz/Boldin, CJ/Housh, Wayne/Harrison, or even Cotchery/Coles. You take the BPA, period.ETA--Moss is only 31. I hardly think he only has 2 more yrs left. Are you guys really saying at the age of 33, he won't be able to do much? TO is 35 and look what he still did last year. Harrison finished as the #1 WR in 2006 at the age of 34. Using those #'s, Moss EASILY has 4-5 yrs left (this year at age 31, then 32, 33, 34, and maybe 35). His age is being WAY overemphasized by many people. Do you guys also think Wayne and Chad Johnson are old at age 30? In 1 yr, they will be where Moss is right now.

What do they mean by more consistent though? I could see how the fortunes of a WR tandem are correlated. Brady has huge year, Moss and Welker have huge years. Manning has huge year, Harrison and Wayne have huge years. But, by putting your eggs in one basket, you have no insurance if that offense sputters all the sudden, or Brady gets hurt or something. Not saying it's a bad thing to do, just that you have two of your top positions tied to the fortunes of one team.I had Romo, Owens, Witten and Folk last year, and I was riding the Dallas offense high all year long. But come weeks 15-17 when they sputtered and rested the starters, my team fell apart. Not exactly the same thing, but hopefully that helps illustrate my point.

 

[gianmarco]

Been a study done on this already here and shows that two WR's from the same team are actually MORE consistent than 2 other comparable WR's. I wouldn't think twice about owning Moss/Welker, Fitz/Boldin, CJ/Housh, Wayne/Harrison, or even Cotchery/Coles. You take the BPA, period.ETA--Moss is only 31. I hardly think he only has 2 more yrs left. Are you guys really saying at the age of 33, he won't be able to do much? TO is 35 and look what he still did last year. Harrison finished as the #1 WR in 2006 at the age of 34. Using those #'s, Moss EASILY has 4-5 yrs left (this year at age 31, then 32, 33, 34, and maybe 35). His age is being WAY overemphasized by many people. Do you guys also think Wayne and Chad Johnson are old at age 30? In 1 yr, they will be where Moss is right now.

What do they mean by more consistent though? I could see how the fortunes of a WR tandem are correlated. Brady has huge year, Moss and Welker have huge years. Manning has huge year, Harrison and Wayne have huge years. But, by putting your eggs in one basket, you have no insurance if that offense sputters all the sudden, or Brady gets hurt or something. Not saying it's a bad thing to do, just that you have two of your top positions tied to the fortunes of one team.I had Romo, Owens, Witten and Folk last year, and I was riding the Dallas offense high all year long. But come weeks 15-17 when they sputtered and rested the starters, my team fell apart. Not exactly the same thing, but hopefully that helps illustrate my point.

Do a search and pull up the study. On a week to week basis, the WR/WR combo from the same team put up more consistent points together than 2 WR's on different teams.

 

[gianmarco]

WR/WR combo study

Other QB/RB and RB/WR combo study

 

[Doug Drinen]

What do they mean by more consistent though? I could see how the fortunes of a WR tandem are correlated. Brady has huge year, Moss and Welker have huge years. Manning has huge year, Harrison and Wayne have huge years. But, by putting your eggs in one basket, you have no insurance if that offense sputters all the sudden, or Brady gets hurt or something. Not saying it's a bad thing to do, just that you have two of your top positions tied to the fortunes of one team.

First, there is the question of whether you want a safe WR duo (with lower upside) or a higher-risk/higher-reward duo.Let's assume you want a safe duo.

Here is an article I wrote last month on the topic. It's subscriber content, but I'll summarize it here.

There are two potential effects working in opposite directions.

1. if Brady goes down, it hurts both your WRs instead of just one of your WRs.

2. if either Moss or Welker gets hurt, it probably HELPS the other one. I'm not saying it'll work like that every time, but it is a reasonable hypothesis, and here are three bits of anecdotal evidence: (i) in 2001, Ed McCaffrey and Rod Smith are both highly regarded WRs. McCaffrey broke his leg in week one and Smith exceeded his ADP, having one of his best seasons. (ii) 2005 Packers: Javon Walker goes down in week one. Driver exceeds his ADP. (iii) 2007 Colts: Harrison misses lots of games to injury. Wayne leads the NFL in receiving yards and outperforms his ADP.

So in one sense, drafting both Moss and Welker is like putting all your eggs in one basket. But in another sense, it's exactly the opposite. Moss and Welker might actually provide insurance against a down season or injury happening to the other.

Which effect wins out? It turns out to be essentially a tie. My data indicates no general tendency for same-team WR pairs to have more performance variability than comparable-ADP different-team pairs.

 

[cjack]

Been a study done on this already here and shows that two WR's from the same team are actually MORE consistent than 2 other comparable WR's. I wouldn't think twice about owning Moss/Welker, Fitz/Boldin, CJ/Housh, Wayne/Harrison, or even Cotchery/Coles. You take the BPA, period.ETA--Moss is only 31. I hardly think he only has 2 more yrs left. Are you guys really saying at the age of 33, he won't be able to do much? TO is 35 and look what he still did last year. Harrison finished as the #1 WR in 2006 at the age of 34. Using those #'s, Moss EASILY has 4-5 yrs left (this year at age 31, then 32, 33, 34, and maybe 35). His age is being WAY overemphasized by many people. Do you guys also think Wayne and Chad Johnson are old at age 30? In 1 yr, they will be where Moss is right now.

What do they mean by more consistent though? I could see how the fortunes of a WR tandem are correlated. Brady has huge year, Moss and Welker have huge years. Manning has huge year, Harrison and Wayne have huge years. But, by putting your eggs in one basket, you have no insurance if that offense sputters all the sudden, or Brady gets hurt or something. Not saying it's a bad thing to do, just that you have two of your top positions tied to the fortunes of one team.I had Romo, Owens, Witten and Folk last year, and I was riding the Dallas offense high all year long. But come weeks 15-17 when they sputtered and rested the starters, my team fell apart. Not exactly the same thing, but hopefully that helps illustrate my point.

Do a search and pull up the study. On a week to week basis, the WR/WR combo from the same team put up more consistent points together than 2 WR's on different teams.

Quickly scanned the WR/WR study you linked below. As I suspected, by consistent, he means their scoring tends to correlate more closely game by game then two unrelated WRs. That's fine, but my point about having your eggs in one basket is supported by that study. Brady has a bad week or year and your top two WRs are going to suffer together as a result.Now, if you think Brady is going to replicate last year, then by all means draft them both, but your investment lies in one place. That's not necessarily bad, I'm just pointing out the potential risk. Are you the type of person that puts all your money in one stock, or do you diversify your portfolio?

 

[Doug Drinen]

WR/WR combo study

Other QB/RB and RB/WR combo study

Those studies are about week-to-week variability. In other words, if you have two WRs from the same team, will they be more inconsistent within the season than two similar-scoring different-team WRs.ANSWER: no reason to suspect that. If anything, the same-team pair will have a tendency to be slightly more consistent.

But there is a higher-level question, which I think might be the one cjack is worried about. Namely, if you drafted a same-team pair every season for twenty years, would you have more boom teams and more bust teams than your friend who was drafting similar-ADP different-team pairs. That's what the newer study (described above) is about.

ANSWER: no reason to suspect that.

At both levels the conclusion is the same: there is no reason to intentionally avoid drafting your WR2 from the same NFL team as your WR1.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Quickly scanned the WR/WR study you linked below. As I suspected, by consistent, he means their scoring tends to correlate more closely game by game then two unrelated WRs.

No. Exactly the opposite. The combined score of the two WRs tends to be (slightly) less variable and more consistent than a similar-scoring different-team pair.

 

[cjack]

What do they mean by more consistent though? I could see how the fortunes of a WR tandem are correlated. Brady has huge year, Moss and Welker have huge years. Manning has huge year, Harrison and Wayne have huge years. But, by putting your eggs in one basket, you have no insurance if that offense sputters all the sudden, or Brady gets hurt or something. Not saying it's a bad thing to do, just that you have two of your top positions tied to the fortunes of one team.

First, there is the question of whether you want a safe WR duo (with lower upside) or a higher-risk/higher-reward duo.Let's assume you want a safe duo.

Here is an article I wrote last month on the topic. It's subscriber content, but I'll summarize it here.

There are two potential effects working in opposite directions.

1. if Brady goes down, it hurts both your WRs instead of just one of your WRs.

2. if either Moss or Welker gets hurt, it probably HELPS the other one. I'm not saying it'll work like that every time, but it is a reasonable hypothesis, and here are three bits of anecdotal evidence: (i) in 2001, Ed McCaffrey and Rod Smith are both highly regarded WRs. McCaffrey broke his leg in week one and Smith exceeded his ADP, having one of his best seasons. (ii) 2005 Packers: Javon Walker goes down in week one. Driver exceeds his ADP. (iii) 2007 Colts: Harrison misses lots of games to injury. Wayne leads the NFL in receiving yards and outperforms his ADP.

So in one sense, drafting both Moss and Welker is like putting all your eggs in one basket. But in another sense, it's exactly the opposite. Moss and Welker might actually provide insurance against a down season or injury happening to the other.

Which effect wins out? It turns out to be essentially a tie. My data indicates no general tendency for same-team WR pairs to have more performance variability than comparable-ADP different-team pairs.

Thanks Doug, interesting stuff. I am a member so I'll read your full article.I guess I just have a different strategy than the original poster. This may deviate from my original line of debate but what are the odds that two WRs from the same team end up top 5? Has that happened with Bruce/Holt, Harrison/Wayne? I ask because when I'm drafting my number one and number two WR, I'm fully expecting that they both have the potential to be top 5 WRs. If I take two from the same team, it seems my odds go down, at least based on historic data. Last year, I took Owens as my number one WR and Braylon Edwards as my number two. Obviously, I ended the year with two top 5 WRs. Have two WRs from the same team ever produced at the same level as Owens/Edwards did last year?

In his case, I'd rather take Moss as he did with his number one WR slot and find a number two WR that has the potential to be a number one. It doesn't seem like Welker has that potential unless Moss gets hurt and Welker benefits. But even then, Welker's now a number one, but Moss isn't.

ETA: I guess it's just my overall FF strategy. I'd rather draft for more boom/bust type players than play it safe and consistent. Over the years, I've gone after players that I thought had the potential to be top players at their position regardless of draft position. Obviously, I've had my share of busts, but I've certainly had more than my share of boom players as well. In a competitive league, it just seems like it's difficult to separate from the pack with a play it safe mentality.

 

[mozzy84]

Redraft Leagues - Sure why not? Dynasty Leagues - No way.

I won my 14 team dynasty league last year with Moss and Welker as my #1 and #2 wr. Ofcourse it helped I had brady at qb too.

same players here, same outcome.

 

[Doug Drinen]

In his case, I'd rather take Moss as he did with his number one WR slot and find a number two WR that has the potential to be a number one. It doesn't seem like Welker has that potential unless Moss is gets hurt and Welker benefits. But even then, Welker's now a number one, but Moss isn't.

I can dig that.I haven't run the numbers, but I would be inclined to suspect that you're right. ASSUMING that Moss turns out to be a top 5 receiver, then Welker probably has a lower chance of doing so than Holmes or Roy Williams or Boldin or Holt (some probable alternatives to Welker). That's consistent with the linked study, which indicates that if anything there is a very slight tendency for same-team WRs to vary inversely.PS three pairs of same-team WRs have finished in the top 5: Clayton/Duper 86, Moss/Carter 99, and Harrison/Wayne 06. There have been 22 occasions where a same-team pair of WRs both finished top-8.

 

[Christo]

I'd be concerned with Moss at 1.09 in a dynasty draft, but be glad you have Welker instead of JLewis. Personally, McFadden would look pretty good there. In all honestly, I've never done a dynasty draft, but I'm guessing you want to avoid players that only have a couple of years left.

Why? If I could get three years of Moss' production I'd have no problem making him my No. 1 pick at 1.09 in a dynasty. Most RBs don't give much more than 3 years of elite production anyway.As an example, I was in a dynasty startup five years ago. I took Moss at 1.12. Yes, he was getting ready to head into his lost years at Oakland but that's not my point. I don't remember each and every pick before mine but I do know that along with LT2, Shaun Alexander, Deuce McAllister, Ricky Williams and Tiki Barber were drafted ahead of Moss (so was Michael Vick, but that a whole other story). The only two players from that intial first round who are still producing are Moss and LT2. I hazard a guess that LT2 is going to fall off a ledge quicker than Moss but that he's still being taken ahead of Moss in initial dynasty drafts.

 

[cjack]

I'd be concerned with Moss at 1.09 in a dynasty draft, but be glad you have Welker instead of JLewis. Personally, McFadden would look pretty good there. In all honestly, I've never done a dynasty draft, but I'm guessing you want to avoid players that only have a couple of years left.

Why? If I could get three years of Moss' production I'd have no problem making him my No. 1 pick at 1.09 in a dynasty. Most RBs don't give much more than 3 years of elite production anyway.As an example, I was in a dynasty startup five years ago. I took Moss at 1.12. Yes, he was getting ready to head into his lost years at Oakland but that's not my point. I don't remember each and every pick before mine but I do know that along with LT2, Shaun Alexander, Deuce McAllister, Ricky Williams and Tiki Barber were drafted ahead of Moss (so was Michael Vick, but that a whole other story). The only two players from that intial first round who are still producing are Moss and LT2. I hazard a guess that LT2 is going to fall off a ledge quicker than Moss but that he's still being taken ahead of Moss in initial dynasty drafts.

I wouldn't have had a problem with drafting Moss in a Dynasty league five years ago, I have a problem with it now (I'm mostly kidding).As I said, I've never played in a Dynasty league, so I haven't thought through this strategy, but I think I would have a strong tendency to draft younger players. 3 more years from Moss is fairly safe, but will he keep playing at that level? Will he actually make it 3 more years?I play in a re-draft each year and I still have a tendency to draft younger players, so I can only imagine how my Dynasty team would look.

 

[cstu]

I was shocked when Moss was available to me at 1.09 last night in a 12-team start-up dynasty draft I'm in, so I jumped on him. I then took a RB at 2.04 to give me options at the third pick. I had to sleep so I setup a pre-draft list for 3.04 (third-round reversal), and it included a bunch of names from Colston to Fitzgerald to Grant. Near the bottom was Welker.It's a PPR league. I'm a fan of Welker as a strong WR2. But I find myself disappointed that I've got New England's top two passing options, and am praying that I get more big weeks out of them than one-good/one-bad weeks. I'd be all right if last year repeated itself, but I don't see it, and I can't help but wonder if I should've taken one of the guys I had ranked slightly lower -- maybe JLewis, DMac. Thoughts?

I'd be concerned with Moss at 1.09 in a dynasty draft, but be glad you have Welker instead of JLewis. Personally, McFadden would look pretty good there. In all honestly, I've never done a dynasty draft, but I'm guessing you want to avoid players that only have a couple of years left.

Moss has a good shot outscoring most of the RB's available at 1.09 for the rest of their careers. For me drafting a RB at 1.09 is basically a crapshoot - I'd go Portis but I'm not sure he's going to outlast Moss and in PPR Moss is likely to put up more points. Lynch is an option if you want to go young, but he's not going to outscore Moss in PPR.

 

[The Jacket]

Two comments:

(1) I think age/youth in a dynasty is VASTLY overrated. At least in the dynasties I play in with a salary cap. Even if I passed on Moss and took, uhhh, Marion Barber or Reggie Bush (?!), I can only sign the guy to a four-year deal. So when four years roll around and Moss is supposedly falling off a cliff, the same young players are UFAs and I still need to outbid everyone else for them, anyway.

Clearly I think you value a guy like Edgerrin James or Brett Favre lower than you usually would, but I absolutely don't shy away from guys like Moss, T.O., LT, etc. If anything, I'd RATHER go with them than younger guys like Lynch and Gore who we hope keep it up for years. At least in three or four years I'm getting a 30-40% cap relief gift, and I can go out and sign the top UFA RB/WR.

(2) Someone above mentioned drafting a WR2 with top-five upside so that both his starting WRs have top-five upside, but I think that's a whole different kettle of fish. As is, the guys that were available to me -- SSmith, BMarshall, etc. -- could have more upside due to being their team's No. 1's, etc., but they also come with more questions and ultimately I expect Welker to produce more total fantasy points and more consistently than those guys. For example, SSmith may have more 150-yard games, but I don't see him having as many eight-catch, 80+ yard games (16 points in this league). And if I needed a deciding factor, it could be that Welker's weekly upside is hardly 8-80. In that system and against a weak defense, you know he can go for 11-140-1 (31 points).

 

[cjack]

I was shocked when Moss was available to me at 1.09 last night in a 12-team start-up dynasty draft I'm in, so I jumped on him. I then took a RB at 2.04 to give me options at the third pick. I had to sleep so I setup a pre-draft list for 3.04 (third-round reversal), and it included a bunch of names from Colston to Fitzgerald to Grant. Near the bottom was Welker.It's a PPR league. I'm a fan of Welker as a strong WR2. But I find myself disappointed that I've got New England's top two passing options, and am praying that I get more big weeks out of them than one-good/one-bad weeks. I'd be all right if last year repeated itself, but I don't see it, and I can't help but wonder if I should've taken one of the guys I had ranked slightly lower -- maybe JLewis, DMac. Thoughts?

I'd be concerned with Moss at 1.09 in a dynasty draft, but be glad you have Welker instead of JLewis. Personally, McFadden would look pretty good there. In all honestly, I've never done a dynasty draft, but I'm guessing you want to avoid players that only have a couple of years left.

Moss has a good shot outscoring most of the RB's available at 1.09 for the rest of their careers. For me drafting a RB at 1.09 is basically a crapshoot - I'd go Portis but I'm not sure he's going to outlast Moss and in PPR Moss is likely to put up more points. Lynch is an option if you want to go young, but he's not going to outscore Moss in PPR.

Again, I don't know Dynasty (maybe that should be my sign to ####), but even if we assume Moss is going to perform at a high level for three more years, after year 3, you have nothing. If you drafted Lynch, for instance, you may not have him perform at Moss's level the next three years, but you've theoretically landed a productive players for several years to come.If you could play Moss this year and trade him away during the off-season for something younger, that might be a good strategy, but what sucker in your league is going to sign up for Moss with only a year or two left after this year.Am I'm going to marry a 35 year old because she's hitting her prime for the next three years, or am I going to marry a 22 year old who I can ride for another 16 years (I'd trade her away before she hit 30, but for the sake of argument).

 

[cjack]

Two comments:(1) I think age/youth in a dynasty is VASTLY overrated. At least in the dynasties I play in with a salary cap. Even if I passed on Moss and took, uhhh, Marion Barber or Reggie Bush (?!), I can only sign the guy to a four-year deal. So when four years roll around and Moss is supposedly falling off a cliff, the same young players are UFAs and I still need to outbid everyone else for them, anyway. Clearly I think you value a guy like Edgerrin James or Brett Favre lower than you usually would, but I absolutely don't shy away from guys like Moss, T.O., LT, etc. If anything, I'd RATHER go with them than younger guys like Lynch and Gore who we hope keep it up for years. At least in three or four years I'm getting a 30-40% cap relief gift, and I can go out and sign the top UFA RB/WR. (2) Someone above mentioned drafting a WR2 with top-five upside so that both his starting WRs have top-five upside, but I think that's a whole different kettle of fish. As is, the guys that were available to me -- SSmith, BMarshall, etc. -- could have more upside due to being their team's No. 1's, etc., but they also come with more questions and ultimately I expect Welker to produce more total fantasy points and more consistently than those guys. For example, SSmith may have more 150-yard games, but I don't see him having as many eight-catch, 80+ yard games (16 points in this league). And if I needed a deciding factor, it could be that Welker's weekly upside is hardly 8-80. In that system and against a weak defense, you know he can go for 11-140-1 (31 points).

Point number 1 is valid. Not having played in a Dynasty league, I don't know how the CAP and UFA's work. If you can only hold a player for 4 more years anyway, fine take Moss.Point number two, I'm sticking with my position that I want two top 5 potential guys. If I had too many question marks around S. Smith or Marshall or the other available WRs with a similar ADP, then I don't draft a WR in that round, I shore up another position. But when I do draft another WR, he'll have the talent/potential to be a top WR. Last year, I lucked out with Owens and Edwards as my number one and two. I had mixed success with Calvin Johnson, Roddy White and Chris Henry as my 3-5s, but I think each of them had at least potential to be superstars, at least relative to where they were drafted.

 

[gianmarco]

I was shocked when Moss was available to me at 1.09 last night in a 12-team start-up dynasty draft I'm in, so I jumped on him. I then took a RB at 2.04 to give me options at the third pick. I had to sleep so I setup a pre-draft list for 3.04 (third-round reversal), and it included a bunch of names from Colston to Fitzgerald to Grant. Near the bottom was Welker.It's a PPR league. I'm a fan of Welker as a strong WR2. But I find myself disappointed that I've got New England's top two passing options, and am praying that I get more big weeks out of them than one-good/one-bad weeks. I'd be all right if last year repeated itself, but I don't see it, and I can't help but wonder if I should've taken one of the guys I had ranked slightly lower -- maybe JLewis, DMac. Thoughts?

I'd be concerned with Moss at 1.09 in a dynasty draft, but be glad you have Welker instead of JLewis. Personally, McFadden would look pretty good there. In all honestly, I've never done a dynasty draft, but I'm guessing you want to avoid players that only have a couple of years left.

Moss has a good shot outscoring most of the RB's available at 1.09 for the rest of their careers. For me drafting a RB at 1.09 is basically a crapshoot - I'd go Portis but I'm not sure he's going to outlast Moss and in PPR Moss is likely to put up more points. Lynch is an option if you want to go young, but he's not going to outscore Moss in PPR.

Again, I don't know Dynasty (maybe that should be my sign to ####), but even if we assume Moss is going to perform at a high level for three more years, after year 3, you have nothing. If you drafted Lynch, for instance, you may not have him perform at Moss's level the next three years, but you've theoretically landed a productive players for several years to come.If you could play Moss this year and trade him away during the off-season for something younger, that might be a good strategy, but what sucker in your league is going to sign up for Moss with only a year or two left after this year.Am I'm going to marry a 35 year old because she's hitting her prime for the next three years, or am I going to marry a 22 year old who I can ride for another 16 years (I'd trade her away before she hit 30, but for the sake of argument).

In football terms, I'll take the #1 WR for 3 yrs over the #15 WR for 8 yrs any day of the week. In addition to that, Moss may not play at that level for 3 yrs, but there's no guarantee your younger WR will either. Moss is actually the most sure bet to play at the level for the next 3 yrs because he's done it his entire career minus the time in Oakland.In girl terms to your analogy, I'll take a 35 yo Angelina Jolie for 3 yrs and you can have the 22 year old regular girl and ride it out for 16 yrs. I prefer quality, not quantity. Moss is quality.

 

[cjack]

I was shocked when Moss was available to me at 1.09 last night in a 12-team start-up dynasty draft I'm in, so I jumped on him. I then took a RB at 2.04 to give me options at the third pick. I had to sleep so I setup a pre-draft list for 3.04 (third-round reversal), and it included a bunch of names from Colston to Fitzgerald to Grant. Near the bottom was Welker.It's a PPR league. I'm a fan of Welker as a strong WR2. But I find myself disappointed that I've got New England's top two passing options, and am praying that I get more big weeks out of them than one-good/one-bad weeks. I'd be all right if last year repeated itself, but I don't see it, and I can't help but wonder if I should've taken one of the guys I had ranked slightly lower -- maybe JLewis, DMac. Thoughts?

I'd be concerned with Moss at 1.09 in a dynasty draft, but be glad you have Welker instead of JLewis. Personally, McFadden would look pretty good there. In all honestly, I've never done a dynasty draft, but I'm guessing you want to avoid players that only have a couple of years left.

Moss has a good shot outscoring most of the RB's available at 1.09 for the rest of their careers. For me drafting a RB at 1.09 is basically a crapshoot - I'd go Portis but I'm not sure he's going to outlast Moss and in PPR Moss is likely to put up more points. Lynch is an option if you want to go young, but he's not going to outscore Moss in PPR.

Again, I don't know Dynasty (maybe that should be my sign to ####), but even if we assume Moss is going to perform at a high level for three more years, after year 3, you have nothing. If you drafted Lynch, for instance, you may not have him perform at Moss's level the next three years, but you've theoretically landed a productive players for several years to come.If you could play Moss this year and trade him away during the off-season for something younger, that might be a good strategy, but what sucker in your league is going to sign up for Moss with only a year or two left after this year.Am I'm going to marry a 35 year old because she's hitting her prime for the next three years, or am I going to marry a 22 year old who I can ride for another 16 years (I'd trade her away before she hit 30, but for the sake of argument).

In football terms, I'll take the #1 WR for 3 yrs over the #15 WR for 8 yrs any day of the week. In addition to that, Moss may not play at that level for 3 yrs, but there's no guarantee your younger WR will either. Moss is actually the most sure bet to play at the level for the next 3 yrs because he's done it his entire career minus the time in Oakland.In girl terms to your analogy, I'll take a 35 yo Angelina Jolie for 3 yrs and you can have the 22 year old regular girl and ride it out for 16 yrs. I prefer quality, not quantity. Moss is quality.

First of all, I didn't say I wanted a top 15 WR, I was talking about someone like Lynch who's already a borderline top 10 back and should improve over the next few years. I wouldn't take the 15th best receiver over Moss either.As for Jolie versus regular girl, it's not just any old regular girl, it's a girl you've scouted that has the potential to be the next Jolie (or whoever suits your fancy). I still opt for the potential and youth of the 22year old. Jolie's a good comparison to Moss though because they both have their share of issues.

 

[Christo]

I was shocked when Moss was available to me at 1.09 last night in a 12-team start-up dynasty draft I'm in, so I jumped on him. I then took a RB at 2.04 to give me options at the third pick. I had to sleep so I setup a pre-draft list for 3.04 (third-round reversal), and it included a bunch of names from Colston to Fitzgerald to Grant. Near the bottom was Welker.It's a PPR league. I'm a fan of Welker as a strong WR2. But I find myself disappointed that I've got New England's top two passing options, and am praying that I get more big weeks out of them than one-good/one-bad weeks. I'd be all right if last year repeated itself, but I don't see it, and I can't help but wonder if I should've taken one of the guys I had ranked slightly lower -- maybe JLewis, DMac. Thoughts?

I'd be concerned with Moss at 1.09 in a dynasty draft, but be glad you have Welker instead of JLewis. Personally, McFadden would look pretty good there. In all honestly, I've never done a dynasty draft, but I'm guessing you want to avoid players that only have a couple of years left.

Moss has a good shot outscoring most of the RB's available at 1.09 for the rest of their careers. For me drafting a RB at 1.09 is basically a crapshoot - I'd go Portis but I'm not sure he's going to outlast Moss and in PPR Moss is likely to put up more points. Lynch is an option if you want to go young, but he's not going to outscore Moss in PPR.

Again, I don't know Dynasty (maybe that should be my sign to ####), but even if we assume Moss is going to perform at a high level for three more years, after year 3, you have nothing. If you drafted Lynch, for instance, you may not have him perform at Moss's level the next three years, but you've theoretically landed a productive players for several years to come.If you could play Moss this year and trade him away during the off-season for something younger, that might be a good strategy, but what sucker in your league is going to sign up for Moss with only a year or two left after this year.Am I'm going to marry a 35 year old because she's hitting her prime for the next three years, or am I going to marry a 22 year old who I can ride for another 16 years (I'd trade her away before she hit 30, but for the sake of argument).

In football terms, I'll take the #1 WR for 3 yrs over the #15 WR for 8 yrs any day of the week. In addition to that, Moss may not play at that level for 3 yrs, but there's no guarantee your younger WR will either. Moss is actually the most sure bet to play at the level for the next 3 yrs because he's done it his entire career minus the time in Oakland.In girl terms to your analogy, I'll take a 35 yo Angelina Jolie for 3 yrs and you can have the 22 year old regular girl and ride it out for 16 yrs. I prefer quality, not quantity. Moss is quality.

I'll ignore your analogy. Jolie :X But another thing to consider if you do draft Moss early is the type of team you draft around him. There's no reason to draft Moss then a bunch of up-and-comers. You'd essentially draft with a redraft mindset and an eye towards winning the league right out of the gate.

 

[moderated]

I was shocked when Moss was available to me at 1.09 last night in a 12-team start-up dynasty draft I'm in, so I jumped on him. I then took a RB at 2.04 to give me options at the third pick. I had to sleep so I setup a pre-draft list for 3.04 (third-round reversal), and it included a bunch of names from Colston to Fitzgerald to Grant. Near the bottom was Welker.It's a PPR league. I'm a fan of Welker as a strong WR2. But I find myself disappointed that I've got New England's top two passing options, and am praying that I get more big weeks out of them than one-good/one-bad weeks. I'd be all right if last year repeated itself, but I don't see it, and I can't help but wonder if I should've taken one of the guys I had ranked slightly lower -- maybe JLewis, DMac. Thoughts?

You took Welker over guys like Fitz and Colston in a dynasty league???That is honestly really really really really bad. No excuse for those kinds of mistakes.

 

[Christo]

I was shocked when Moss was available to me at 1.09 last night in a 12-team start-up dynasty draft I'm in, so I jumped on him. I then took a RB at 2.04 to give me options at the third pick. I had to sleep so I setup a pre-draft list for 3.04 (third-round reversal), and it included a bunch of names from Colston to Fitzgerald to Grant. Near the bottom was Welker.It's a PPR league. I'm a fan of Welker as a strong WR2. But I find myself disappointed that I've got New England's top two passing options, and am praying that I get more big weeks out of them than one-good/one-bad weeks. I'd be all right if last year repeated itself, but I don't see it, and I can't help but wonder if I should've taken one of the guys I had ranked slightly lower -- maybe JLewis, DMac. Thoughts?

You took Welker over guys like Fitz and Colston in a dynasty league???

Where did he say that?

 

[gregjcross]

I was shocked when Moss was available to me at 1.09 last night in a 12-team start-up dynasty draft I'm in, so I jumped on him. I then took a RB at 2.04 to give me options at the third pick. I had to sleep so I setup a pre-draft list for 3.04 (third-round reversal), and it included a bunch of names from Colston to Fitzgerald to Grant. Near the bottom was Welker.It's a PPR league. I'm a fan of Welker as a strong WR2. But I find myself disappointed that I've got New England's top two passing options, and am praying that I get more big weeks out of them than one-good/one-bad weeks. I'd be all right if last year repeated itself, but I don't see it, and I can't help but wonder if I should've taken one of the guys I had ranked slightly lower -- maybe JLewis, DMac. Thoughts?

you could do worse! I had Jim Kelly, Andre Reed, James Lofton on my team at the same time back in 1991..didn't win a title, finished below .500..when the team does poorly, your fantasy team will follow suit..and bye weeks will be a killer..

Unless they waited until week 12 to start playing below expectations in '91, you should have adjusted your lineup with trades by week 3. Maybe grab a flipper anderson