Startup Strategies
Recently, a number of dynasty enthusiasts partook in a series of six mock drafts. The data from these drafts was pooled and subsequently analyzed by our own Ryan McDowell, in order to generate a list of average draft positions (ADP’s) for literally every fantasy-relevant NFL player. These numbers are inordinately useful to the dynasty community, as we can now ascertain each player’s relative trade value, and more importantly, have a rough idea of where we can target certain players in ensuing startup drafts.
Touching on the latter part of the previous sentence, we know that startup drafts can wind up differing drastically depending on the strategy of the owner. In fact, we’ve already viewed one participant’s draft based on a “win now” rationale (courtesy of Davis Mattek), but his picks were made without the benefit of the ADP data. Would his team (or any of ours) have looked differently given a better estimate of when each player’s number would be called?
With the advantage of having Ryan’s ADP data in hand, it’s time to take a look at just that. Therefore, this analysis will attempt to prognosticate how teams could potentially shape up depending on the drafter’s design. For this study, two main strategies, “win now” and “draft for the future,” will be explored.
However, we also know that a player’s “draftability” is directly related to where precisely a team drafts. Teams at the top or bottom of a serpentine draft will have two selections in close proximity to one another, but then not choose again for upwards of twenty-plus picks. Conversely, teams that draft in the middle of each round have a more repetitive pattern, but will spend more time between picks, sweating the potentiality that the player they covet won’t be available. Due to the differences that draft position can create, this will also be factored into the investigation.
In order to refine the study, it’s critical to know the criteria of the hypothetical league. The ADP data was generated based on a flexible twelve-team league with standard PPR scoring, where the pertinent weekly starting requirements included one quarterback, one running back, one wide receiver, one tight end and three FLEX players. Kickers and defenses were ignored in the mock drafts, and that will also be the case in this study.
As previously mentioned, it’s imperative that draft position is considered. As such, the twelve teams will be broken down into three groups: Group 1 will consist of teams one through four (by draft position in the first round), Group 2 will include teams five through eight, and Group 3 will be comprised of teams nine through twelve. The averages of where each group would draft on a round by round basis through the first twelve rounds (note: the mock drafts were all 20 rounds) will be utilized, and achieved by using the formula (sum of draft positions in a group)/4. For example, Group 1 is comprised of the teams which, in the first round, pick first, second, third and fourth. Therefore their average position for that round is (1 + 2 + 3 + 4)/4 = 2.5.
Now that all the parameters in place, let’s explore the prospective teams/
The “Win Now” Strategy
A team attempting to triumph immediately is one that is likely to value certainty at the expense of youth. As such, these types of teams tend to have the look of a “re-draft” roster, with an elevated average age and subsequently smaller window to seal the deal and achieve a championship. Aligning with the ADP data, how might Groups 1-3 choose to draft?
The next table summarizes each team’s first twelve picks, with the corresponding ADP values of each player chosen. Prospective starters are highlighted in bold type. Remember, you won’t see each and every player listed, since ADP’s might preclude them from being drafted depending on where each group will (on average) make their selection. The general rule used for this study is that teams will not be able to select players with ADP’s that fall before their selection (+/- 1.5).
Round |
Group 1 Pick |
Draft Position |
ADP |
Group 2 Pick |
Draft Position |
ADP |
Group 3 Pick |
Draft Position |
ADP |
1 |
A. Peterson |
2.5 |
2.2 |
A. Foster |
6.5 |
7.0 |
R. Gronkowski |
10.5 |
13.8 |
2 |
B. Marshall |
22.5 |
21.5 |
M. Lynch |
18.5 |
18.0 |
J. Charles |
14.5 |
14.3 |
3 |
D. Brees |
26.5 |
25.3 |
T. Brady |
30.5 |
32.2 |
L. Fitzgerald |
34.5 |
35.2 |
4 |
W. Welker |
46.5 |
47.5 |
A. Johnson |
42.5 |
41.5 |
D. Sproles |
38.5 |
41.3 |
5 |
MJD |
50.5 |
53.7 |
J. Blackmon |
54.5 |
54.7 |
M. Colston |
58.5 |
60.5 |
6 |
R. Bush |
70.5 |
69.2 |
J. Witten |
66.5 |
65.2 |
D. Bowe |
62.5 |
62.5 |
7 |
D. Amendola |
74.5 |
74.0 |
R. Wayne |
78.5 |
77.8 |
B. Tate |
82.5 |
83.3 |
8 |
J. Finley |
94.5 |
95.0 |
S. Jackson |
90.5 |
90.3 |
E. Manning |
86.5 |
93.5 |
9 |
L. Miller |
98.5 |
98.8 |
B. Roethlisberger |
102.5 |
101.3 |
D. Pitta |
106.5 |
108.8 |
10 |
J. Freeman |
118.5 |
121.7 |
R. Turbin |
114.5 |
117.8 |
R. Randle |
110.5 |
110.7 |
11 |
C. Givens |
122.5 |
121.8 |
D. Allen |
126.5 |
125.7 |
R. Broyles |
130.5 |
129.8 |
12 |
M. Bennett |
142.5 |
143.8 |
V. Brown |
138.5 |
143.5 |
P. Rivers |
134.5 |
136.2 |
Once again, the above mock draft is going to great lengths to produce teams that are best built to win now. Group 1 didn’t draft a prospect (Lamar Miller) until the ninth round, and Group 2 followed suit with Justin Blackmon in round five. Group 3 drafted youth almost immediately, but Rob Gronkowski is an aberration, being both 23 years old and the best player at his position. Group 3’s picks in rounds three through six again show bias towards veterans.
The overall theme here is that if you load up on older players early, you’re likely to miss out on the blue-chip prospects, as well as stability and youth at QB2 position. Group 1 is forced to rely upon potential breakthroughs by Lamar Miller, Josh Freeman and Chris Givens for sustainability. Group 2 is in a similar position with Dwayne Allen and Vincent Brown, but has at least handcuffed Marshawn Lynch. Ben Roethlisberger is a dicey QB2 option due to age and injury risk. Group 3, while more balanced, is still counting on eventual contributions from Ben Tate, Reuben Randle and Ryan Broyles. The picks of Eli Manning and Philip Rivers at quarterback were non-ideal and a trade might be necessary to improve the team’s potential.
Now that we’ve seen what happens when an owner attempts to build a team with its short-term future in mind, let’s consider the opposite. Some owners are more than happy to give their dynasties one or two “redshirt” years, with the promise of youth eventually being served. How would this look?
The “Draft for the Future” Strategy
Again, the following picks are going to represent a bias towards youth and potential over age and experience. The same ADP rules as seen previously will apply.
Round |
Group 1 Pick |
Draft Position |
ADP |
Group 2 Pick |
Draft Position |
ADP |
Group 3 Pick |
Draft Position |
ADP |
1 |
Ca. Johnson |
2.5 |
2.0 |
AJ Green |
6.5 |
5.7 |
J. Jones |
10.5 |
11.8 |
2 |
C. Newton |
22.5 |
22.3 |
A. Luck |
18.5 |
20.2 |
R. Gronkowski |
14.5 |
13.8 |
3 |
M. Forte |
26.5 |
27.3 |
D. Wilson |
30.5 |
31.7 |
S. Ridley |
34.5 |
34.7 |
4 |
M. Crabtree |
46.5 |
47.3 |
R. Mathews |
42.5 |
41.5 |
M. Ryan |
38.5 |
38.0 |
5 |
A. Brown |
50.5 |
53.2 |
J. Blackmon |
54.5 |
54.7 |
J. Maclin |
58.5 |
60.3 |
6 |
M. Ingram |
70.5 |
71.5 |
TY Hilton |
66.5 |
66.7 |
D. Bowe |
62.5 |
62.5 |
7 |
K. Rudolph |
74.5 |
77.2 |
V. Davis |
78.5 |
80.3 |
B. Tate |
82.5 |
83.3 |
8 |
M. Floyd |
94.5 |
94.5 |
M. Williams |
90.5 |
92.2 |
S. Jackson |
86.5 |
90.3 |
9 |
L. Miller |
98.5 |
98.8 |
R. Hillman |
102.5 |
103.5 |
D. Richardson |
106.5 |
105.0 |
10 |
R. Turbin |
118.5 |
117.7 |
Ry. Williams |
114.5 |
114.5 |
R. Randle |
110.5 |
110.7 |
11 |
J. Freeman |
122.5 |
121.7 |
F. Davis |
126.5 |
125.2 |
A. Dalton |
130.5 |
133.5 |
12 |
C. Fleener |
142.5 |
142.2 |
R. Tannehill |
138.5 |
137.3 |
S. Vereen |
134.5 |
135.7 |
In terms of a dynasty league, these teams look good on paper. Group 1 has the best receiver in the game in Calvin Johnson, as well as a potentially perennial top five quarterback in Cam Newton. After that, however, it gets a bit murkier. Matt Forte is a decent value pick, but suffers due to the uncertainty of the Bears’ new coaching staff. Michael Crabtree has seen a bump in production as of late, but is it sustainable? Can Antonio Brown, Mark Ingram, Kyle Rudolph and Miller handle being “the guy” on their respective offenses?
Group 2 has similar questions. Andrew Luck was highly dependent upon the totality of his passing attempts last year (39 per game), a number which may drop due to the presence of new offensive coordinator Pep Hamilton. The running backs, David Wilson and Ryan Mathews, have also not proven the ability to produce for an entire season. None of the wide receivers have proven themselves as go-to guys.
Group 3 has the best combination of youth and prior production through the first six rounds, and boasts potential top five positional options with Julio Jones, Gronkowski and Matt Ryan. Unfortunately, age and uncertainty (Dwayne Bowe and Steven Jackson) crept into the latter portion of the draft, and the later-round picks represent, at best, talented fliers. The QB2 position, with Andy Dalton, is non-ideal.
Adopting the “draft for the future” strategy appears to hold up for the first several round, but tails off soon thereafter. While the ADP of the players drafted in round six and beyond represents fair value, it seems to be advisable to pair them with a veteran presence.
A Middle Ground?
By now, it’s likely been shown that adopting an extreme strategy is short-sighted. Drafting to “win now” leads to a likelihood of necessitating a rebuild in mere years. “Drafting for the future,” while adhering the major premise of a dynasty franchise, will likely leave your team as an also-ran for the first few years (or longer if the young players don’t pan out). While an owner can always dig himself out of a hole by making shrewd trades and waiver acquisitions, this plays highly on the elements of luck and good fortune.
So what about a middle ground between the two draft strategies? Can we have our figurative cake and eat it too? Shown below is my attempt at just that, manifested as the first twelve picks in the mock draft in which I participated (potential starters in bold).
Round |
Selection |
Overall Pick |
ADP |
1 |
L. McCoy |
9 |
6.2 |
2 |
J. Charles |
16 |
14.3 |
3 |
D. Brees |
33 |
25.3 |
4 |
R. White |
40 |
43.0 |
5 |
MJD |
57 |
53.7 |
6 |
St. Johnson |
64 |
64.7 |
7 |
B. Tate |
81 |
83.3 |
8 |
K. Wright |
88 |
78.7 |
9 |
F. Davis |
105 |
125.2 |
10 |
S. Holmes |
112 |
147.2 |
11 |
P. Rivers |
129 |
136.2 |
12 |
B. Pettigrew |
136 |
112.3 |
I feel as though I have a strong base with my starters who, apart from Roddy White and Maurice Jones-Drew, should have several seasons of fantasy prominence remaining. Also, my picks in rounds seven through nine represent the youth movement necessary to sustain my team’s competitiveness. While the tight end position could be considered a weakness, I’m a believer that if you don’t spend on a top five option at the position, it doesn’t really matter.
Conclusion
Dynasty fantasy football is the figurative manifestation of the phrase “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” There exist startup strategies which fall on both sides of the fence and either can be disputed or validated based on the ADP data collected. The merits and pitfalls of each have now been explored, so, which startup strategy do you prefer?
Follow me on Twitter @EDH_27
- Dynasty Fantasy Football Mailbag: Where Does Brock Bowers Fit in the Tight End Landscape? - March 26, 2024
- Eric Hardter: Dynasty Fantasy Football Rankings Explained - March 23, 2024
- Dynasty Fantasy Football Mailbag: Time to Trade for Zamir White? - March 19, 2024