08-12-2003, 12:04 AM
I don't know...I'm looking at Yahoo Public scoring here.
WR's
Harrison 145
Owens 145
Ward 136
Moulds 117
Price 108
Toomer 107
Moss 106
Horn 105
Burress 100
Big dropoff after the top 3, but most of the rest were usually taken between rounds 3-6. Looking at RB's...
Holmes 243
Williams 191
Tomlinson 182
Portis 175
Alexander 170
McAllister 165
Garner 149
That's 7 RB's scoring more than the top WR. The next three scored 143, 140, 140, before a significant dropoff. And when you get past the top 20, you get numbers like 88, 80, 71. Last year, Priest Holmes was generally taken in the mid-to-late first round, and scored almost 100 points more than the best WR's.
Also, compare say the best to the 20th best at each position.
RB: Priest Holmes 243, Warrick Dunn 99
Difference: 144, 9 points per game
WR: Marvin Harrison 145, Quincy Morgan 82
Difference: 63, about 4 points per game
A lot depends on the scoring, but at the same time, it's pretty obvious that if you don't get two solid RB's early, you'll be very weak at that position. Taking the best WR early does give you an advantage at that position, but does it compensate for the weakness at RB? I don't think it does...
So let's say you take Harrison in the first, then the 12th best back in the second, then the 20th best back in the third.
That's 145+117+99=361 points
Take the 8th best back in the first, 12th best back in the second, and say the 6th best WR in the third, you get:
143+117+107=367
Looks like a wash here actually...interesting.
WR's
Harrison 145
Owens 145
Ward 136
Moulds 117
Price 108
Toomer 107
Moss 106
Horn 105
Burress 100
Big dropoff after the top 3, but most of the rest were usually taken between rounds 3-6. Looking at RB's...
Holmes 243
Williams 191
Tomlinson 182
Portis 175
Alexander 170
McAllister 165
Garner 149
That's 7 RB's scoring more than the top WR. The next three scored 143, 140, 140, before a significant dropoff. And when you get past the top 20, you get numbers like 88, 80, 71. Last year, Priest Holmes was generally taken in the mid-to-late first round, and scored almost 100 points more than the best WR's.
Also, compare say the best to the 20th best at each position.
RB: Priest Holmes 243, Warrick Dunn 99
Difference: 144, 9 points per game
WR: Marvin Harrison 145, Quincy Morgan 82
Difference: 63, about 4 points per game
A lot depends on the scoring, but at the same time, it's pretty obvious that if you don't get two solid RB's early, you'll be very weak at that position. Taking the best WR early does give you an advantage at that position, but does it compensate for the weakness at RB? I don't think it does...
So let's say you take Harrison in the first, then the 12th best back in the second, then the 20th best back in the third.
That's 145+117+99=361 points
Take the 8th best back in the first, 12th best back in the second, and say the 6th best WR in the third, you get:
143+117+107=367
Looks like a wash here actually...interesting.