The draft guide: who the room is late on
By Michael
The short version
We work out where each player should come off the board in Redraft PPR SF, using what he is worth as an asset and how many points he projects above the last starter a league actually needs at his position. Then we compare that to Sleeper superflex ADP. The players below are the ones where those two numbers disagree most, in both directions.
How the gap is worked out
Comparing a ranking to an ADP straight across does not work, and it fails in a way that looks convincing. A ranking places every player against every other player. An ADP prices scarcity. In a one-quarterback league nobody spends pick 50 on the eighth-best quarterback no matter how good he is, so those two numbers disagree about every quarterback, every year, and a naive comparison hands you a list of them and calls it a discovery.
So we put both sides in the same unit before comparing them. For each position we work out how many starters a league actually needs, including its share of the flex, and find what the last of those starters projects to score. Everything above that line is a real edge; everything below it is replaceable. That gives an order of preference, which we then lay over the pick slots the market genuinely spends. The result is a pick number for every player: where he would go if the room drafted the same names in our order.
The gap is that pick number against Sleeper superflex ADP. Positive means he lasts longer than we would wait. Two more things shape the list. Every player carries a confidence score that falls away as both numbers get less reliable, so a name 300 picks deep cannot top the board on the strength of two guesses disagreeing. And each position has its own median gap subtracted before ranking, because a model-wide argument about whether quarterbacks go too late is a strategy question, not something to repeat in thirty rows.
Steals
Players our board wants earlier than the room takes them, measured against how the room prices their position, and only where we have enough data on both sides to mean it.
TEWashington CommandersStealGoes at
161
We'd take
111
Lasts 50 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 161 (round 14) in Redraft PPR SF. We would take him around 111, and he lasts 50 picks longer than that. He projects 13 points above a replacement TE over the season. Beats his weekly projection 58% of the time.
Pts vs replacement TE
13 over
Beats projection
58%
Confidence
High
TESan Francisco 49ersStealGoes at
121
We'd take
72
Lasts 49 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 121 (round 11) in Redraft PPR SF. We would take him around 72, and he lasts 49 picks longer than that. He projects 31 points above a replacement TE over the season. Beats his weekly projection 68% of the time.
Pts vs replacement TE
31 over
Beats projection
68%
Confidence
High
TEKansas City ChiefsStealGoes at
126
We'd take
83
Lasts 43 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 126 (round 11) in Redraft PPR SF. We would take him around 83, and he lasts 43 picks longer than that. He projects 38 points above a replacement TE over the season. Beats his weekly projection 40% of the time.
Pts vs replacement TE
38 over
Beats projection
40%
Confidence
High
WRCarolina PanthersStealGoes at
153
We'd take
101
Lasts 52 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 153 (round 13) in Redraft PPR SF. We would take him around 101, and he lasts 52 picks longer than that. He projects 41 points above a replacement WR over the season. Beats his weekly projection 46% of the time.
Pts vs replacement WR
41 over
Beats projection
46%
Confidence
High
RBNew York GiantsStealGoes at
71
We'd take
31
Lasts 40 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 71 (round 6) in Redraft PPR SF. We would take him around 31, and he lasts 40 picks longer than that. He projects 94 points above a replacement RB over the season. Beats his weekly projection 54% of the time.
Pts vs replacement RB
94 over
Beats projection
54%
Confidence
High
TEGreen Bay PackersStealGoes at
90
We'd take
48
Lasts 41 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 90 (round 8) in Redraft PPR SF. We would take him around 48, and he lasts 41 picks longer than that. He projects 61 points above a replacement TE over the season. Beats his weekly projection 56% of the time.
Pts vs replacement TE
61 over
Beats projection
56%
Confidence
High
QBDetroit LionsStealGoes at
65
We'd take
47
Lasts 18 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 65 (round 6) in Redraft PPR SF. We would take him around 47, and he lasts 18 picks longer than that. He projects 47 points above a replacement QB over the season. Beats his weekly projection 59% of the time.
Pts vs replacement QB
47 over
Beats projection
59%
Confidence
High
WRGreen Bay PackersStealGoes at
137
We'd take
91
Lasts 46 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 137 (round 12) in Redraft PPR SF. We would take him around 91, and he lasts 46 picks longer than that. He projects 43 points above a replacement WR over the season. Beats his weekly projection 53% of the time.
Pts vs replacement WR
43 over
Beats projection
53%
Confidence
High
TEDetroit LionsStealGoes at
101
We'd take
65
Lasts 36 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 101 (round 9) in Redraft PPR SF. We would take him around 65, and he lasts 36 picks longer than that. He projects 35 points above a replacement TE over the season. Beats his weekly projection 50% of the time.
Pts vs replacement TE
35 over
Beats projection
50%
Confidence
High
TEAtlanta FalconsStealGoes at
91
We'd take
57
Lasts 35 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 91 (round 8) in Redraft PPR SF. We would take him around 57, and he lasts 35 picks longer than that. He projects 50 points above a replacement TE over the season. Beats his weekly projection 44% of the time.
Pts vs replacement TE
50 over
Beats projection
44%
Confidence
High
RBPittsburgh SteelersStealGoes at
84
We'd take
51
Lasts 32 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 84 (round 7) in Redraft PPR SF. We would take him around 51, and he lasts 32 picks longer than that. He projects 63 points above a replacement RB over the season. Beats his weekly projection 48% of the time.
Pts vs replacement RB
63 over
Beats projection
48%
Confidence
High
WRIndianapolis ColtsStealGoes at
120
We'd take
79
Lasts 41 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 120 (round 11) in Redraft PPR SF. We would take him around 79, and he lasts 41 picks longer than that. He projects 47 points above a replacement WR over the season. Beats his weekly projection 52% of the time.
Pts vs replacement WR
47 over
Beats projection
52%
Confidence
High
Late-round swings
Available after pick 100, projects above a replacement starter, and the read is thinner. These are darts, and they are supposed to be.
TESeattle SeahawksLate swingGoes at
143
We'd take
134
Lasts 9 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 143 (round 12) in Redraft PPR SF. We would take him around 134, and he lasts 9 picks longer than that. He projects 8 points above a replacement TE over the season. Beats his weekly projection 51% of the time. A dart throw, not a plan.
Pts vs replacement TE
8 over
Beats projection
51%
Confidence
High
Fades
The other direction. The room is spending earlier on these players than our board says they are worth.
RBAtlanta FalconsFadeGoes at
122
We'd take
194
Goes 72 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 122 (round 11) in Redraft PPR SF. We would take him around 194, so the room is spending 72 picks too early on him. He projects 103 points below a replacement RB, so the case is the asset rather than the lineup. Beats his weekly projection 28% of the time.
Pts vs replacement RB
103 under
Beats projection
28%
Confidence
High
WRJacksonville JaguarsFadeGoes at
98
We'd take
143
Goes 45 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 98 (round 9) in Redraft PPR SF. We would take him around 143, so the room is spending 45 picks too early on him. He projects 39 points below a replacement WR, so the case is the asset rather than the lineup. Beats his weekly projection 29% of the time.
Pts vs replacement WR
39 under
Beats projection
29%
Confidence
High
QBMinnesota VikingsFadeGoes at
152
We'd take
228
Goes 77 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 152 (round 13) in Redraft PPR SF. We would take him around 228, so the room is spending 77 picks too early on him. He projects 238 points below a replacement QB, so the case is the asset rather than the lineup. Beats his weekly projection 33% of the time.
Pts vs replacement QB
238 under
Beats projection
33%
Confidence
High
RBArizona CardinalsFadeGoes at
161
We'd take
213
Goes 52 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 161 (round 14) in Redraft PPR SF. We would take him around 213, so the room is spending 52 picks too early on him. He projects 148 points below a replacement RB, so the case is the asset rather than the lineup. Beats his weekly projection 45% of the time.
Pts vs replacement RB
148 under
Beats projection
45%
Confidence
High
WRSan Francisco 49ersFadeGoes at
200
We'd take
239
Goes 38 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 200 (round 17) in Redraft PPR SF. We would take him around 239, so the room is spending 39 picks too early on him. He projects 153 points below a replacement WR, so the case is the asset rather than the lineup. Beats his weekly projection 33% of the time.
Pts vs replacement WR
153 under
Beats projection
33%
Confidence
High
QBCleveland BrownsFadeGoes at
162
We'd take
233
Goes 71 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 162 (round 14) in Redraft PPR SF. We would take him around 233, so the room is spending 71 picks too early on him. He projects 169 points below a replacement QB, so the case is the asset rather than the lineup. Beats his weekly projection 0% of the time.
Pts vs replacement QB
169 under
Beats projection
0%
Confidence
High
QBAtlanta FalconsFadeGoes at
150
We'd take
220
Goes 69 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 150 (round 13) in Redraft PPR SF. We would take him around 220, so the room is spending 70 picks too early on him. He projects 173 points below a replacement QB, so the case is the asset rather than the lineup. Beats his weekly projection 18% of the time.
Pts vs replacement QB
173 under
Beats projection
18%
Confidence
High
WRNew York JetsFadeGoes at
188
We'd take
225
Goes 36 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 188 (round 16) in Redraft PPR SF. We would take him around 225, so the room is spending 37 picks too early on him. He projects 126 points below a replacement WR, so the case is the asset rather than the lineup. Beats his weekly projection 50% of the time.
Pts vs replacement WR
126 under
Beats projection
50%
Confidence
High
RBArizona CardinalsFadeGoes at
137
We'd take
185
Goes 48 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 137 (round 12) in Redraft PPR SF. We would take him around 185, so the room is spending 49 picks too early on him. He projects 121 points below a replacement RB, so the case is the asset rather than the lineup. Beats his weekly projection 32% of the time.
Pts vs replacement RB
121 under
Beats projection
32%
Confidence
High
TELos Angeles ChargersFadeGoes at
153
We'd take
198
Goes 45 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 153 (round 13) in Redraft PPR SF. We would take him around 198, so the room is spending 45 picks too early on him. He projects 114 points below a replacement TE, so the case is the asset rather than the lineup. Beats his weekly projection 23% of the time.
Pts vs replacement TE
114 under
Beats projection
23%
Confidence
High
QBSan Francisco 49ersFadeGoes at
181
We'd take
244
Goes 63 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 181 (round 16) in Redraft PPR SF. We would take him around 244, so the room is spending 63 picks too early on him. He projects 224 points below a replacement QB, so the case is the asset rather than the lineup. Beats his weekly projection 52% of the time.
Pts vs replacement QB
224 under
Beats projection
52%
Confidence
High
RBChicago BearsFadeGoes at
101
We'd take
141
Goes 40 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 101 (round 9) in Redraft PPR SF. We would take him around 141, so the room is spending 40 picks too early on him. He projects 34 points below a replacement RB, so the case is the asset rather than the lineup. Beats his weekly projection 45% of the time.
Pts vs replacement RB
34 under
Beats projection
45%
Confidence
High
Tier-based drafting, explained properly
A ranking list is a single file: player 14, player 15, player 16, all the way down. It looks precise, and that is the problem. Nobody can honestly tell you the 15th best player is better than the 16th. What they can tell you is that a group of six players are all roughly the same, and then there is a real drop.
Tiers are that idea written down. Instead of one list of a hundred names you get maybe twelve groups, and inside a group the order barely matters. Between groups it matters a lot. That single change is what turns a ranking into something you can actually draft off.
The cliff is the whole point
The gap between the last player in one tier and the first player in the next is called a tier break, and people also call it a cliff, which is the more useful word. Inside a tier you are choosing between players who will probably finish near each other. Step over the break and you are taking a genuine downgrade.
So the rule that falls out of it: taking any player from the tier you are in is fine, even the one ranked lowest in it. Reaching across a break to take someone from a tier below is the move to avoid, and it is the one a plain ranking list quietly encourages, because on a flat list a two-spot difference looks the same everywhere.
Counting is the skill
Here is the habit that makes tiers pay off, and it takes about four seconds per pick. When you are on the clock, look at the tier you want a player from and count how many names are still in it. Then work out how many picks happen before your next turn.
If eight names are left in that tier and only fourteen picks separate you from your next one, some of those eight will still be there. You can spend this pick somewhere else and come back. If two names are left, they will be gone, and now you have a real decision: pay for one of them now, or accept the drop to the next tier.
That is the entire method. The question stops being which player is ranked highest and becomes which cliff you are about to fall off, and which one you can still walk back from.
Where it saves you: the positional run
Four running backs go in five picks and the room tenses up. Everyone feels behind, and the next three drafters take a running back they had not planned on. This is the single most common way a draft gets away from people.
Tiers answer it directly. If the run has emptied the running back tier you wanted, the players left are from the tier below, and reaching for one is exactly the mistake. Meanwhile the run means nobody has been taking receivers, so a receiver from a tier you rate highly may have slid to you. The run created value somewhere else in the room, and counting is how you see it while everyone else is panicking.
Scarcity is not a reason to reach
Positional scarcity gets misused constantly. It does not mean "draft this position early". It means the drop-off at that position arrives sooner, so the cost of waiting is higher there than elsewhere. Running back tends to feel scarce because the workload concentrates in fewer players; receiver usually stays deeper further into the middle rounds.
A weak player does not become a good pick because his position is thinning out. If the remaining names at a scarce position are all from a tier you do not want, the answer is to take the better player elsewhere and solve that position later, not to buy the best of a bad group at full price.
Tiers do not transfer across positions
A tier 1 quarterback and a tier 1 running back are not worth the same thing, and tier 2 receivers can be worth more than tier 2 backs. The number labels a group within its own position; it is not a currency you can spend across the board. Compare the size of the drop you are avoiding, not the tier numbers.
How this page fits
The lists above are the tier idea aimed at one specific question. A steal is a player whose cliff sits well below where the room is drafting him, which is another way of saying you can wait on him and still get the tier. A fade is the reverse: you are being asked to pay a tier early. Working out where the cliffs are is the job; this page does the arithmetic for the format you picked.
If you want the tiers themselves rather than the ends of the list, the rankings board carries a tier on every player, and On The Clock does the counting for you during a live draft, including calling out a run while it is happening.
What to do with this on draft day
Do not reach for a steal
A player on the steals list is worth having because he lasts. Taking him two rounds before his ADP throws away the entire reason he is on the list. Note the pick he usually goes at, take him a few picks before that, and spend the earlier rounds on players whose price and value already agree.
Swings are supposed to fail
The late-round swings have thinner evidence than the steals, and that is the point of a late pick. One of them hitting pays for the rest missing. Take two or three of them at the end of a draft; do not build a starting lineup out of them.
A fade is not a warning about the player
Nobody on the fades list is bad. Each of them is priced ahead of what our board says he is worth, which usually means the room is paying for last season, for name recognition, or for a role that has not been confirmed. If one falls a round or two past his ADP, he stops being a fade and becomes a fine pick.
Format changes the answer more than people expect
Switching between the formats above is not cosmetic. A superflex league needs twice as many starting quarterbacks, which moves every quarterback and, because the picks have to come from somewhere, every other position too. A tight end premium does the same thing to tight ends. Read the list for the league you are actually in.
When your board falls apart
Runs happen. Three teams take a quarterback in four picks and the plan you wrote down stops applying. The useful habit is to stop thinking about the position you meant to fill and go back to the question this whole page is built on: which player available right now is furthest ahead of where he should be going. That is usually not the position that just ran.
Where these numbers come from
Values are FF Beacon's own, rebuilt daily. Projections are Sleeper's weekly numbers, rescored under each format's rules rather than read off a generic column, so a tight end premium actually counts. Reliability comes from how often each player has beaten his own weekly projection in seasons we have graded. The market side is public ADP, plus a second read from the real Sleeper drafts synced through League Pulse and On The Clock.
Everything here is free. The full rankings board shows every player rather than the ends of the list, and On The Clock runs the same comparison live inside your Sleeper draft.