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 1QB PPR TEP, 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 PPR 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 PPR 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.
TENew Orleans SaintsStealGoes at
135
We'd take
81
Lasts 55 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 135 (round 12) in Redraft 1QB PPR TEP. We would take him around 81, and he lasts 55 picks longer than that. He projects 30 points above a replacement TE over the season. Beats his weekly projection 66% of the time.
Pts vs replacement TE
30 over
Beats projection
66%
Confidence
High
WRCarolina PanthersStealGoes at
136
We'd take
90
Lasts 47 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 136 (round 12) in Redraft 1QB PPR TEP. We would take him around 90, and he lasts 47 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
TEWashington CommandersStealGoes at
146
We'd take
97
Lasts 49 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 146 (round 13) in Redraft 1QB PPR TEP. We would take him around 97, and he lasts 49 picks longer than that. He projects 17 points above a replacement TE over the season. Beats his weekly projection 58% of the time.
Pts vs replacement TE
17 over
Beats projection
58%
Confidence
High
WRGreen Bay PackersStealGoes at
116
We'd take
78
Lasts 38 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 116 (round 10) in Redraft 1QB PPR TEP. We would take him around 78, and he lasts 38 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
RBPittsburgh SteelersStealGoes at
75
We'd take
46
Lasts 29 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 75 (round 7) in Redraft 1QB PPR TEP. We would take him around 46, and he lasts 29 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
QBDetroit LionsStealGoes at
122
We'd take
88
Lasts 34 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 122 (round 11) in Redraft 1QB PPR TEP. We would take him around 88, and he lasts 34 picks longer than that. He projects 13 points above a replacement QB over the season. Beats his weekly projection 59% of the time.
Pts vs replacement QB
13 over
Beats projection
59%
Confidence
High
TEKansas City ChiefsStealGoes at
107
We'd take
64
Lasts 43 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 107 (round 9) in Redraft 1QB PPR TEP. We would take him around 64, and he lasts 43 picks longer than that. He projects 45 points above a replacement TE over the season. Beats his weekly projection 40% of the time.
Pts vs replacement TE
45 over
Beats projection
40%
Confidence
High
QBChicago BearsStealGoes at
83
We'd take
50
Lasts 33 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 83 (round 7) in Redraft 1QB PPR TEP. We would take him around 50, and he lasts 33 picks longer than that. He projects 41 points above a replacement QB over the season. Beats his weekly projection 62% of the time.
Pts vs replacement QB
41 over
Beats projection
62%
Confidence
High
RBNew York GiantsStealGoes at
49
We'd take
23
Lasts 26 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 49 (round 5) in Redraft 1QB PPR TEP. We would take him around 23, and he lasts 26 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
RBChicago BearsStealGoes at
65
We'd take
44
Lasts 21 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 65 (round 6) in Redraft 1QB PPR TEP. We would take him around 44, and he lasts 21 picks longer than that. He projects 52 points above a replacement RB over the season. Beats his weekly projection 40% of the time.
Pts vs replacement RB
52 over
Beats projection
40%
Confidence
High
WRIndianapolis ColtsStealGoes at
90
We'd take
63
Lasts 28 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 90 (round 8) in Redraft 1QB PPR TEP. We would take him around 63, and he lasts 28 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
WRLos Angeles ChargersStealGoes at
103
We'd take
76
Lasts 26 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 103 (round 9) in Redraft 1QB PPR TEP. We would take him around 76, and he lasts 26 picks longer than that. He projects 26 points above a replacement WR over the season. Beats his weekly projection 72% of the time.
Pts vs replacement WR
26 over
Beats projection
72%
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.
RBTampa Bay BuccaneersLate swingGoes at
107
We'd take
103
Lasts 4 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 107 (round 9) in Redraft 1QB PPR TEP. We would take him around 103, and he lasts 4 picks longer than that. He projects 3 points above a replacement RB over the season. Beats his weekly projection 54% of the time. A dart throw, not a plan.
Pts vs replacement RB
3 over
Beats projection
54%
Confidence
High
WRFree agentLate swingGoes at
126
We'd take
115
Lasts 11 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 126 (round 11) in Redraft 1QB PPR TEP. We would take him around 115, and he lasts 11 picks longer than that. He projects 6 points above a replacement WR over the season. Beats his weekly projection 55% of the time. A dart throw, not a plan.
Pts vs replacement WR
6 over
Beats projection
55%
Confidence
High
TEDallas CowboysLate swingGoes at
104
We'd take
88
Lasts 16 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 104 (round 9) in Redraft 1QB PPR TEP. We would take him around 88, and he lasts 16 picks longer than that. He projects 3 points above a replacement TE over the season. Beats his weekly projection 41% of the time. A dart throw, not a plan.
Pts vs replacement TE
3 over
Beats projection
41%
Confidence
High
Fades
The other direction. The room is spending earlier on these players than our board says they are worth.
TELos Angeles RamsFadeGoes at
159
We'd take
215
Goes 56 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 159 (round 14) in Redraft 1QB PPR TEP. We would take him around 215, so the room is spending 56 picks too early on him. He projects 121 points below a replacement TE, so the case is the asset rather than the lineup. Beats his weekly projection 33% of the time.
Pts vs replacement TE
121 under
Beats projection
33%
Confidence
High
TELos Angeles ChargersFadeGoes at
172
We'd take
225
Goes 52 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 172 (round 15) in Redraft 1QB PPR TEP. We would take him around 225, so the room is spending 52 picks too early on him. He projects 139 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
139 under
Beats projection
23%
Confidence
High
TELos Angeles ChargersFadeGoes at
95
We'd take
143
Goes 48 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 95 (round 8) in Redraft 1QB PPR TEP. We would take him around 143, so the room is spending 49 picks too early on him. He projects 52 points below a replacement TE, so the case is the asset rather than the lineup. Beats his weekly projection 40% of the time.
Pts vs replacement TE
52 under
Beats projection
40%
Confidence
High
WRJacksonville JaguarsFadeGoes at
88
We'd take
137
Goes 49 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 88 (round 8) in Redraft 1QB PPR TEP. We would take him around 137, so the room is spending 49 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
WRNew York JetsFadeGoes at
178
We'd take
224
Goes 46 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 178 (round 15) in Redraft 1QB PPR TEP. We would take him around 224, so the room is spending 46 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
RBAtlanta FalconsFadeGoes at
124
We'd take
174
Goes 50 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 124 (round 11) in Redraft 1QB PPR TEP. We would take him around 174, so the room is spending 50 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
RBDenver BroncosFadeGoes at
84
We'd take
131
Goes 47 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 84 (round 8) in Redraft 1QB PPR TEP. We would take him around 131, so the room is spending 47 picks too early on him. He projects 37 points below a replacement RB, so the case is the asset rather than the lineup. Beats his weekly projection 64% of the time.
Pts vs replacement RB
37 under
Beats projection
64%
Confidence
High
WRSan Francisco 49ersFadeGoes at
190
We'd take
228
Goes 37 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 190 (round 16) in Redraft 1QB PPR TEP. We would take him around 228, so the room is spending 38 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
RBChicago BearsFadeGoes at
90
We'd take
134
Goes 44 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 90 (round 8) in Redraft 1QB PPR TEP. We would take him around 134, so the room is spending 44 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
WRArizona CardinalsFadeGoes at
76
We'd take
107
Goes 31 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 76 (round 7) in Redraft 1QB PPR TEP. We would take him around 107, so the room is spending 31 picks too early on him. He projects 30 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
30 under
Beats projection
29%
Confidence
High
QBCleveland BrownsFadeGoes at
226
We'd take
400
Goes 174 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 226 (round 19) in Redraft 1QB PPR TEP. We would take him around 400, so the room is spending 174 picks too early on him. He projects 202 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
202 under
Beats projection
0%
Confidence
High
QBPhiladelphia EaglesFadeGoes at
67
We'd take
100
Goes 33 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 67 (round 6) in Redraft 1QB PPR TEP. We would take him around 100, so the room is spending 33 picks too early on him. He projects 14 points below a replacement QB, so the case is the asset rather than the lineup. Beats his weekly projection 35% of the time.
Pts vs replacement QB
14 under
Beats projection
35%
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.