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 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 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
101
Lasts 60 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 161 (round 14) in Redraft PPR SF TEP. We would take him around 101, and he lasts 60 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
TEKansas City ChiefsStealGoes at
126
We'd take
73
Lasts 53 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 126 (round 11) in Redraft PPR SF TEP. We would take him around 73, and he lasts 53 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
TESan Francisco 49ersStealGoes at
121
We'd take
71
Lasts 50 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 121 (round 11) in Redraft PPR SF TEP. We would take him around 71, and he lasts 50 picks longer than that. He projects 33 points above a replacement TE over the season. Beats his weekly projection 68% of the time.
Pts vs replacement TE
33 over
Beats projection
68%
Confidence
High
TEGreen Bay PackersStealGoes at
90
We'd take
44
Lasts 46 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 90 (round 8) in Redraft PPR SF TEP. We would take him around 44, and he lasts 46 picks longer than that. He projects 64 points above a replacement TE over the season. Beats his weekly projection 56% of the time.
Pts vs replacement TE
64 over
Beats projection
56%
Confidence
High
TEAtlanta FalconsStealGoes at
91
We'd take
51
Lasts 41 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 91 (round 8) in Redraft PPR SF TEP. We would take him around 51, and he lasts 41 picks longer than that. He projects 58 points above a replacement TE over the season. Beats his weekly projection 44% of the time.
Pts vs replacement TE
58 over
Beats projection
44%
Confidence
High
QBDetroit LionsStealGoes at
65
We'd take
48
Lasts 17 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 65 (round 6) in Redraft PPR SF TEP. We would take him around 48, and he lasts 17 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
TEDetroit LionsStealGoes at
101
We'd take
64
Lasts 37 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 101 (round 9) in Redraft PPR SF TEP. We would take him around 64, and he lasts 37 picks longer than that. He projects 38 points above a replacement TE over the season. Beats his weekly projection 50% of the time.
Pts vs replacement TE
38 over
Beats projection
50%
Confidence
High
TEIndianapolis ColtsStealGoes at
67
We'd take
31
Lasts 36 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 67 (round 6) in Redraft PPR SF TEP. We would take him around 31, and he lasts 36 picks longer than that. He projects 59 points above a replacement TE over the season. Beats his weekly projection 48% of the time.
Pts vs replacement TE
59 over
Beats projection
48%
Confidence
High
RBNew York GiantsStealGoes at
71
We'd take
33
Lasts 38 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 71 (round 6) in Redraft PPR SF TEP. We would take him around 33, and he lasts 38 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
WRCarolina PanthersStealGoes at
153
We'd take
105
Lasts 49 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 153 (round 13) in Redraft PPR SF TEP. We would take him around 105, and he lasts 49 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
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 TEP. 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
TEChicago BearsStealGoes at
56
We'd take
26
Lasts 29 picks longer than we would wait
Goes around pick 56 (round 5) in Redraft PPR SF TEP. We would take him around 26, and he lasts 29 picks longer than that. He projects 89 points above a replacement TE over the season. Beats his weekly projection 42% of the time.
Pts vs replacement TE
89 over
Beats projection
42%
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.
Nothing in this format currently qualifies as a late-round swing.
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 TEP. 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
TELos Angeles ChargersFadeGoes at
153
We'd take
227
Goes 74 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 153 (round 13) in Redraft PPR SF TEP. We would take him around 227, so the room is spending 74 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
106
We'd take
178
Goes 72 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 106 (round 9) in Redraft PPR SF TEP. We would take him around 178, so the room is spending 72 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
98
We'd take
143
Goes 45 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 98 (round 9) in Redraft PPR SF TEP. 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
TELos Angeles RamsFadeGoes at
167
We'd take
225
Goes 58 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 167 (round 14) in Redraft PPR SF TEP. We would take him around 225, so the room is spending 58 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
QBMinnesota VikingsFadeGoes at
152
We'd take
230
Goes 78 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 152 (round 13) in Redraft PPR SF TEP. We would take him around 230, so the room is spending 78 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
WRSan Francisco 49ersFadeGoes at
200
We'd take
243
Goes 43 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 200 (round 17) in Redraft PPR SF TEP. We would take him around 243, so the room is spending 43 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
237
Goes 75 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 162 (round 14) in Redraft PPR SF TEP. We would take him around 237, so the room is spending 75 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
223
Goes 73 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 150 (round 13) in Redraft PPR SF TEP. We would take him around 223, so the room is spending 73 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
RBArizona CardinalsFadeGoes at
161
We'd take
210
Goes 49 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 161 (round 14) in Redraft PPR SF TEP. We would take him around 210, so the room is spending 49 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
QBSan Francisco 49ersFadeGoes at
181
We'd take
251
Goes 70 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 181 (round 16) in Redraft PPR SF TEP. We would take him around 251, so the room is spending 70 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
RBArizona CardinalsFadeGoes at
137
We'd take
181
Goes 44 picks before we would take him
Goes around pick 137 (round 12) in Redraft PPR SF TEP. We would take him around 181, so the room is spending 44 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
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.