Drafting from 1.04: Optimal fantasy draft strategy with the No. 4 pick

If there’s an existing draft spot where you can inject chaos into your league, it’s the fourth overall spot.

I mean, sure. There are “acceptable” picks you can make. And, of course, with me pulling the levers, you’ll see an emphasis on optimal approaches and what’s the most viable. But from the four-hole, there’s less certainty, even starting with our first pick.

According to ADP, the typical options at 1.04 give us our first dose of hopium. Only one option has finished first at their respective position. We’re placing big bets on individual talents with a side action on their situation. Regardless, we can find multiple ways to attack the draft from a weaker starting spot.

Early Round Mayhem

You’ll see more of it in a bit, but I used our new Draft Champion tool to simulate the first round. You can set whatever rules or specific roster-building strategies you’d like, and the algorithm will use our rankings to find the best players. Unsurprisingly, the first three picks require little analysis.

Luckily, the Draft Champion has an assistant that comes up with suggested picks based on position, strategy and who’s on the board. However, as I mentioned, we’re not in Kansas anymore, sitting at the 1.04.

Honestly, I can see any of these guys finishing in the top three in their roles. Amon-Ra St. Brown just did it last year. But in a career year (most targets, yards, and TDs), the Lions’ WR1 fell 72.3 PPR points short of CeeDee Lamb’s season total. And Lamb only played one more game. The point delta between Lamb (WR1) and St. Brown (WR3) is the same as the gap between St. Brown and Nico Collins (WR12). But Detroit’s alpha isn’t the only one with yellow flags.

Ja’Marr Chase (and his QB) is 1.) coming off of an injury-riddled season and 2.) hasn’t eclipsed a 25.0% target share in a single season. Justin Jefferson will (likely) have Sam Darnold under center in Week 1. And coincidentally, both WRs will depend on signal-callers with a repaired Achilles tendon. So, there’s no clear answer here.

However, adjusting our draft to account for a less-confident first-round pick is clear. Irrespective of a WR or RB start, we should ensure we have enough firepower at the core positions. Consequently, we may need to forego a luxury pick at a onesie position. In any case, like always, I’ve built out three teams for us to explore our options.

Admittedly, I set the league to apply balanced approaches to their drafts, and RBs went earlier than anticipated as a result. But the same can happen in our home leagues. Let’s use the middle rounds to make up some ground.

Filling Gaps in the Middle Rounds

I use the start of the middle rounds to (quickly) take a step back and assess my team. What I’ve done should inform what I do later. The clear missing pieces from each roster are QB and TE. In the preceding articles, I’ve taken at least one of either to establish a strong core, but I wanted to include other strategies. Let’s address TE first.

I built a profile based on the metrics that matter for TE when drafting from the 1.02. Like WRs in this range of the draft, we try to find pass-catchers attached to high-end teams. However, our main focus should be on projected volume.

Target Share (correlation to PPR PPG): 0.62 (r-squared value)
TPRR: 0.34
Route Rate: 0.27

Team-level stats like Yards per Drive (0.18) or EPA per Play had a weaker correlation to PPR PPG for TEs drafted in this range. So, leaning into uncertain situations isn’t necessarily a bad bet.

Take David Njoku, for example. The seven-year veteran posted career-highs in targets and yards with the fourth-highest target share amongst TEs. However, he generated nearly half (44.2%) of his yards with Joe Flacco. Deshaun Watson’s health will be a concern even heading into the season, but Njoku’s 74.8% route rate (seventh-best amongst TEs) and 23.7% TPRR (fourth-best) make him a viable target in the middle round.

Actually, the Njoku example helps highlight another point: over-reliance on historical data. While the Browns’ TE met the necessary thresholds, it was hard to see him outkicking his previous target total by 43. Identifying environments conducive to expanded roles combined with an eye for talent also helps (see Pat Freiermuth). Now, let’s go back to our teams.

Squads 1 and 2 could use another starter or depth at RB as they (I) prioritized WR early. By applying the same process used to pick out optimal TEs, we can see what metrics matter for mid-round rushers.

Rushing Rate (correlation to PPR PPG): 0.45
RZ Rushing Rate: 0.28
Route Rate: 0.26
(Team) EPA per Play Rank: 0.01

And still, volume remains king. I included the r-squared value for team efficiency to highlight a general strategy for many fantasy managers. We want pieces of good offenses. But likely, we’ve mined all the goodness (at cost) of every good team by the mid-rounds. In any case, there are still worthwhile options after the sixth round.

Brian Robinson sticks out as an ideal candidate. He handled over 60.0% of the team’s carries, and, most importantly, the sophomore snatched up 61.5% of the totes from inside the 10-yard line. Even with Antonio Gibson there, Robinson had a higher route rate than Isiah Pacheco and Christian McCaffrey. And with Kliff Kingsbury in charge, Washington’s offense should be more fantasy-friendly in 2024.

With these two blueprints in mind, we can plow through to the 12th round with ease. Each team within our multiverse needed help in different areas, but our metrics and staff tiers give us a framework to build around.

Teams 1 and 3 leveled their needs with picks at RB and WR in the early rounds. As a result, I could scoop value at any position as players fell. Team 2 was a different animal altogether. The Hero RB approach necessitated additional picks at RB (with a quick detour to snag an elite TE). Nevertheless, (by design) each roster needs some last-minute attention in the late rounds.

Late-Round QB in 2024

I haven’t brought up the late rounds, and drafting from this slot was the ideal time to introduce this section of the draft. Not because it wasn’t important. But our goals weren’t the same when selecting from an earlier position.

Beforehand, our early-round core had an anchor WR or RB. CMC, Hill or Lamb are all staples of weekly rosters. So we can opt for early TEs and mid-round QBs or vice versa. Without a similar starting point, more mid-round swings become pertinent. And QB (or TE) may pass you by as a consequence. But we can still cobble together enough upside under center to be a contender.

Late-round QB isn’t like it used to be. All we had to do back in the day was find a guy who could boogie in the open field, and we were good. However, the likes of Jared Goff and Daniel Jones have littered the final rounds of drafts. In reality, Jones can run, but his skills as a passer vary from week to week. However, based on the rest of the names, the lack of certainty is where we need to find our value.

In all but two cases (Jones-2022, Wilson-2023), an above-average late-round QB was attached to a top-24 WR or top-12 TE. Cousins had JJettas. Tua had the Blur Brothers. Goff had the Sun God and Sam LaPorta. We liked their pass-catchers but neglected the guy throwing them the ball. So, despite our trepidation regarding their situations, their environment (strong offensive line, good to elite receivers) should be our call to draft them after building a juggernaut across the other positions.

Players Mentioned in this Article

Drafting from 1.04: Optimal fantasy draft strategy with the No. 4 pick

Early Round Mayhem

Filling Gaps in the Middle Rounds

Late-Round QB in 2024

More Pick-Specific Fantasy Draft Strategy