There's very little difference in the value of the "first keeper" vs. the "twelfth keeper" -- i.e., what spot you pick in during the third round. That's because you have to give up a second round pick, which is worth much more than a third round pick, to keep the guy in the third round. Only when you have lucked into a draft pick will it make sense, and that is not really that much more likely to happen at pick 25 vs 36. Only 4 3rd round picks were taken last year, and they were not picks 25-28. Only in a league where you could forfeit the pick in the round you drafted the player would Idoit's point make sense. If you're picking for "keeper value" in the third round, you probably should have taken the guy in the second round because that's what you're giving up next year.
Indeed, the value of the first fourth-round keeper would seemingly be equivalent to the value of the first third-round keeper. Keeper strength is different than overall player strength. The best keepers this year aren't Brandon Marshall, for instance, who was kept for a second round pick but would be drafted there anyway. The best keepers are the guys like Marshawn Lynch and Alfred Morris. Guys that would be drafted the first round but were kept for picks after round 10. Whether that occurs in round 12 or round 13 (where the first overall pick would get "first dibs" or last) really does not bear on fairness, in my opinion. At the end of the day, I see almost no value in the concept of "first keeper."
A non-random draft order doesn't make sense either in this league, and I've never made the playoffs. That rule is premised on the idea that the better teams have better talent. However, we have almost complete turnover from year to year on our team. It's highly likely that a team that missed the playoffs has some solid keepers or has traded for draft picks that has actually positioned his team better for the upcoming season than last year's better team, for both teams must forfeit nearly their entire team.