Top 5 dynasty backs if you drafted today (1 Viewer)

[georg013]

Lack of love for CJ Anderson is astounding.

Caution. Who knows if Anderson sticks. New regime with FOUR capable backs on the roster. If I KNEW without a doubt Anderson was going to be the guy, maybe he'd deserve to be ranked that high. As it stands now, we know nothing.

 

[georg013]

Any list I see that doesn't have him as a top five fantasy RB in any format I disregard off the bat.

It's probably pointless for you to look at any dynasty rankings then.

Yeah no kidding. At some point even the greats need to be discounted due to shortened career.

I once fell victim to the same thinking. Ladanian Tomlinson I think his name was. Held on to him. Probably a bit too long.

 

[Thunderlips]

Bell, Lacy, Hill.....that's your Big Three. Then, I don't have a problem with supplementing the top 5 with either a younger veteran back who you think will get you three more good years (McCoy, Forte,Charles,Pederson, Murray...out of those, I think you go McCoy and Murray) OR taking a chance on a second or third year backup/spot starter/RBBC participant you THINK will be a bellcow or quality NFL starter going forward (Mason, Lativius Murray, Sims, Anderson, Hyde etc.). I do have a bit bigger problem throwing a rookie from this year up there as there doesn't look to be ANY "legacy" RBs in there.

 

[georg013]

Gurley and Gordon are in the same tier as Lacy and Murray IMO.

As is Ki-Jana Carter and TRich. It's good to be proactive but we have to start remembering that the NFL game is very different at every position from college.

TRich had a LONG leash up until midway through this past season. People were still willing to pay high prices for a guy who showed NOTHING at the pro level. Look how many excuses his supporters made:

New playbook

Terrible offense

Terrible O-line

Cleveland sucks

Injured

Those excuses don't exist for a 29 year old running back who has been playing in the same system.

 

[ghostguy123]

McCoy still belongs in the top 5

Why? Did Chip say something about increasing his use?

Does he need to? He had a lot of touches, but had a down year.

 

[georg013]

McCoy still belongs in the top 5

Why? Did Chip say something about increasing his use?

Does he need to? He had a lot of touches, but had a down year.

I feel like things are changing for McCoy. This year proved that they don't have to lean on him and that they are willing to use other guys. In my opinion, it devalues McCoy.

 

[JohnnyU]

McCoy still belongs in the top 5

Why? Did Chip say something about increasing his use?

Does he need to? He had a lot of touches, but had a down year.

down year as a RB = red flag by most people, unless you subscribe to the bad OL is 100% the reason.

 

[loose circuits]

Have seen dynasty teams decimated buying guys like LT, Shaun Alexander, Westbrook, etc... At the end of their careers. Would much rather whiff on young upside then ride an aging back to their grave.

If you disagree, you could fill a team with guys like Forte, Foster, etc... Because I've been trying to move them in package deals (because I have Bell, hill, and McKinnon) and get no bites

 

[JohnnyU]

Have seen dynasty teams decimated buying guys like LT, Shaun Alexander, Westbrook, etc... At the end of their careers. Would much rather whiff on young upside then ride an aging back to their grave.

If you disagree, you could fill a team with guys like Forte, Foster, etc... Because I've been trying to move them in package deals (because I have Bell, hill, and McKinnon) and get no bites

Listen to this guy, he knows things and he's in Pre-Med.

 

[Thunderlips]

McCoy still belongs in the top 5

Why? Did Chip say something about increasing his use?

Does he need to? He had a lot of touches, but had a down year.

down year as a RB = red flag by most people, unless you subscribe to the bad OL is 100% the reason.

I don't think the bad OL at the beginning of the year is 100% the reason Shady had a down year. I think his poor start can be explained a bit with that. To me, the reason Shady had such a down year was that Sproles showed up, took away a lot of his passing looks and vultured some rushing TDs. Shady's success can better be determined if A) Sproles is done and B) they don't draft a receiving back to take Sproles spot in the instance he is done.

 

[Shutout]

I can't take a nearly 29 year old (at the start of next season) Jamaal Charles in the top 5 if I were drafting for a new dynasty.

I don't see why not. I'd be willing to bet the known Charles is every bit as safe a bet for the next 2-3 years as almost anyone you can pick and try to forecast that far.

A 31 year old Thomas Jones is sometimes better than a 24 year old Beanie Wells in dynasty. Knowing what you have is a big plus, even if you take an older back.

Heck, ask this question just two or three short seasons ago and everyone would have said Foster and Peterson and would have been burned, by and large AT TIMES. THey would have said CJ2K and TRICH and would have been burned outright.

They would have completely avoided some other players like Frank Gore and Forte (was mid aged for a RB and had an injury here or there). On and on.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Have seen dynasty teams decimated buying guys like LT, Shaun Alexander, Westbrook, etc... At the end of their careers. Would much rather whiff on young upside then ride an aging back to their grave.

If you disagree, you could fill a team with guys like Forte, Foster, etc... Because I've been trying to move them in package deals (because I have Bell, hill, and McKinnon) and get no bites

If anyone says that a stud RB from the past failed and that means that Adrian 'freak of nature' Peterson is like Shaun Alexander or Westbrook or even LdT then sorry. He's not.

He may wind up being considered one of the top five greatest RBs in NFL history and sorry but not even Ladanian Tomlinson can nudge a fifth bust into the NFL's Mt. Rushmore top-five all-time greatest RBs but Adrian Peterson has a legitimate shot IMHO. He's not a typical RB, not by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[ghostguy123]

For me in a startup its simple. I just wont take any of these aging RBs high. Just cause i have a guy like charles ranked as my 5th RB doesnt mean i need to draft him high. I will load up on top WRs and worry about RB later While other people are using high picks on 29 year old rbs.

 

[Shutout]

No one has answered my earlier question. How many years do you expect to get out of a dynasty RB?

Are you expecting 3? 5? 7?

At what point does the reality of the NFL career length factor into your valuing of age vs talent/opportunity?

four years and that is not an arbitrary number.

If I'm picking a guy as a young rookie, a guy that has come on later or even an aging vet up to 28 or so, the common denominator is that I am probably picking them based on a lot of potential if they are young or a lot of potential proven if they are older.

The wear and tear these guys get show us that its a small, small number of guys that sustain for 7,8,9 years so to think of a dynasty RB in terms of more than a handful of years is dicey to start with. But most "good" backs can have 3-5 year runs before their body and the situation changes so I split the baby and call it four years and can live with that.

Even a 28 year old Jamaal Charles, I can see easily having another 4 relevant fantasy years and being just as much a factor as anybody else I can pull from a list.

My two cents: From what I have seen from most of the responses, I would caution the DeMarco pick. If he does not stay in Dallas I just don't think you can underestimate the line and circumstances he benefited from. DeMarco Murray in Jacksonville or Cleveland doesn't sound nearly as exciting to me long term.

 

[Hu-Tang Clan]

Lack of love for CJ Anderson is astounding.

Caution. Who knows if Anderson sticks. New regime with FOUR capable backs on the roster. If I KNEW without a doubt Anderson was going to be the guy, maybe he'd deserve to be ranked that high. As it stands now, we know nothing.

A lot depends on whether Manning comes back or hangs them up too.

 

[SproutDaddy]

Hyde? Gurley? Gordon?

Oh please

Jamaal Charles will start the season 28.DeMarco Murray will be 27, and just had 500 touches in a season. We don't know where he'll be playing either.

ADP will be 30, and we don't know where he will be playing.

Lynch will be 29, and we don't know where he will be playing.

McCoy will be 27, and has lost goal line duties.

Forte will be 29.

Any of those guys has a bad year next year, and you have lost all value. Gurley/Gordon are going to have a much longer leash with their value.

it's all relative on how you want to compete from the get go. I prefer to take a proven commodity. I'd rather play in a league that doesn't draft rookies in a startup. I'm not taking a guy who hasn't played a down as my first RB. To each his on.

It sounds like you should want to play in a league that drafts rookies in the start-up, since people would be "wasting" picks on them leaving another player for you.

That's not what I'm saying there. You're twisting words. I'm saying I'm not drafting them as high as some of you. As I said, it's easier to trade for a young RB with potential later. I guess it also depends on how savvy of a trader you are. I've always seemed to be very good at it.

 

[loose circuits]

Hyde? Gurley? Gordon?

Oh please

Jamaal Charles will start the season 28.DeMarco Murray will be 27, and just had 500 touches in a season. We don't know where he'll be playing either.

ADP will be 30, and we don't know where he will be playing.

Lynch will be 29, and we don't know where he will be playing.

McCoy will be 27, and has lost goal line duties.

Forte will be 29.

Any of those guys has a bad year next year, and you have lost all value. Gurley/Gordon are going to have a much longer leash with their value.

it's all relative on how you want to compete from the get go. I prefer to take a proven commodity. I'd rather play in a league that doesn't draft rookies in a startup. I'm not taking a guy who hasn't played a down as my first RB. To each his on.

It sounds like you should want to play in a league that drafts rookies in the start-up, since people would be "wasting" picks on them leaving another player for you.

That's not what I'm saying there. You're twisting words. I'm saying I'm not drafting them as high as some of you. As I said, it's easier to trade for a young RB with potential later. I guess it also depends on how savvy of a trader you are. I've always seemed to be very good at it.

can you give me an example of a young Rb that was 'easy' to trade for...what does that even mean?

 

[Rhythmdoctor]

Lack of love for CJ Anderson is astounding.

Caution. Who knows if Anderson sticks. New regime with FOUR capable backs on the roster. If I KNEW without a doubt Anderson was going to be the guy, maybe he'd deserve to be ranked that high. As it stands now, we know nothing.

A lot depends on whether Manning comes back or hangs them up too.

I don't think Manning's return matters as much as some do. First off, Manning will return, I guarantee. If not, Kubiak produces stud RBs with crap at QB. Regarding the caution - I understand why some are cautious but I trust my eyes. Anderson was the best RB on that team hands down.

 

[SproutDaddy]

Hyde? Gurley? Gordon?

Oh please

Jamaal Charles will start the season 28.DeMarco Murray will be 27, and just had 500 touches in a season. We don't know where he'll be playing either.

ADP will be 30, and we don't know where he will be playing.

Lynch will be 29, and we don't know where he will be playing.

McCoy will be 27, and has lost goal line duties.

Forte will be 29.

Any of those guys has a bad year next year, and you have lost all value. Gurley/Gordon are going to have a much longer leash with their value.

it's all relative on how you want to compete from the get go. I prefer to take a proven commodity. I'd rather play in a league that doesn't draft rookies in a startup. I'm not taking a guy who hasn't played a down as my first RB. To each his on.

It sounds like you should want to play in a league that drafts rookies in the start-up, since people would be "wasting" picks on them leaving another player for you.

That's not what I'm saying there. You're twisting words. I'm saying I'm not drafting them as high as some of you. As I said, it's easier to trade for a young RB with potential later. I guess it also depends on how savvy of a trader you are. I've always seemed to be very good at it.

can you give me an example of a young Rb that was 'easy' to trade for...what does that even mean?

Go to the dynasty trade thread. You will see some examples.

Some that I've made:

During McCoys 2nd season : Gave Rivers, declining Chris Johnson, a 1st and 2nd for McCoy and future 1st.......led to 2 straight titles

During T. Richardson's rookie season: gave Torrey Smith, AJ Jenkins, Fleener, 1st for T. Rich and a 3rd........lost in semis

After Chris Johnson's rookie year: Gave Lynch (who was still with Buffalo and disappointing), 1st and 2nd for Johnson.......led to 1 title and 2 other championship games

There are others. These just come to mind. All 3 were great trades when made. Th CJ one ended up being horrible in the end.

 

[menobrown]

For me in a startup its simple. I just wont take any of these aging RBs high. Just cause i have a guy like charles ranked as my 5th RB doesnt mean i need to draft him high. I will load up on top WRs and worry about RB later While other people are using high picks on 29 year old rbs.

After pondering question of which are my top 5 RB's I was thinking the same thing and came in here to post just that. Way things are looking now I'd probably just punt on RB the first few rounds. I only see two RB's I'd even consider using a first round pick on. Leveon and Lacy and even with Lacy it would likely need to be at a spot in the first round he would generally not be available.

Also thinking about the answer to this questions I feel like the gap between Leveon and my RB#2(Lacy) is wider than the gap of any dynasty position player to the second best option.

 

[identikit]

As far as dynasty trades for top RBs go, I made one that (at the time) thought it was a big overpay:

Gave up E Sanders, Josh Gordon, CJ Spiller, 2015 1st (ended up being the 1.12) for

Leveon Bell, 2015 1st (expected it to be top 3, but ended up the 1.6), G Jennings.

Made that trade in August.

Looking much better with the Gordon suspension.

 

[georg013]

For me in a startup its simple. I just wont take any of these aging RBs high. Just cause i have a guy like charles ranked as my 5th RB doesnt mean i need to draft him high. I will load up on top WRs and worry about RB later While other people are using high picks on 29 year old rbs.

I'm with you on this. Father time is undefeated. Even for the great ones.

 

[DexterDew]

love semantics... no matter which start up draft, there will be a top 5 rbs taken, but I hear (and also believe personally) that most owners would not want to use a 1st or even a 2nd round pick on a rb that wasn't Bell or Lacy. I get that. But there will be others taken and maybe the question becomes which RBs you can't pass up in round 2 or 3?

 

[loose circuits]

Hyde? Gurley? Gordon?

Oh please

Jamaal Charles will start the season 28.DeMarco Murray will be 27, and just had 500 touches in a season. We don't know where he'll be playing either.

ADP will be 30, and we don't know where he will be playing.

Lynch will be 29, and we don't know where he will be playing.

McCoy will be 27, and has lost goal line duties.

Forte will be 29.

Any of those guys has a bad year next year, and you have lost all value. Gurley/Gordon are going to have a much longer leash with their value.

it's all relative on how you want to compete from the get go. I prefer to take a proven commodity. I'd rather play in a league that doesn't draft rookies in a startup. I'm not taking a guy who hasn't played a down as my first RB. To each his on.

It sounds like you should want to play in a league that drafts rookies in the start-up, since people would be "wasting" picks on them leaving another player for you.

That's not what I'm saying there. You're twisting words. I'm saying I'm not drafting them as high as some of you. As I said, it's easier to trade for a young RB with potential later. I guess it also depends on how savvy of a trader you are. I've always seemed to be very good at it.

can you give me an example of a young Rb that was 'easy' to trade for...what does that even mean?

Go to the dynasty trade thread. You will see some examples.Some that I've made:

During McCoys 2nd season : Gave Rivers, declining Chris Johnson, a 1st and 2nd for McCoy and future 1st.......led to 2 straight titles

During T. Richardson's rookie season: gave Torrey Smith, AJ Jenkins, Fleener, 1st for T. Rich and a 3rd........lost in semis

After Chris Johnson's rookie year: Gave Lynch (who was still with Buffalo and disappointing), 1st and 2nd for Johnson.......led to 1 title and 2 other championship games

There are others. These just come to mind. All 3 were great trades when made. Th CJ one ended up being horrible in the end.

why did you trade for RB's without a track record and give up that much if you only like 'proven' players? I wouldn't call those prices cheap and I also think the supply of young RBs is.much worse driving price up

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I agree that sometimes guys in that 27-28 range can be overlooked as people look for 10 year players, but I think there are some logical fallacies taking plays in here. Namely that we can't count on any RB to be more than a ~3 year guy anymore simply because most guys haven't made it past that number recently. This is the same trap that led people to miss out on guys like Antonio Brown and ODB because they thought that every stud WR had to be at least 6'2", 210lbs, and run a 4.4 40 just because the top tier of WRs in the last year or two all fit that mold. Guys like Gurley/Gordon being 8 year studs is a very real possibility that shouldn't be just ignored out of hand.

Additionally, the idea that we can count on the older guys without question is a problem. These guys drop off all the time without rhyme or reason. Even if we're only looking at 3 years from now, I think there's a much better chance of Todd Gurley having 3 really good years than Adrian Peterson having 3 really good years left. I'm not sure that the long-time vets have any better success rate even for one season than rookies drafted in position to play right away.

I also think the ability of these players to retain their value is overlooked. Carlos Hyde didn't play much this year and didn't produce well when he did, but he still has a ton of value. Montee Ball had about the absolute worst season you could possibly expect out of a young guy and he still has value. Compare those guys to Chris Johnson, MJD, etc. For older guys, one bad season or bad injury and their value is literally zero. Even Trent Richardson could have still netted a late 1st round pick after possibly the worst RB season in NFL history.

 

[ILUVBEER99]

1)Le'Veon Bell

2)Eddie Lacy

3)Todd Gurley

4)Melvin Gordon

5)Lesean McCoy

 

[SproutDaddy]

Hyde? Gurley? Gordon?

Oh please

Jamaal Charles will start the season 28.DeMarco Murray will be 27, and just had 500 touches in a season. We don't know where he'll be playing either.

ADP will be 30, and we don't know where he will be playing.

Lynch will be 29, and we don't know where he will be playing.

McCoy will be 27, and has lost goal line duties.

Forte will be 29.

Any of those guys has a bad year next year, and you have lost all value. Gurley/Gordon are going to have a much longer leash with their value.

it's all relative on how you want to compete from the get go. I prefer to take a proven commodity. I'd rather play in a league that doesn't draft rookies in a startup. I'm not taking a guy who hasn't played a down as my first RB. To each his on.

It sounds like you should want to play in a league that drafts rookies in the start-up, since people would be "wasting" picks on them leaving another player for you.

That's not what I'm saying there. You're twisting words. I'm saying I'm not drafting them as high as some of you. As I said, it's easier to trade for a young RB with potential later. I guess it also depends on how savvy of a trader you are. I've always seemed to be very good at it.

can you give me an example of a young Rb that was 'easy' to trade for...what does that even mean?

Go to the dynasty trade thread. You will see some examples.Some that I've made:

During McCoys 2nd season : Gave Rivers, declining Chris Johnson, a 1st and 2nd for McCoy and future 1st.......led to 2 straight titles

During T. Richardson's rookie season: gave Torrey Smith, AJ Jenkins, Fleener, 1st for T. Rich and a 3rd........lost in semis

After Chris Johnson's rookie year: Gave Lynch (who was still with Buffalo and disappointing), 1st and 2nd for Johnson.......led to 1 title and 2 other championship games

There are others. These just come to mind. All 3 were great trades when made. Th CJ one ended up being horrible in the end.

why did you trade for RB's without a track record and give up that much if you only like 'proven' players? I wouldn't call those prices cheap and I also think the supply of young RBs is.much worse driving price up

Early success isn't "proven?" I'd say a top ten season is proven. And I don't see how you think those prices aren't cheap at the time they were made. Everyone thought I'd committed rape at the time. At the same time, I never said I got them cheap, just easy. I typically don't low ball when I really want to acquire a player.

 

[ghostguy123]

For me in a startup its simple. I just wont take any of these aging RBs high. Just cause i have a guy like charles ranked as my 5th RB doesnt mean i need to draft him high. I will load up on top WRs and worry about RB later While other people are using high picks on 29 year old rbs.

After pondering question of which are my top 5 RB's I was thinking the same thing and came in here to post just that. Way things are looking now I'd probably just punt on RB the first few rounds. I only see two RB's I'd even consider using a first round pick on. Leveon and Lacy and even with Lacy it would likely need to be at a spot in the first round he would generally not be available.

Also thinking about the answer to this questions I feel like the gap between Leveon and my RB#2(Lacy) is wider than the gap of any dynasty position player to the second best option.

Yeah Bell is the clear #1 back, nobody is close IMO. A year from now though, excelletn chance I don't feel that way, who knows.

This actually looks like it is shaping up to be a GREAT year to punt on the 2015 season alltogether in a startup and collect young WR/TE and 1st round picks. While everyone else is using valuable picks on aging RBs, you will be grabbing players and picks that will increase in value, not tank.

 

[Donnybrook]

Le'von is apparently in the NFL's drug offender program. He could face a two-game suspension for his drug arrest last year. That is not a big deal but I would be more worried that he will be unable to keep clean during the off-season. You assuming these guys have learned their lesson but the risk of getting caught is so much higher for players in the program. If I was dynasty drafting this year, I would probably have him a round later than every body else.

 

[ghostguy123]

love semantics... no matter which start up draft, there will be a top 5 rbs taken, but I hear (and also believe personally) that most owners would not want to use a 1st or even a 2nd round pick on a rb that wasn't Bell or Lacy. I get that. But there will be others taken and maybe the question becomes which RBs you can't pass up in round 2 or 3?

In a dynasty league, I never feel like I HAVE to draft any certain position at any time, ever.

 

[ghostguy123]

Le'von is apparently in the NFL's drug offender program. He could face a two-game suspension for his drug arrest last year. That is not a big deal but I would be more worried that he will be unable to keep clean during the off-season. You assuming these guys have learned their lesson but the risk of getting caught is so much higher for players in the program. If I was dynasty drafting this year, I would probably have him a round later than every body else.

It's a factor, but it's also somethign you just have to deal with if you want a shot at a super young stud RB, cause he is the ONLY one out there right now.

 

[Pipes]

Gurley and Gordon are in the same tier as Lacy and Murray IMO.

As is Ki-Jana Carter and TRich. It's good to be proactive but we have to start remembering that the NFL game is very different at every position from college.

There are examples the other way too. If someone sees Gordon and Gurley as special talents and they are drafted in the right situation you bet I'd take them in the top 5. If Gordon ends up on a team like the Colts he's easily a top 5 dynasty RB for me.

 

[DexterDew]

love semantics... no matter which start up draft, there will be a top 5 rbs taken, but I hear (and also believe personally) that most owners would not want to use a 1st or even a 2nd round pick on a rb that wasn't Bell or Lacy. I get that. But there will be others taken and maybe the question becomes which RBs you can't pass up in round 2 or 3?

In a dynasty league, I never feel like I HAVE to draft any certain position at any time, ever.

Even though hypotheticals are lying to your brain, are u saying at 3.12 you can pass up McCoy or Murray? Value is value, no matter the position. This is a RB dynasty thread. Here's another hypothetical, after two rounds, 2 RBs, 2 QBs, 2 TEs and 18 WRs are taken... Which position has the most VBD?

No one will ever HAVE to draft a position at any time except a K or DEF in the last two rounds, but value is value. At some point there is value in taking a RB

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I cant have the rookies in the top 5. At least not yet.

I don't need another TRich, Ball, Sankey.

If you are totally sold on them, and I mean totally like when Peterson came out, I guess I can see taking the risk of losing everything your 1st offers you. But damn.

 

[ghostguy123]

love semantics... no matter which start up draft, there will be a top 5 rbs taken, but I hear (and also believe personally) that most owners would not want to use a 1st or even a 2nd round pick on a rb that wasn't Bell or Lacy. I get that. But there will be others taken and maybe the question becomes which RBs you can't pass up in round 2 or 3?

In a dynasty league, I never feel like I HAVE to draft any certain position at any time, ever.

Even though hypotheticals are lying to your brain, are u saying at 3.12 you can pass up McCoy or Murray? Value is value, no matter the position. This is a RB dynasty thread. Here's another hypothetical, after two rounds, 2 RBs, 2 QBs, 2 TEs and 18 WRs are taken... Which position has the most VBD?

No one will ever HAVE to draft a position at any time except a K or DEF in the last two rounds, but value is value. At some point there is value in taking a RB

Mccoy or Murray sure. Forte, Foster, Peterson, charles...................getting real close to not wanting any of them at pick 36. But if they are there, ya know people will want them, and I will certainly entertain trading down.

I will never, ever mind pissing away the first year of a dynasty if I can load up on value.

 

[ghostguy123]

Would be funny if everyone listed their top 10 RBs and where they would feel comfortable taking them, and then revisted that list exactly 2 years from now.

Would be impressive if you had a few still there.

 

[Bruce Hammond]

Gurley and Gordon are in the same tier as Lacy and Murray IMO.

As is Ki-Jana Carter and TRich. It's good to be proactive but we have to start remembering that the NFL game is very different at every position from college.

Part of this is the RB landscape. We don't have to think of Gurley and Gordon as generational talents to put them that high. We just have to think of them as more talented than Jeremy Hill, which I don't think is a huge stretch. In retrospect it was foolish to value Richardson above Forte, McCoy, Forte, and Charles going into his rookie year, but there are few parallels to those 2012 vets right now. In fact it's the same names +3y for the most part. Even if you rewind to 2012 RB rankings, you'll see guys like Mathews and DMC ranked pretty high. It's easy to account for known unknowns, but not so easy for unknown knowns. If Hill, McCoy, Charles, and CJ Anderson instill great confidence in you then you should rank them that high, but for many it is just trading one uncertainty for another. Personally I would prefer the uncertainty of inexperience because it provides youth as hedge.

Bolded -- well put.

 

[Fox Scream]

I can't take a nearly 29 year old (at the start of next season) Jamaal Charles in the top 5 if I were drafting for a new dynasty.

I think you can. I'd rather have a stud for 2 -3 years than an average talent for longer than that. Charles is special and you want special on your team. There's always a flashy new toy that comes out of the draft.

Who do you take over Charles?

Bell

Lacey

Murray

 

[Fox Scream]

I cant have the rookies in the top 5. At least not yet.

I don't need another TRich, Ball, Sankey.

If you are totally sold on them, and I mean totally like when Peterson came out, I guess I can see taking the risk of losing everything your 1st offers you. But damn.

Gurley and Yeldon should make an impact from the get-go, imo.

 

[ghostguy123]

I can't take a nearly 29 year old (at the start of next season) Jamaal Charles in the top 5 if I were drafting for a new dynasty.

I think you can. I'd rather have a stud for 2 -3 years than an average talent for longer than that. Charles is special and you want special on your team. There's always a flashy new toy that comes out of the draft.

Who do you take over Charles?

Bell

Lacey

Murray

If you were to tell me that I for sure 100% without a doubt would have a stud in Charles for 2-3 years, then sure, I would take that over an average talent that lasted much longer.

Problem is, you can't. For all we know Charles is average the rest of his career. Heck his 250 points in PPR this year was definitely NOT studly. 23 year old Jeremy Hill was only about 30 points behind and didn't start all year, with not all that many touches the first 6-7 weeks.

Yeah Charles is special, but Reid isn't going to ride him into the ground during the regular season at this point in his career, just like he didn't this year. 200 carries and 40 catches. Do you think he will drastically increase those touches ever again as he is approaching 30 years of age?

 

[Fox Scream]

I can't take a nearly 29 year old (at the start of next season) Jamaal Charles in the top 5 if I were drafting for a new dynasty.

I think you can. I'd rather have a stud for 2 -3 years than an average talent for longer than that. Charles is special and you want special on your team. There's always a flashy new toy that comes out of the draft.

Who do you take over Charles?

Bell

Lacey

Murray

If you were to tell me that I for sure 100% without a doubt would have a stud in Charles for 2-3 years, then sure, I would take that over an average talent that lasted much longer.

Problem is, you can't. For all we know Charles is average the rest of his career. Heck his 250 points in PPR this year was definitely NOT studly. 23 year old Jeremy Hill was only about 30 points behind and didn't start all year, with not all that many touches the first 6-7 weeks.

Yeah Charles is special, but Reid isn't going to ride him into the ground during the regular season at this point in his career, just like he didn't this year. 200 carries and 40 catches. Do you think he will drastically increase those touches ever again as he is approaching 30 years of age?

I guess you're right. I'm probably obsessing over his mouthwatering 2013 campaign. I'd like to think he'll get 300 touches again at some point in his career. He's a lock for 12+ TD, imo.

It's just weird to conceptualize that Charles is really getting that old. Only thing that really helps him is his running style and lack of carries early on. I think Hill will get his production cannibalized by Bernard who missed quite a bit of time.

I'd be pretty bummed taking Charles as a Top 5 RB and only getting 1 solid year out of him. On that basis, I'd probably take McCoy over him who is due for a rebound year.

 

[ghostguy123]

I guess you're right. I'm probably obsessing over his mouthwatering 2013 campaign. I'd like to think he'll get 300 touches again at some point in his career. He's a lock for 12+ TD, imo.

It's just weird to conceptualize that Charles is really getting that old. Only thing that really helps him is his running style and lack of carries early on. I think Hill will get his production cannibalized by Bernard who missed quite a bit of time.

I'd be pretty bummed taking Charles as a Top 5 RB and only getting 1 solid year out of him. On that basis, I'd probably take McCoy over him who is due for a rebound year.

It's not weird. That is what happens to RBs.

I would take Mccoy over Charles also.

 

[Sabertooth]

I cant have the rookies in the top 5. At least not yet.

I don't need another TRich, Ball, Sankey.

If you are totally sold on them, and I mean totally like when Peterson came out, I guess I can see taking the risk of losing everything your 1st offers you. But damn.

People were that sure of Trent Richardson too. He was supposed to be the Andrew Luck of RBs. Turns out Lacy was much better than his two first rounder predecessors (Ingram and Richardson).

 

[ghostguy123]

I cant have the rookies in the top 5. At least not yet.

I don't need another TRich, Ball, Sankey.

If you are totally sold on them, and I mean totally like when Peterson came out, I guess I can see taking the risk of losing everything your 1st offers you. But damn.

People were that sure of Trent Richardson too. He was supposed to be the Andrew Luck of RBs. Turns out Lacy was much better than his two first rounder predecessors (Ingram and Richardson).

Existing vets tank sometimes too ya know.

 

[fruity pebbles]

I can't take a nearly 29 year old (at the start of next season) Jamaal Charles in the top 5 if I were drafting for a new dynasty.

I think you can. I'd rather have a stud for 2 -3 years than an average talent for longer than that. Charles is special and you want special on your team. There's always a flashy new toy that comes out of the draft.

Who do you take over Charles?

Bell

Lacey

Murray

Hill and McCoy as well as a couple rookies more than likely. The wall hits hard. He loses half a step and he's Chris Johnson. He didnt score much more than Hill this year.

 

[Sabertooth]

I cant have the rookies in the top 5. At least not yet.

I don't need another TRich, Ball, Sankey.

If you are totally sold on them, and I mean totally like when Peterson came out, I guess I can see taking the risk of losing everything your 1st offers you. But damn.

People were that sure of Trent Richardson too. He was supposed to be the Andrew Luck of RBs. Turns out Lacy was much better than his two first rounder predecessors (Ingram and Richardson).

Existing vets tank sometimes too ya know.

Of course they do. Lesean McCoy comes to mind. I mean he had good aggregate stats but he lost me a lot of games with those 6 weeks in between touchdowns. Those who were lucky enough to make the playoffs got rewareded with a nice 4.0 and 7.5 point PPR game in weeks 14 and 15 respectively. If you survived that though he helped you win your league in the super bowl (but you obviously didn't need his help if you made it that far).

 

[Sabertooth]

I can't take a nearly 29 year old (at the start of next season) Jamaal Charles in the top 5 if I were drafting for a new dynasty.

I think you can. I'd rather have a stud for 2 -3 years than an average talent for longer than that. Charles is special and you want special on your team. There's always a flashy new toy that comes out of the draft.

Who do you take over Charles?

Bell

Lacey

Murray

Hill and McCoy as well as a couple rookies more than likely. The wall hits hard. He loses half a step and he's Chris Johnson. He didnt score much more than Hill this year.

McCoy is in the same boat.

 

[fruity pebbles]

I can't take a nearly 29 year old (at the start of next season) Jamaal Charles in the top 5 if I were drafting for a new dynasty.

I think you can. I'd rather have a stud for 2 -3 years than an average talent for longer than that. Charles is special and you want special on your team. There's always a flashy new toy that comes out of the draft.

Who do you take over Charles?

Bell

Lacey

Murray

Hill and McCoy as well as a couple rookies more than likely. The wall hits hard. He loses half a step and he's Chris Johnson. He didnt score much more than Hill this year.

McCoy is in the same boat.

He's got 2 years on him.

 

[Sabertooth]

Yeah. And yet he's the one who took a 100+ point drop this year despite heavy usage.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

It's just weird to conceptualize that Charles is really getting that old. Only thing that really helps him is his running style and lack of carries early on. I think Hill will get his production cannibalized by Bernard who missed quite a bit of time.

There are many studies that show age, and not past workload, is the factor that slows a RB down. In fact the most successful older RBs are ones that saw heavy workloads in their youth. Of course that's because those RBs that saw heavy workloads are generally studs to begin with.