Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I have him at 6. I do think he can bounce back and he's obviously a talent - but I'll take the younger backs ahead of him.
I don't know how that's possible.
Well I had Hyde ahead of Mason in my rookie rankings because I thought he was the better prospect (although I did like Mason a lot as well) - and Hyde was stuck behind Gore so didn't get the same opportunities. I don't think Gore will be back, so Hyde should see feature back carries this year. I expect him to do well.
My bad. I've been watching Gore and waiting for his wheels to fall off for too long.
Peterson and Lynch carry their own risks though of course. Power backs tend to fall off a cliff rather rapidly. I can understand your thought process though.
Was Ronnie Hillman playing against worn down defenses too? Hillman also looked a lot better than Ball, who was singularly unimpressive in every game I saw him in - although maybe he hadn't fully recovered from his appendectomy. And Anderson looks like a legitimate starting RB to me.
Hillman was much quicker for sure. Ball looked good as a rookie, not so much last year - but as you said he was recovering from a late preseason surgery. I didn't say the only reason Anderson looked better was because he was facing worn down defenses, but I've seen it happen before where a back looked great late in the season and then fell back to Earth once he didn't have "fresher" legs. It happens the other way as well, where a guys looks good down the stretch and comes back the next year without missing a beat (i.e. Arian Foster).
I can't take 30 year olds before Hill. Just can't.
Doc, no AdP?
Short answer is yeah, long answer is HELL yeah.
He's already 30 and has been getting banged up. I'm not sure if the year off is good or bad for him at this point of his career. I don't see anyway he's a top 5 dynasty RB (I have him at 20, which is probably too low I'll admit) - he may have a great year in 2015, but I'm not even seeing that necessarily.
Yeah no kidding. At some point even the greats need to be discounted due to shortened career.
I agree that 'at some point' his career will end but if LeVeon Bell has three AdP years he would be worth a top five pick and so would Gurley or Jeremy Hill. I think Adrian Peterson has three more solid years in him so why in the world would you draft a younger/unproven guy who 'might' have three AdP type years when you can have the genuine article?
That's a fair assessment. I just don't understand how you couldn't see the other side and "disregard" any dynasty ranking that doesn't have him in the top 5.
I do so I use a mix of older proven RBs and young guys with upside but I've drafted too many young guys with upside to disregard the undeniable value of a guy like Adrian Peterson who is easily a top five RB in any format but in dynasty he holds a unique value IMHO.
Great question and it dovetails into my Adrian Peterson argument.tangfoot said:
I would rather have Gordon over a late 20s stud NFL RB in a DYNASTY format because I believe Gordon will be just as good or better than the late 20 something. RBs have such a short shelf life, so that is why I go with the young studs coming out of in the next draft. It's easy to play the "but he hasn't done anything in the NFL" card, but the wise choice is to take a Melvin Gordon over a McCoy, Murray, or Charles.
Jamaal Charles will start the season 28.
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.thriftyrocker said:
I don't get this line of thinking. There's nothing wrong with wanting a young roster, but even in drafting for dynasty, there's no way I'm taking these guys as my RB1. I still want a shot at the playoffs. These guys, more than likely, won't get you there. It's far too easy nowadays to trade for a young RB. I targeted Mason and Hill both this past year and was able to land both. While the future looks promising for both at this point, neither were a consistent starter this past year. Taking Gordon or Gurley as your RB1 is playing Russian roulette. Too much of a chance of your team being bottom of the barrel for a few years.
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 own.
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.
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.
