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.
Brian Westbrook had a lis franc in 2005, then went on to have 3 pro bowl RB1 seasons where he played in 15, 15, and 14 games. McFadden's value has to still be very high, and if it's not you have to put him in the buy low category. If you can get him without giving up a top 30 player or 1.1 then buy.
You are entitled to your opinion (which I am sure to value highly in future player discussions). Contrary to your assertion, it appears that the lis franc injury is not that serious. Per Rotoworld from yesterday: http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/4649/darren-mcfadden
And for what it is worth, for 13 games played in 2010, for RBs he finished 2nd in fantasy scoring in points per game, behind only Arian Foster. Personally, I don't mind missing 3 games due to injury with production like that in the other 13 (and any dynasty owner worth his salt should have enough depth to work around a few games missed).
A 4th round pick? That seems "nuts" to me.He is one of the most talented RBs in the NFL and he is just 24 years old. I'll gladly gamble with a 2nd round startup pick. I actually have him high, still. These are the only RRBs I take over him:McCoyFosterRiceThen I would start debating DMC vs. Forte and MJD.
My apologies for calling you "nuts." I don't actually think that.Back to McFadden. Yes he did play in 13 games in 2010. He finished 11 of those. He made it through 6 games this year before getting hurt in the 7th. (then obviously missing the rest of the season).
Apology accepted.
Back to DMC, yes, he has had more than his share of injuries but in my mind that goes with the territory at the RB position more than any other. And while there are players like LT than can go multiples seasons without missing any games, they seem to be more the exception rather than the rule. I am not a believer in the theory that certain players that have had a history of injuries are necessarily more likely to be injured in the future. I also think that the presence of Michael Bush also contributed to his missing time to be allowed to fully rehab, as there was not the necessity to rush McFadden back when Bush could step in and the offense not miss a beat (at least until he wore down at the end of this season). I think our different view of this goes to basic Dynasty philosophy. I believe in rolling the dice and taking players (even in early rounds) that have substantial risk but also substantial upside. It appears you follow a more conservative approach on your early round picks, which is the way most people do it. However I don't believe the way to win in FF is to be risk adverse and by always playing it safe. For what it is worth, I have been in Dynasty leagues since 2003 and have a pretty good track record to show for it.I drafted DMC in one league in his rookie year (above Stewart and Mendenhall) despite the nonsense circulated on this board that he was destined to fail because of a low BMI. Yes, he has been on the bench quite a bit, but in 2010 those 13 games played propelled my team to win a two conference 24 team championship in that league and more than justified my investment in him. Despite only 7 games played this year, I still believe in him (although perhaps without the same degree of enthusiam as I did entering the 2011 season).I am generally not a believer in this either, except in those rare circumstances when a player forces you to adopt that opinion. It goes both ways- some players just seem to be more durable and capable of playing through pain while others seem incapable of handling the pain and agony that is required to play the running back position in the NFL. I do not believe that all sprains, dislocations, and pulls are the same. I do believe that 2 players can sustain the exact same injury and have 2 wildly different timetables for their return. A player who simply has a higher threshold for pain will return from a sprained ankle quicker and more effectively, thus making the injury seem less significant. A player who struggles to deal with pain will take longer to recover from the same sprained ankle and thus will make it seem like a much worse injury. For instance, I fully believe that there are running backs in the NFL that would have returned to play, and play to a high level, with the same injury that derailed over half of McFadden's 2011 season.I believe injury history is overblown and too widely factored in when it comes to players who get hurt 1 season or 2 seasons or 2 out of 5 seasons or something of that nature. However, when players begin to break down every single season for multiple seasons in a row...well, where there is smoke, there is often fire. When I see this happen, I often find that it isn't simply a matter of bad luck occurring over and over, but some combination of bad luck and the players inability to deal with the pain necessary to succeed at the position. Every player has the potential for bad luck to cost them playing time. However, not every player has the potential for bad luck AND lack of pain tolerance, slow healing, or whatever you want to call it to also cost them playing time. This makes those players inherently more risky and a less consistent bet than other like players.Apology accepted.
I am not a believer in the theory that certain players that have had a history of injuries are necessarily more likely to be injured in the future. I also think that the presence of Michael Bush also contributed to his missing time to be allowed to fully rehab, as there was not the necessity to rush McFadden back when Bush could step in and the offense not miss a beat (at least until he wore down at the end of this season).
I think our different view of this goes to basic Dynasty philosophy. I believe in rolling the dice and taking players (even in early rounds) that have substantial risk but also substantial upside. It appears you follow a more conservative approach on your early round picks, which is the way most people do it. However I don't believe the way to win in FF is to be risk adverse and by always playing it safe. For what it is worth, I have been in Dynasty leagues since 2003 and have a pretty good track record to show for it.
I drafted DMC in one league in his rookie year (above Stewart and Mendenhall) despite the nonsense circulated on this board that he was destined to fail because of a low BMI. Yes, he has been on the bench quite a bit, but in 2010 those 13 games played propelled my team to win a two conference 24 team championship in that league and more than justified my investment in him. Despite only 7 games played this year, I still believe in him (although perhaps without the same degree of enthusiam as I did entering the 2011 season).
I don't see this as his career year at all. There were still plenty of games when Cam Cameron essentially chose to ignore Ray Rice. Much to the confusion of anyone who has ever watched the Ravens play, Rice had games of 10, 9, 8, and 5 carries in 2011. Not coincidentally, the Ravens lost 3 of those 4 games (with the only win coming against the hapless Rams and the only reason Rice only had 9 carries in that game was because the Ravens were up 21 points roughly 5 minutes into the game). He will always have receptions to help buffer those low carry totals, but that is besides the point- he should never have games where he doesn't touch the ball 15-20 times a game.I actually see this season as entirely repeatable for the next several years of Rice's career, with the possibility of an uptick if Cameron can devote himself to ensuring Rice touches the ball 20 times a game regularly.
I've seen Mike McCarthy talk on this very subject. He firmly believes that there is a skill to staying healthy enough to play. I also remember Jimmy Johnson talking about his days in Dallas. They also felt some players were much higher injury risks than others, and refused to draft those players. Those two undoubtedly have a much deeper understanding on this issue than any of us. Regarding McFadden, if I'm picking in RD2 and McFadden is still there, its easy enough to just pick one of the other dynamic players on the board. I.e. I'd grab AJ Green/Julio Jones/Dez Bryant/Jimmy Graham and feel pretty good about the guy I got in RD2.'Herm23 said:I am generally not a believer in this either, except in those rare circumstances when a player forces you to adopt that opinion. It goes both ways- some players just seem to be more durable and capable of playing through pain while others seem incapable of handling the pain and agony that is required to play the running back position in the NFL. I do not believe that all sprains, dislocations, and pulls are the same. I do believe that 2 players can sustain the exact same injury and have 2 wildly different timetables for their return. A player who simply has a higher threshold for pain will return from a sprained ankle quicker and more effectively, thus making the injury seem less significant. A player who struggles to deal with pain will take longer to recover from the same sprained ankle and thus will make it seem like a much worse injury. For instance, I fully believe that there are running backs in the NFL that would have returned to play, and play to a high level, with the same injury that derailed over half of McFadden's 2011 season.I believe injury history is overblown and too widely factored in when it comes to players who get hurt 1 season or 2 seasons or 2 out of 5 seasons or something of that nature. However, when players begin to break down every single season for multiple seasons in a row...well, where there is smoke, there is often fire. When I see this happen, I often find that it isn't simply a matter of bad luck occurring over and over, but some combination of bad luck and the players inability to deal with the pain necessary to succeed at the position. Every player has the potential for bad luck to cost them playing time. However, not every player has the potential for bad luck AND lack of pain tolerance, slow healing, or whatever you want to call it to also cost them playing time. This makes those players inherently more risky and a less consistent bet than other like players.'squistion said:Apology accepted.'Kitrick Taylor said:
I am not a believer in the theory that certain players that have had a history of injuries are necessarily more likely to be injured in the future. I also think that the presence of Michael Bush also contributed to his missing time to be allowed to fully rehab, as there was not the necessity to rush McFadden back when Bush could step in and the offense not miss a beat (at least until he wore down at the end of this season).
I think our different view of this goes to basic Dynasty philosophy. I believe in rolling the dice and taking players (even in early rounds) that have substantial risk but also substantial upside. It appears you follow a more conservative approach on your early round picks, which is the way most people do it. However I don't believe the way to win in FF is to be risk adverse and by always playing it safe. For what it is worth, I have been in Dynasty leagues since 2003 and have a pretty good track record to show for it.
I drafted DMC in one league in his rookie year (above Stewart and Mendenhall) despite the nonsense circulated on this board that he was destined to fail because of a low BMI. Yes, he has been on the bench quite a bit, but in 2010 those 13 games played propelled my team to win a two conference 24 team championship in that league and more than justified my investment in him. Despite only 7 games played this year, I still believe in him (although perhaps without the same degree of enthusiam as I did entering the 2011 season).
Before this gets too out of hand, I still place a very low importance on the whole injury factor. It might be the deciding factor between 2 very similar players, but it would never cause me to significantly lower or raise a players value. While it might not seem like it based on everything I just wrote, I value McFadden as a top 5 RB. If I didn't feel he was a good bet to miss 3-4 games yearly, I would have him as my #1 or #2 RB. Because I do feel he is at greater risk of missing regular playing time, I break the tie that I feel exists between McCoy, Rice, Foster, and McFadden and place McFadden at the back end of that group as my #4 RB. Ironically, I have another player with the "injury prone" label, Ryan Mathews, as my #5 RB, showing I place significantly more emphasis on talent than any injury history.
Not necessarily, if it is based just on their own observations, dealing with a small sample size and aided by confirmation bias. I don't believe the definitive study has been done that conclusively proves that some players are more injury prone than others - there is some data to suggest that, but the issue is far from settled.And I can recall some notable exceptions, going back to RB Terry Allen in the mid-90s who had two ACL injuries with the Vikings and had to get both knees rebuilt in the days when arthroscopic surgery was in its infancy. I remember people in leagues in 95/96 saying he was injury prone and having him on there Do Not Draft! list when he joined the Redskins, but he had 1300 yards and 10 rushing TDs in 1995 and 1350 yards and 21 rushing TDs in 1996.
Have to agree with this, for a dynasty start up. I want my first 3-4 picks to be foundational building blocks that I believe have a good shot at longevity. McFadden's talent is undeniable, but his ability to suit up each week and his career longevity are two strikes against him. Even when he entered the league many suspected his lower body wouldn't be able to sustain the punishment of the NFL game for very long. Nothing that has happened since then has alleviated those concerns. Let someone else have him while you grab the young talented guys that will likely be core players for your team for the next 5-10 years. Much more valuable in a dynasty startup IMO.Also, I find it easier to replace RBs than it is to replace QBs and WRs in short order via rookie drafts, even getting players like MJD or DeMarco Murray in the 2nd or 3rd round of a rookie/FA draft in one of my leagues.
I think there is a VERY big difference between knee injuries/tears and sprains, strains, or general discomfort. I am of the opinion that the tearing of ligaments and the knee shots that cause running backs to miss full seasons are of the complete fluke variety. Every single player is equally susceptible to them and they can happen to anyone at anytime. No amount of toughness, no difference in running style, and no ability to recover quickly will prevent a player from missing huge chunks of time if it occurs to them. As such, labeling someone as injury prone because of an unlucky knee shot or torn ligament is a foolish practice. However, acknowledging someone's injury risk because he has repeatedly shown an inability to quickly overcome a sprain, strain, or pull is a different matter altogether. As I said, I believe bad luck factors into every injury. However, when they are of the sprain, strain, or pull variety, pain tolerance and ability to recover certainly plays a part. So far in his NFL career, McFadden has absolutely proven that he is not able to play through and/or recover from these various sprains, strains, and pulls as well as some of the other running backs in the league. Sure, he has been a bit unlucky to have picked up an injury every season of his career thus far, but he also hasn't helped himself by allowing this injuries to impact him more than other players would have (at least in my opinion).Long story longer, McFadden hasn't picked up his injury prone label because he tore knee ligaments or had to have his knee reconstructed (fluky). He has picked it up because he has picked up nagging injuries every season and missed more time than expected and probably warranted, given what other players have shown the ability to play through.
Kitrick below pretty much sums up my rationale for not ranking him higher. As for not liking him in the past, his first two years were not very good. 2010 was outstanding but I reasoned that he was more likely to get hurt again than to repeat. Turns out I was right. On the other hand, I have now seen in two consecutive seasons, 2010 and 2011, showing the kind of game breaking ability that an elite back has. So, I am now prepared to admit I was wrong about his talent ceiling. He is the difference between a good running game for the Raiders and a great running game. That alone merits consideration as a top 3 dynasty pick. The question is how much his injury prone status hurts? And here we have seen a consistent pattern. While it is true that he could turn into Robert Smith (who recovered from two ACL injuries in alternating years) or Frank Gore, my gut feeling is that he is more likely to follow the route of Kevin Jones, who also had a liz franc injury.In dynasty, a missed pick in the first two rounds can really set your team back. I would rather secure a RB that I can count on to be top 10 and a WR1 that I can count on to be top 10. That means the earliest I could take McFadden would be round 3. And that would be a risk. Would I rather have him or maybe Gronk or Brees? Locking up a top 3 QB or TE is also very, very valuable.
I know. Veteran RB was only in reference to Spiller.
Not even his last few games? Showed some nice anticipation and ability to run it up the middle finally, which with his ridiculous speed could make him a great weapon.I think he could be comparable right now to acquiring McCoy before his big breakout year 2. Not that he'll reach the same heights, and he's in a lesser offense, but I see the similarities. Guys like McCoy and DMC didn't mature as runners right away either, but when they did, they turned into PPR machines, and you had to trade for them at just the right time to get great value.
Gotta check Fjax contract status to know. I think he has 1 more year but he's approaching the magical age for a RB andI doubt Buffalo pays him what he thinks he's worth.
On the contrary, I really like what I saw out of CJ while Fitpatrick struggled mightly.5.24 ypc for CJ this season.
Jackson has one more year remaining on his current deal but has been vocal about wanting an extension. He'll be 31 next season and Spiller's play down the stretch likely hurt any leverage Jackson would have by holding out.ETA: Jackson turns 31 next month - I don't see how Buffalo can throw money at him.'bicycle_seat_sniffer said:
You have to be a little leery of RBs that come on late in the season, after not shouldering the load early on. Playing on fresh legs, when the wide majority of the league is not, is a big advantage. Spiller found himself in an ideal situation and made the best of it - which is all he could really do. But, LeSean McCoy can carry the load. Can CJ? I think that is the question. I am not willing to bet on him possessing that ability yet. Sure, he has Darren Sproles upside, but the NO situation is far from common. Those placing him in the top 12 are premature in doing so, in my opinion. Buffalo really only played Spiller out of desperation and didn't do much to get the ball in his hands with a healthy Jackson. That has to be somewhat concerning.
He is a playmaker, and that is something I questioned out of college. I think top 20 is reasonable - above guys like Crabtree and Holmes. I am not ready to move him past DeSean Jackson yet. The Denver offense is something that doesn't have much history to look back at. My concern is this - and I ask this of every highly ranked WR: Can he beat double coverage? I don't think I know that yet. His 50+ yard TDs are going to make him look more productive than he would in most situations. This is a crazy concept, but, is Tim Tebow HELPING Thomas' production? The Broncos, with Tebow, face shallow safeties regularly. The Bronco WRs face single coverage regularly. Also, I know 2 of Thomas' longest TD catches came from blown coverage - that should be noted, when the sample size is so small. Thomas is one of the 10 most important players to have an opinion on going into next season - along with Spiller. I need to do some "soul searching". Your opinion on Tebow's staying power should play a major part.
Fixed
Gotta give it up for Dwight Clark on longevity though, I thought he was done in the late 80s
Both Wayne and Garcon are FA this year. It's possible both will be gone. Wayne has publicly said he doesn't expect to be back, and Garcon said he'll feel out the market before deciding to come back.
Wayne and Garcon are both FAs. I think its safe to say if they let Manning go, they'll let Wayne walk as well. Garcon, perhaps they bring back if they can do so reasonably. Wayne could end up somewhere where he can have a useful season or two, but at 33 and "starting over" either on a new team or with a new QB (Luck) I agree he's a "hold and hope", unless somehow is name carries weigth in your league.Garcon, I've never really been sold on him, but he does possess some decent size and speed. I wouldn't be looking to acquire him personally, but can see some upside depending on where he ends up.I agree with you on Collie - he could end up being Luck's go to guy and he showed a lot to like in 2010.Anyone care to share their thoughts on the Colts WRs? From a finiancial standpoint, it really makes no sense for the Colts to keep Peyton Manning on their rosters. They will have to decide if Loyalty is worth $28 Million. Taking the risk that Manning is gone into account, how do you value these playerswight ClarkPierre GarconAustin CollieReggie WayneI personally want nothing to do with Clark and Garcon. Clark looked like a below average TE without Manning.Garcon is a WR2 in the NFL, which doesn't promise startable production. I think the idea of Luck to Garcon will be sexier that it is valuable. I think the Colts find a WR1. Collie, on the other had, is a guy I am targeting. His biggest issue is health, but he is the kind of WR that accurate QBs can utilize. If Luck is that, Collie could do some of the things he did with Manning.Wayne - torn here. Still has top 20 WR talent, IMO. Long in the tooth. His market value is pretty low, so I wouldn't be looking to sell. Hold, I suppose.
I really like Dwight Clark's upside, especially if Montana is throwing to him.Anyone care to share their thoughts on the Colts WRs? From a finiancial standpoint, it really makes no sense for the Colts to keep Peyton Manning on their rosters. They will have to decide if Loyalty is worth $28 Million. Taking the risk that Manning is gone into account, how do you value these players
Garcon is a tough call. He had 3 games of 25+ fantasy points (ppr scoring), so he has an explosive factor to his game. The knee jerk reaction is to assume the QB play will improve--whether it is Luck of a healthy Payton. So his upside could be a solid WR2. His value could also get a bump if the Colts let Wayne walk (more targets for Garcon?). Unless I can get value I like, Garcon is a hold for me until I see how everything plays out with the Colts.
I agree 100%. And I do agree that Tebow's presence actually helps the Denver WRs, as safeties have to worry about his running ability as well as the normal RB running game. The interesting question (and it's tied to my targets question your blow coverage comment) is that while you certainly can't "count" on blown coverages - does Denver's offense as it is currently run, actually cause defenses to make mistakes moreso than a "traditional" offense does?
Oh, no, the Collie hype train is starting again.Anyone care to share their thoughts on the Colts WRs? From a finiancial standpoint, it really makes no sense for the Colts to keep Peyton Manning on their rosters. They will have to decide if Loyalty is worth $28 Million. Taking the risk that Manning is gone into account, how do you value these players
Seriously, as I said last year, he is not a player I am looking to acquire because the concussion risk outweighs his upside and does not justify the premium you will have to pay to buy him. And I think that there is something to be learned from the Jahvid Best situation, players who have had a serious concussion are more likely IMO to have another one (and yes, the data is mixed on this). Collie might go the rest of his career without another concussion, but if he has one and is unconscious and unmoving for several minutes again on the field, it will probably be his last game and that is a risk I will leave to another owner.As far as the other players Clark and Wayne are too old for me to pay the price their owners are asking.Who I think is really underrated and did well all things considered was Pierre Garcon. 70 catches for 947 yards and 6 TDs was pretty good with the likes of Kerry Collins, Curtis Painter and Dan Orlovksy throwing to him. IMO he has solidified a starting spot and at 26 he is young enough for his owners to hold him and reap the benefits after Luck goes through his inevitable adjustment period in the pros. And if Peyton stays and fully recovers I think he will be a borderline #1 WR (possibly #1B to Wayne's #1A) this coming season (although few would probably agree with me on that).
One question is what happens to the Colts receivers if Manning is playing for another team next year. I think there's a pretty good chance that some of them would join Manning on the new team. If I sign Peyton Manning, I'm going to install the Peyton Manning offense which he's been running the past decade plus (and maybe bring in Tom Moore as a consultant). If there are any holes in my receiving corps I'd love to be able to bring in receivers who already know the system and have a rapport with Manning.The hard part is guessing who is most likely to go. Wayne, Garcon, and Tamme are unrestricted free agents. Clark could be a cap casualty if Manning's gone (Addai might be too). Blair White could be traded for cheap (both sides could be happy with Blair White for a 5th rounder), and Collie is also tradeable (he's worth more to a team with Manning than to one without him). So every one could be an option.Garcon is the one whose production has been least tied to Manning, and he won't be cheap as a FA (making it hard to pay him as well as Manning), so I'd guess that he's one of the least likely to follow Manning to a new destination. I'm not sure how much of a market there will be for Reggie Wayne after last season - if it's not too competitive then I think he's one of the most likely to join Manning. Adding either Clark or Tamme seems like a no-brainer if you get Manning & have a need at TE, but a lot of Manning's possible destinations already have a good starting TE. Tamme could still work as a 2nd TE behind Keller or V. Davis or whoever, but probably not Clark. If the Colts lose a bunch of receivers to FA, I think they'd be hesitant to trade Collie but still willing to trade White.So I guess Wayne, Tamme, and White might be the most likely to follow Manning, but Tamme & White could be in a 2nd TE/4th WR role where they'd need an injury to be relevant.Anyone care to share their thoughts on the Colts WRs? From a finiancial standpoint, it really makes no sense for the Colts to keep Peyton Manning on their rosters. They will have to decide if Loyalty is worth $28 Million. Taking the risk that Manning is gone into account, how do you value these players
No, IMO he is a ticking time bomb just waiting to go off, and he makes his living going over the middle and exposing himself to some nasty hits (as evidenced by what happened to Eric Decker yesterday) so I think it is just a matter of time until he gets another major blow to head. He was targeted less on a per game average this season, so I don't think 2011 was a true test and the Colts were so horrible I also speculate that he didn't meet the aggressiveness on defense that he had seen the prior year.As far as price is concerned I expect (if Manning looks to fully recover) the excitement level to rise about Collie similar to what we saw last year with people pointing to 2011 and saying "Nothing to worry about, he played a full season concussion free." In many leagues on last's years in-season trade thread, people way overpaid for him, giving up as high as a 1.04 rookie pick or a 3rd rounder in a start up draft. He won't get near that level this year, but I can see him going for a late 1st rookie pick, perhaps 7th-8th round in a startup (way more than I would pay).
Certainly agree that he'd probably be 4th passing option at best. I just remember reading local media here in stl quoting lloyd saying he feels joined at the hip with mcd, and that it would be hard not to follow him if he left....that was a few weeks ago.
If I owned Collie, I would have done that trade with you in a nanosecond, from my standpoint you are placing too low a value on Flynn (but perhaps I am caught up in the hype about him and lost some perspective).
Situation can change a lot. But he is a top 5-6 RB for me. Where he ranks overall is based completely on league setup. I would consider him anywhere after McCoy, Rice, Foster - in tthe mix with Forte, MJD, DMC.
In a 12 team, start 1, I'll take the Collie/Kolb side. There are too many quality QBs and too many promising QBs for me to take the Flynn side, without him ending up in a great situation.
I don't follow college football, but people who do seem a lot higher on Richardson at this juncture than they were on Ingram a year ago and he was falling around RB #12-15 in dynasty startups.We really have to see where he lands, which would cause me to adjust his position a few notches either way, but right now (based on all the hype) I would take rank him around RB #9.
Exactly. Its impossible to move a non-elite QB in a start-1 12 team league, for good value. So I took the high risk/high reward player in Collie for him as soon as I could. A mediocre starting NFL QB has little value in this kind of league, and is usually just a throw-in.
I like him more than I liked Ingram at this point as well, but I wasn't as high on Ingram as most were. I'm thinking RB #10 is just about right for now.
The only RBs I would consider ahead of him are McCoy and Rice. I think he's a top 3 dynasty RB and a top 10 overall dynasty pick. Some won't want to take him that high, but my guess is that there will be 1-2 owners willing to make that bet in most startup drafts.
I think you guys are insane.RiceMcCoyNicksRodgersNewtonCalvinNicksFosterFitzgeraldAre immediate no-brainers to me - 9 guys alreadyRob GronkowskiJimmy GrahamDrew BreesTom BradyA.J. GreenChris JohnsonDez BryantAll seem to me to be easy choices, but maybe someone could quibble there, especially with Johnson's down year - 16 guysPetersonForteMendenhallCharlesIf these guys were healthy, then the first two are in the no-brainer section for me and Mendy is with that second groupingSo I could see Richardson as a top 20 player. But RB production is so much easier to find than exceptional QB/WR/TE production...no way I take him in the 1st round.
These are the guys I would consider trading Richardson for. I think Trent is a better talent than Rice and McCoy, but those guys play in great systems that maximize their abilities. Nothing against Graham and Gronk, but I wouldn't bank on them breaking yardage records every season. If they regress to Witten/Gonzo levels then they'll still be great players to own, but not first round material IMO. Same logic applies to Brees and Brady. Great players, but if their production drops to 2009-2010 levels then they're probably not going to give you enough of an advantage to justify a first round pick. There's also the age factor with those two, since they're both about as old as Donovan McNabb (remember him?). I think it would be a little short-sighted to take one of those QBs over Richardson, who will almost certainly carry a higher trade value in most leagues right out of the gate, let alone 2-3 years from now. I don't really consider players like Nicks, Mendenhall, and Charles to be in the same category as Richardson from a talent perspective. They're very good, but Richardson is great. Forte, Chris Johnson, Peterson...lots of varying reasons not to buy those guys right now. Foster is a nice player, but not a special talent IMO. Good player in a great system. Couldn't pass on Trent for him. Richardson is an elite prospect on par with guys like Ricky Williams, Adrian Peterson, and Calvin Johnson. Once these guys enter the league, they become almost impossible to acquire. I'd value Trent accordingly. If he's as talented as any RB in the NFL then why pass on older versions of the same player? There's no reason to take 26-27 year old backs like Peterson and Johnson (whose best football is behind them) when you are staring at a 21-22 year old version of the same thing with his entire career ahead of him.
I'm surprised at your opinion of Foster. Ben Tate is a good player in a great system. Foster dramatically outperformed him. As a Texans fan, watching their games this year with skepticism of Foster's staying power, I am totally sold. I think you're missing the boat on Foster. I'm too lazy to go back and look, but with your history of inflexibility after your initial judgments, did you perhaps think Foster was a flash in the pan back in 09 at the end of the year and now you hold a bit of a bias from that initial judgment?I don't need Graham and Gronk to break records every year. I think they can be top 3-5 TEs for the next decade on a yearly basis. That consistency is worth a lot to me, especially from a position that is less likely to be injured. Same with Brady and Brees. I'll take their production from last year for five more years over Richardson as well. And yes, I'd be betting on their health and abilities in five years, but I don;t give a rat's ### about their trade value. Trade value of players isn't even a consideration for me. The value that matters to me is how many points a guy is gonna be scoring for my team, and for how long. You're probably right about Peterson and Johnson being more borderline (like I said, I'm sure there are legitimate decisions to be made regarding them over a guy like Richardson...) but they're also more proven. Other Heisman winning RBs have failed in the NFL, no? Other top prospect RBs have failed. I know we all see TR as this can't miss guy, but you mention him being a prospect like Adrian and Calvin...wasn't Marshawn Lynch hyped just as much in that draft?To say that Charles is on a different level talent-wise is another thing we'll disagree on. His knee is clearly an issue now, but there literally are 0 RBs in the NFL that I can say are clearly in another category of talent than Jamaal Charles. Lost in all of this is that I think taking a RB in the first round in a dynasty draft is a mistake, period. No matter what. Highest risk of injury, most replaceable production in NFL terms, easiest to find on the wire each year...when I do a rebuild or a startup I go full out on the no RBs thing. In fact, I took it to an extreme in a 14-team league that Thrifty's in too - I drafted one RB in the first 10 rounds, and it was Brandon Jacobs in the 10th round. My core is set from the QB, TE, WR1/2 and both flexes for the next 10 years there. All I have to do each season is move around depth and acquire the right rookies at a single position to become dominant and not just a playoff team. RB is the easiest position to get production from in FF. No way I'm burning a 1st rounder on one.
I've been wrong about tons of players and I'm usually not that slow to admit it. I wasn't particularly high on Foster, but who was? He went undrafted and came out of nowhere. He has two productive seasons in a system that made Steve Slaton and Ron Dayne look good. I'm not saying he isn't a quality pro starter. I just don't think he's on par with Richardson.
Different strokes for different folks. Unless I knew a guy was going to be Tony Gonzalez, I couldn't take a TE in the first round of a dynasty draft. It's a low prestige position where even the best players tend to slip to the 3rd-4th round (like Gates and Witten in recent years). People who buy Graham and Gronk at top 10 prices this offseason will be overpaying for last year's stats. You pass on Richardson for Gronk/Graham and you'll regret it. JMO. I think those two peaked this year and will both regress to more typical elite TE numbers in the future. It's like when people overpaid for Peyton and Culpepper after they had monster seasons in the same year. You got a solid player, but you overpaid because you chased last year's numbers.
Yea, and I would bet against either of those QBs sustaining their 2011 production for five years (even one more year like this one might be a stretch, as they both had exceptional seasons even by their own standards). Trade value is important because it gives you flexibility. You draft Richardson in your startup and you'll be able to trade him for just about any player in the league for the next 3-4 years. You draft Brady or Brees and it's like buying a car. The value plummets the minute you drive it off the lot.
LOL. No. Lynch was a nice prospect, but more along the lines of Mathews/Moreno/Mendenhall/Stewart in terms of hype. No one thought he was some sort of "once per decade" talent. Richardson is a cut above. That's not just me talking. Everyone is saying it.
All the talent in the world doesn't matter if you can't handle 20 carries per game without breaking down. Charles is an electric runner, but his coaches have always limited his workload, presumably because they don't see him as an every down guy. Four years in the league, never had more than 250 carries in a season, and fresh off an ACL tear? Not my idea of an elite dynasty RB. The guy is talented, but you don't pass on the next Edge/Ricky for him.
I mostly agree with this. I think McCoy, Rice, and Richardson are the only RBs I would take in the top 10 of a startup. All things being equal, I would rather have an elite WR than an elite RB in a PPR league. There just aren't that many receivers who have equivalent talent to Richardson.
This is so wrong on so many levels. But, there has been thread after thread on it - most of which I went on and on in. People need to stop pretending that waiver wire production is an influx of playable RBs. The waiver wire RBs are there because those ahead of them didn't pan out or got hurt. So, teams are just shuffling them. This happens most often to the later round RBs that had question marks. Teams with average RBs are winning some and losing some. Coin flip at best.I made the championship in most of my leagues, went RB first in all of them. Set up nicely for the future in all of them. Sure, in 4 years my 1st round pick won't be as valuable - but thank you for your yearly fees in the meantime. And if I draft better than you, I'll be better in 4 years too.Edit: The thread last season based on this conversation spawned a league. I drafted McCOy, McFadden, Maclin, Best, Welker, Big Ben, Gronkowski, in that order (I think) and hit on Newton Late.My roster is now, after two trades (Ben + for Colston and Best/Baldwin for Hillis/St.Johnson)NewtonMcCoyMcFaddenWelkerMaclinColstonGronkowskiFl - Lloyd, Hillis, St. Johnson, McGahee, Vareen/RidleyYou want to build a dominant team? -- draft well and get lucky on a few guys. Leaving a GLARING hole in your roster, donating your fees for 2-3 years and hoping to outdraft your league mates is a foolish plan, IMO.
